A Tax Code Worth Reforming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


hlen5 -> A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:11:14 PM)

I got this in an email, I thought it would be of interest. I bolded 3 sentences.

Your Tax Dollars Subsidizing Scottie Pippin, Ted Turner, and Jon Bon Jovi?
by Trish Turner | November 14, 2011
Print
Email
Share
398 Comments


If ever there was a populist blueprint for deficit reduction, this has got to be it.
Each year, millionaires are soaking the government, not illegally, for some $30 billion in benefits from tax giveaways and loan programs, according to a report by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
The Republican senator, a staunch fiscal hawk and equal opportunity scourge of government waste and abuse, released "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous" Monday to little fanfare, saying in an e-mailed statement, "This welfare for the well-off - costing billions of dollars a year - is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations."
The eye-popping findings in the 36-page report include some eye-catching names, like former NBA star Scottie Pippen and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner, both of whom received farm subsidies courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Singer Jon Bon Jovi paid property taxes of only $100 last year on a plot of land he used to raise bees. Iconic crooner Bruce Springsteen also got in on the farm subsidy action, for property he leases to an organic farmer. And Millionaire composer-producer Quincy Jones is even singled out for receiving a $25,000 award from the federally-funded National Endowment for the Arts.
Coburn's investigation found that from 2003 to 2009, millionaires received over $316 million in farm program payments. In one four-year period alone, the senator's staff, reviewing tax returns found that fully 78 percent of recipients listed a city as their primary address, not exactly a location for a farm.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture regularly pays millionaires, the report found, to conserve land and protect endangered species, waving income caps for government subsidies in current law. In the past two years, Coburn's staff counted more than $89 million paid out, as a result of this waiver authority.
The report lists two examples: "A founder and former executive of an insurance company improperly received more than $300,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and a part-owner of a professional sports franchise received total of more than $200,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006."
"The government's social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families," Coburn said.
Parents are likely to be outraged when they read about millionaires taking advantage of a Department of Education low-interest loan program. Over the past four years, the average loan paid out through one program to wealthy families was $19,405. A total of more than $16 million went to rich students. Not only that, but those making more than $1 million in their adjusted gross income, from 2007 to 2009, according to the Coburn report, saved $18 million through childcare tax credits.
And perhaps one of the most egregious findings in the report, millionaires collecting home heating assistance from a program that is supposed to help the very poor. A nonpartisan General Accounting Office investigation found wealthy individuals collecting payments through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) while living in million-dollar mansions in tony Potomac, Maryland and in the Chicago suburbs. According to the report, "GAO even identified one such person living in a home valued at $2 million, who also owned a Mercedes. That same individual won a multimillion dollar settlement in the mid-2000s, which was under appeal at the time of the report."
Taxpayers also subsidized the losses of gamblers to the tune of $20 billion over the past four years.
Coburn said his investigation, compiled using some previously-published government reports and news accounts, reveals the "sheer Washington stupidity with government policies pampering the wealthy costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year."
But to be clear, these individuals did nothing wrong, technically. The system is the system, and these individuals operated within it, not apart from it.
No doubt, these findings will be waived about by both sides of the aisle in the ongoing fight over deficit reduction, which has a bipartisan group on the brink of failure as it grapples to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years. Republicans want tax code reform; Democrats want the rich to "pay their fair share." The report provides ammo to both sides."This is not an accidental loophole in the law. To the contrary, this reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit," Coburn said. "We should never demonize those who are successful. Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs."


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/14/your-tax-dollars-subsidizing-scottie-pippin-ted-turner-and-jon-bon-jovi#ixzz1dieeHVBZ




willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:21:38 PM)

FR

still looking for the third bolded sentence [:D]




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:27:38 PM)

 
In short, yes... I would LOVE for the tax code to be "reformed" -- my issues with said "reforming" are that they don't take into account VAST differences between taxpayers.  As an example, I believe businesses should be able to deduct their expenses (as no two businesses have the same expenses/profits), and individuals should be able to deduct for dependents (as a family of four will have greater expenses than a family of two).

I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.





tj444 -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:28:33 PM)

where do I sign up??? oh wait,.. I am neither rich nor famous... [&o]

here is the 37 page report for anyone that wants to read it




hlen5 -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:39:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

still looking for the third bolded sentence [:D]


Seriously? Count sentences, not bolded sections.[:)]




hlen5 -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 2:40:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

where do I sign up??? oh wait,.. I am neither rich nor famous... [&o]

here is the 37 page report for anyone that wants to read it


Thanks for posting the report link!!




LafayetteLady -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 4:33:54 PM)

This actually isn't new at all. When Christie Whitman was governor of NJ, there was a huge stink about her having a deduction for farmland.

Your email talks about more than one particular tax code, and they all need to be evaluated differently.

The farmland tax is a slipperly slope for "taking advantage" of the system. There are many farmers who, on paper, might appear to be quite wealthy, but without the subsidies would be hard pressed to keep their farms up and running. Just because a city address is listed, it doesn't negate the validity of the tax benefits the people received.

The low interest low program, however, is another story. Government loans for students, FAFSA to most of us, is not intended to help those who can afford to pay for higher education. The number of independent young people who are no longer considered dependents of their parents, but still don't qualify for financial aid due to parents income is staggering.

The LIHEAP payments are just obscene. Those are specifically meant for poor people and it means that someone isn't properly reading the applications, since that is something that must be applied for. That is important because it isn't a tax issue at all. LIHEAP payments and benefits have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. It is a program that people apply for assistance listing income/expense information. Obviously, if you have a mortgage payment that would go with a 2M dollar home, you should instantly be disqualified.

Hibbie would certainly be in a much better position to explain tax codes that I am, since she is a CPA.

With a lot of it though, it really is a matter of the rich having accountants who know where to find these tax breaks for them, while the middle class and lower class tend to either do their taxes themselves or go to hacks like H&R Block, so the knowledge of what is available is not there.




LafayetteLady -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 4:45:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

and individuals should be able to deduct for dependents (as a family of four will have greater expenses than a family of two).

I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.




Seriously? This is already done. Those expenses need to exceed the Standard Deduction, which is based on the number of dependents. That standard deduction is not very big at all if someone owns a home and itemizes deductions. Itemizing deductions seems to be a "hassle" to most people, so they will take the standard. Personally, I find this stupid when someone has a house and dependents, even though for many, that standard deduction even with the added "head of household" deduction is still going to be the best option.

With all the tax assisting programs that are currently available (Turbo tax is available for free on line), it doesn't really take all that much to run your taxes both ways and see which will be the most beneficial.

As I'm sure Hibbie can attest, the whole "married filing separate" is rarely a beneficial idea either.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 7:46:48 PM)

Here is an older article that has some interesting things:

http://www.nypress.com/article-21342-the-making-of-manhattans-elite-welfare-farmers.html

"Now, farm subsidies weren’t always this criminal and, until fairly recently, had been doing what New Deal programs were designed to do: help the little guy. But the freemarket “reforms” of the Reagan-Clinton Era warped the welfare, redirecting farm subsidies from the have-nots to the have-mores, bankrupting all but the biggest farmers and depositing farm subsides into the bank accounts of the rich."

This has been known for sometime, but everytime it gets attention, something seems to happen to distract people.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/14/2011 7:47:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

and individuals should be able to deduct for dependents (as a family of four will have greater expenses than a family of two).

I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.




Seriously? This is already done. Those expenses need to exceed the Standard Deduction, which is based on the number of dependents. That standard deduction is not very big at all if someone owns a home and itemizes deductions. Itemizing deductions seems to be a "hassle" to most people, so they will take the standard. Personally, I find this stupid when someone has a house and dependents, even though for many, that standard deduction even with the added "head of household" deduction is still going to be the best option.

With all the tax assisting programs that are currently available (Turbo tax is available for free on line), it doesn't really take all that much to run your taxes both ways and see which will be the most beneficial.

As I'm sure Hibbie can attest, the whole "married filing separate" is rarely a beneficial idea either.



Hi LL,

I thought, when it came to the "flat tax" proposed by many, that those deductions would be left out -- is that not so?!!

As to itemizing deductions?  ABSOLUTELY... do it every year. [8|]





Fightdirecto -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/15/2011 6:38:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.

I would be in favor of a flat tax if:

1. No deductions - for anything.

2. Inheritances, capital gains, stock dividends, etc. would be considered income for tax purposes. It shouldn't matter if you get money from your employer in the form of a weekly or monthly paycheck, from a stock dividend, or an investment, or from your grandfather's will - it should be all be considered income and taxed at the same rate. And since every form of income received by anyone would be taxed at the same flat rate, that rate would probably be 10% or less to provide enough to provide required government services (i.e. policemen, firemen, roads, military, schools, etc.).




Rule -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/15/2011 9:22:50 AM)

FR

Myself, I prefer a steadily increasing tax: 1 per cent per thousand dollars earned. So the person who earns one thousand dollars, pays ten dollars in taxes; the person who earns ten thousand dollars, pays one thousand dollars in taxes; the person who earns one hundred thousand dollars, pays one hundred thousand dollars in taxes; the person who earns two hundred thousand dollars, pays four hundred thousand dollars in taxes; the person who earns one million dollars, pays ten million dollars in taxes. Voting power would be commensurate.




LafayetteLady -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/15/2011 10:01:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

and individuals should be able to deduct for dependents (as a family of four will have greater expenses than a family of two).

I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.




Seriously? This is already done. Those expenses need to exceed the Standard Deduction, which is based on the number of dependents. That standard deduction is not very big at all if someone owns a home and itemizes deductions. Itemizing deductions seems to be a "hassle" to most people, so they will take the standard. Personally, I find this stupid when someone has a house and dependents, even though for many, that standard deduction even with the added "head of household" deduction is still going to be the best option.

With all the tax assisting programs that are currently available (Turbo tax is available for free on line), it doesn't really take all that much to run your taxes both ways and see which will be the most beneficial.

As I'm sure Hibbie can attest, the whole "married filing separate" is rarely a beneficial idea either.



Hi LL,

I thought, when it came to the "flat tax" proposed by many, that those deductions would be left out -- is that not so?!!

As to itemizing deductions?  ABSOLUTELY... do it every year. [8|]




I don't deal in what is proposed and doesn't exist yet. Only what is already available. I'll worry about flat tax and the like when it becomes an issue (which I don't think it ever will, hence my reasoning).




LafayetteLady -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/15/2011 10:56:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.

I would be in favor of a flat tax if:

1. No deductions - for anything.

2. Inheritances, capital gains, stock dividends, etc. would be considered income for tax purposes. It shouldn't matter if you get money from your employer in the form of a weekly or monthly paycheck, from a stock dividend, or an investment, or from your grandfather's will - it should be all be considered income and taxed at the same rate. And since every form of income received by anyone would be taxed at the same flat rate, that rate would probably be 10% or less to provide enough to provide required government services (i.e. policemen, firemen, roads, military, schools, etc.).


Those things are considered income already. You seem to be confusing "income" and "earned income" which are taxed differently.

A tax rate of even 10% for the lower middle and lower financial classes would be enough to break them. As it stands now, those people will get close to 100% refunds if they do their taxes correctly (for those with dependents.) Rich people don't often get refunds. Why? Because they know that they will make more with that money than the nothing you get for letting the government hold it.

I think most people know they should be setting their W4 up so that they pay just what they should in taxes, or just a few dollars over, giving them the benefit of having that extra money for use throughout the year. However, two things are going on. One is the people who are terrified that they will owe at the end of the year because they didn't have enough taken out. The other is that so many people want that fat refund in March (those people never file late, lol).

Really, a flat tax isn't going to change much for the wealthy at all. People tend to look at it from only one side. It isn't simply the tax, but the deductions as well.




Fightdirecto -> RE: A Tax Code Worth Reforming (11/15/2011 3:30:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
I like the concept of a "flat tax", but with certain deductions remaining in place.

I would be in favor of a flat tax if:

1. No deductions - for anything.

2. Inheritances, capital gains, stock dividends, etc. would be considered income for tax purposes. It shouldn't matter if you get money from your employer in the form of a weekly or monthly paycheck, from a stock dividend, or an investment, or from your grandfather's will - it should be all be considered income and taxed at the same rate. And since every form of income received by anyone would be taxed at the same flat rate, that rate would probably be 10% or less to provide enough to provide required government services (i.e. policemen, firemen, roads, military, schools, etc.).
Those things are considered income already. You seem to be confusing "income" and "earned income" which are taxed differently.

Actually, I am not confusing the terms. I am saying that there should be no difference - all income from whatever source should be taxed at the same rate. If you get $100.00 from your employer for doing your job - it should be taxed at the same rate as the $100.00 you got in your Daddy's will or the $100.00 you got in a stock dividend or the $100.00 your corporation got for whaever product or service your corporation sold/provided.

And if every person in the US (and that now includes corporations, thanks to the Supreme Court) paid the same tax rate with absolutely no deductions - everyone's tax rate could be lowered simply due to volume. Everytime a minimum wage earner pays, say, 3%, of his paycheck in taxes, every penny of gross income for Dow Chemical is taxed at the same 3% and each stock dividend Paris Hilton gets gets taxed at the same 3%. Overall, that 3% collected from every one and from every American corporation should be able to pay the country's bills - maybe even 2%.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125