Presidential Election: 2012

Famine · Apr 17, 2012

Which is exactly what they do in the UK - you have to be resident in the UK for 90 days (non-consecutive counts) a year to be required to pay income tax at UK rates, even if you're a British citizen.

The most famous example of this is Sean Connery, who resides in the Bahamas with occasional UK visits (not totalling more than 90 days a year) but - until a law was passed regarding overseas funding in politics - contributed to the Scottish National Party funding. He is still a British citizen and eligible to vote in UK General Elections.

There was a story recently about a guy who chartered an aeroplane out of London Luton Airport to take him out of UK airspace so that he didn't qualify for income tax...

LMSCorvetteGT2 · Apr 17, 2012

Danoff
Good read FK, but this part bugs me:

BS. Not without leaving the country or at least the money coming in outside the country. I don't know why this myth is allowed to perpetuate.

Perhaps that is the way, since many big corporations who are getting angery mobs protesting do have their organization outside the U.S. due to tax rates. You see much of that in Ireland and Switzerland where tax rates are vastly lower than the U.S. The article was probably look at what has just been said.

FoolKiller · Apr 17, 2012

Danoff
Good read FK, but this part bugs me:

BS. Not without leaving the country or at least the money coming in outside the country. I don't know why this myth is allowed to perpetuate.

Keep in mind, in this election the Buffett Rule defines rich as more than what President Obama makes (~$750k). Not sure if that is what the author meant, but I have noticed the Buffett Rule is designed to only affect those who have the ability to use any number of other loopholes.

Danoff · Apr 17, 2012

FoolKiller
Keep in mind, in this election the Buffett Rule defines rich as more than what President Obama makes (~$750k). Not sure if that is what the author meant, but I have noticed the Buffett Rule is designed to only affect those who have the ability to use any number of other loopholes.

What loopholes??

Nobody can seem to answer this.

sumbrownkid · Apr 17, 2012

Danoff
What loopholes??

Nobody can seem to answer this.

The loophole that magically allows rich folk to claim unicorns as deductions.

Seriously though, the tax code is as misunderstood as Ozzie Guillen.

Danoff · Apr 17, 2012

sumbrownkid
The loophole that magically allows rich folk to claim unicorns as deductions.

Seriously though, the tax code is as misunderstood as Ozzie Guillen.

All I have ever seen are deductions phasing out with income.

The only "loopholes" I have ever heard about are incorporating yourself as a company so that you can take certain deductions for work (like a car lease for business travel). But you still end up paying a huge amount in taxes. It doesn't even make sense to do until you pay a crapton in taxes and don't have access to the "loopholes" that people with less income use (like the student loan "loophole" and the child tax credit "loophole").

People refer to capital gains a a "loophole" but it's the same rate for everyone, so that's not really possible. Leaving the country to avoid taxes is also extremely difficult in the US.

Edit:

Honestly, I have this conversation with the tax experts every year around tax time. "How can I avoid paying all this tax"? The answer: "you can't". Incorporating is the biggest tip I ever hear, and it's not even that big of a help.

arora · Apr 17, 2012

Here is one that seems to be in the spotlight.

Carried-interest loophole

And a funny one.

prop. 13 loophole

From the same guy I quoted in the Buffett thread.

Buffett Rule

Charles Krauthammer
Three years later, we are back to smoke and mirrors. This time its not health care but the Buffett Rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on millionaires. Here is how bama introduced it last September:

Warren Buffetts secretary shouldnt pay a (higher) tax rate than Warren Buffett. ... And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money to stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. ... This is not politics; this is math.

OK. Lets do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years a span longer than the life of this republic it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. It will help us close our deficit. Does he really think were that stupid?

Danoff · Apr 17, 2012

arora
Here is one that seems to be in the spotlight.

Carried-interest loophole

I don't know that I'd call that a loophole. It's just a definition of capital gains. We can change the definition if we want to not include a broker's stake in the investment (not sure that makes sense) but it's not really a loophole.

arora
And a funny one.

prop. 13 loophole

This is California-specific, and something that was put in place to benefit poor and fixed-income people. I am aware of this particular one and I'd have to agree that it's a loophole. It's not an income tax loophole though, it's a state property tax loophole.

arora · Apr 17, 2012

Yeah I know that one is state specific, I posted it as I said, funny.

Anyway, here is something a bit more serious. I think most people who cry "close the holes" believe only loopholes on the rich will be closed, I'm pretty sure the ones who champion the tax reform realize the measures have to effect everyone across the board(poor excluded as they don't pay as it is).

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0701_tax_loopholes_galston.aspx

Danoff · Apr 17, 2012

arora
Yeah I know that one is state specific, I posted it as I said, funny.

Anyway, here is something a bit more serious. I think most people who cry "close the holes" believe only loopholes on the rich will be closed, I'm pretty sure the ones who champion the tax reform realize the measures have to effect everyone across the board(poor excluded as they don't pay as it is).

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0701_tax_loopholes_galston.aspx

Ok but those aren't loopholes either.

wikipedia
A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.

Deductions are intended for exactly the purpose they're being used for. I don't like the way "loophole" is getting thrown around in the media, because the word applies some trickery. It implies misuse of the system - some intelligent way to bypass the intent of the system. Much of what is referred to as a "loophole" is actually consistent with the intent of the system. Capital gains tax is consistent with the intent. As are mortgage deductions, etc. etc.

Changing the design of the tax code to impact people differently is not necessarily "closing loopholes". It can simply be changing the intent of the system so that the outcome is something people feel better about.

The media uses the term "loophole" because it's something nobody can argue against. When you say "I want to close the loopholes", that's like saying I want good things and not bad things. It's very difficult to argue with. Misuse of the system is a bad thing, and fixing that is a good thing. But that's often not what is being advocated. The buffett rule isn't one that closes loopholes, it changes the intent of the system. But presenting it that way requires more critical thinking - do we want to change the intent of the system? What impacts will that have? Why was the system designed to do this in the first place? These are questions you don't have to answer if you instead phrase it as "fixing loopholes".

arora · Apr 17, 2012

Yes, I know that. I'm making a point similar to yours, sorry you're not understanding.

As we have discussed before the entire tax code is a joke, I'd like to see a flat tax that would ultimately become a consumer tax. I still think atm these loopholes, or so called loopholes, or non existent loopholes need to be addressed, I've seen Paul Ryan talk about this in some vague political way. I'll try to find it.

As we've also discussed to death, it's the entitlements at the core. Of course I could google all the ways Obama is creating "loopholes" as well.

Bye Ya · Apr 17, 2012

I honestly have very little interest in politics, but I enjoyed this photo. :lol:

580611_10150671640967322_584212321_9458494_660042870_n.jpg

Danoff · Apr 17, 2012

arora
Yes, I know that. I'm making a point similar to yours, sorry you're not understanding.

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you but just the general audience.

arora · Apr 17, 2012

No worries Danoff 👍

Paul Ryan
Take away the tax shelter, subject all of their income to taxation, and get more revenue -- and we can lower everybody's tax rate in return

He just beats around the bush and just as all the others, is vague. As far as I can tell, when pinned down he simply says "The House Ways and Means Commitee should work out the specifics in public" lol

These guys are all crooks from the same mold, ala FK's article.

EDIT: :lol:

at that pic

Oh, and this is more of the same... http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/23/to-close-corporate-tax-loopholes-obama-would-open-new-ones/

Touring Mars · Apr 17, 2012

Bye Ya

"Well, whaddya know, the stained dress has now been ruled as inadmissable evidence,
so they had to give me my old job back!"

Omnis · Apr 17, 2012

Bye Ya

Two Presidents, opposite ends of a smoking habit.

Swift · Apr 17, 2012

arora
He just beats around the bush and just as all the others, is vague. As far as I can tell, when pinned down he simply says "The House Ways and Means Commitee should work out the specifics in public" lol

These guys are all crooks from the same mold, ala FK's article.

This is probably true. But at least he has a plan to deal with someof our financial issues.

FoolKiller · Apr 17, 2012

Danoff
What loopholes??

Nobody can seem to answer this.

I should have put loopholes in quotes. I was referring to deductions that anyone can get but are only really feasible or worth the time with a lot of money, like incorporating, putting it overseas, not being liquid, etc.

I do admit that percentage wise if I calculated things like tax free investments, pre-tax benefits, child credits, and so on my percentage (and Buffett's secretary's) is far, far lower than Buffett's. The upper-middle class, particularly coastal state residents, are probably the most hurt by the tax code as they pay a higher rate but need to keep enough of it liquid to not be able to move it around to take advantage of larger deductions.

EDIT: Just saw this.
[Youtube]1Jdc_cSQ7o4[/Youtube]

arora · Apr 18, 2012

Swift
This is probably true. But at least he has a plan to deal with some of our financial issues.

That's true, the Repubs have been dishing up something to try and address the fiasco, much more then the administration that's for sure. There's just a point where they stop short, the point where they can't neglect the lobbyists, where they can't cut the crony noose.

I'll take a crooked capitalist over a socialist redistribution hound but in the end, if we don't get rid of regulations and taxes that only hurt small business, tax brakes, incentives, all that other stuff that stifles competition and keeps etc. You see where I'm going.

Omnis · Apr 19, 2012

So I got Barack's book:

Keef · Apr 19, 2012

I read it til I passed out.

Keef · Apr 20, 2012

USA Today eliminates Ron Paul as a candidate.

Yeah, I sent them a complaint email and asked politely for the oversight to be resolved.

Crispy · Apr 21, 2012

Why do I think Ron Paul will not be president? He has morality, he has common sense, two things that never get votes, sadly.

What really made me want to vote for him, (if I could) was when he said that he'd rather not waste tax-payer dollars on Secret Service protection. Unfortunately this country is more focused on the person who hates gays the most, or an uber-christian, rather than someone with actual morality and focus on the American people.

LMSCorvetteGT2 · Apr 21, 2012

Crispy you could always do a write in vote like some of us.

FoolKiller · Apr 21, 2012

Crispy
What really made me want to vote for him, (if I could)

Your location says Texas, and the primary there is May 29th. Am I missing something? Not registered as Republican, too young, away from home, etc?

[EDIT:] Just checked your profile. Too young. Nothing like watching the old people vote away your hopes, eh?

Bye Ya · Apr 22, 2012

Disgusting.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Reducing government deficits Mitt Romney's way would mean less money for health care for the poor and disabled and big cuts to nuts-and-bolts functions such as food inspection, border security and education.

Romney also promises budget increases for the Pentagon, above those sought by some GOP defense hawks, meaning that the rest of the government would have to shrink even more. Nonmilitary programs would incur still larger cuts than those called for in the tightfisted GOP budget that the House passed last month.

Keef · Apr 22, 2012

Bye Ya
Disgusting.

What's disgusting, the welfare cuts or the increase in military spending?

arora · Apr 23, 2012

Neither are disgusting imo, check article 1 section 8. Of course the phrase common welfare will come up but whatever, we can leave that to the states.

Romney himself may be a bit Disgusting though :lol:

Touring Mars · Apr 24, 2012

It's a big day in the Republican nomination race today as five states go to the polls... (Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island)

New York could be a crucial result - if Romney can get 50% of the vote in New York, the state goes from being a proportional primary (which would have netted Romney about 40 delegates) to a winner-takes-all primary, which would net Romney 95 delegates, which could be a decisive blow (although I figure that Romney can still win outright even without an overall majority in New York).

Unless Gingrich can net atleast one win (e.g. Delaware) and/or net a decent amount of delegates in the others (esp. New York), then I wouldn't be surprised to see Gingrich concede and suspend his campaign, and that would be decisive.

Also, Rudy Giuliani has endorsed Romney - interesting timing, given that Giuliani is the former mayor of New York and today is the NY primary vote...

Keef · Apr 24, 2012

I think almost everybody expected Giulianni to endorse sometime very near the NY primary. It's the best choice.

As for the other candidates, there have been a few stories about Ron Paul basically sweeping up delegates lately. 20 of 24 in Minnesota, and it's looking like he might take the majority from Iowa. Lots of random counties in various states are reporting that their majority was for Paul.

But that will obviously be a gamble if he can't do reasonably well in these more liberal states.

Presidential Election: 2012

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Don't be a fool.

ツーリング マルス

Not Even A Real Mod

GT Sport is looking good...

Don't be a fool.

Not Even A Real Mod

Don't be a fool.

ツーリング マルス

Similar threads

ツーリングマルス

ツーリングマルス