|
![]() |
#46 |
9.89
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Casino cash: $10004900
|
Thanks Oxford,
You saved me a post with your last responce. It is amazing the attitude people have about taxes. As little as 65 years ago, a politician couldn't get elected if people even thought he wanted to tax them ~ today we have people clammoring that they're not paying enough. Luz can you say 'indoctrinated'?... |
Posts: 3,327
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
The Lurkiest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Wichita, KS.
Casino cash: $2645999
|
Lbedrock--
First of all, sorry if I made you think I was making fun of you. That's not my style of argument (belittling those who disagree). I was just a little worked up. Now, about the taxes. Mayhap I'm not as informed as you seem to be, but I'm pretty sure that writeoffs don't pay you the full value of the asset, only the taxes you would pay on the cash used to buy that asset. For example. If I'm in the 30% bracket, and I give $100 to a church. I don't get to take $100 off my tax bill, I only get to take 30% of $100, or $30. If this is correct, then I don't see where the rich would be at an advantage simply because they can write more stuff off. When you write something off, you're pretty much pretending that you never made that money in the first place, no? If I make 50,000 and I write off 25,000 of it, then I am treated as if I made 25,000. If this is the case, then let the rich write off all they want. With a few exceptions, such as assets for their home "business" that they keep around for write-off purposes only, I don't see that it is that big of a deal.
__________________
Lurking since 2008 |
Posts: 2,757
![]() |
|
|