Ask Mitt Romney about cheating on taxes. I wonder if he has settled in the caymen islands yet.

Typical of most Americans, they'll say it's not "cool" for others to cheat on taxes; themselves, not so big a deal. They'll stomp their feet and say "Others should pay higher taxes"; themselves, they pay too much now, thank you very much.

JS in SD

You won't mind if I ask for a 'resource' that supports there are 'more tax delinquents in the Obama administration, than any administration in history'. The way I see it, its your 'perception' without any tangible facts to back it up.

Before you run your mouth, I reckon having "facts" to back up exactly what you have said.

P.S. There are tax cheats on all sides of the aisle, my comment was specific to only one 'cheat' named RobMe

I agree with JS. I know Obama's treasury secretary had to pay his back taxes before he was confirmed, and his current secretary of state docked his boat in RI to avoid MA taxes. Nevertheless, people on all sides cheat. The biggest culprit are the mega corporations. See GE and Facebook.

Actually the Tea Party movement members are hard working American tax payers who if they stopped paying taxes would probably bankrupt this country.

The entitlement left don't pay taxes so someone has to.

To address a couple comments here...using existing tax breaks is not cheating on your taxes. Kerry parking his boat in RI isn't cheating, and I doubt Romney cheated with the Cayman Islands. With as much media attention as has been given to these 2 cases, if they were illegal I'm sure someone would be pushing for a trial.

As to using tax breaks (aka "loopholes")...most people do this. The home mortgage interest deduction is a loophole, as are things like child care and education credits.

I take the W-2, add in the 1099s, use the simple sheet, deduct the IRA and submit. Without debts to generate "interest", I can't itemize. this year the SS will take a chunk out of the total, though

I think you meant to say the Obama party with folks like Tim Geithner who 'forgot' to pay thousands in taxes until they were forced to in order to be confirmed. Tea party members actually do pay their taxes. That's why they're so pissed off; because they see just how much of their earned money gets taken from them by the government and then wasted.

It's About Time, why don't you provide your detailed source for your statement that Romney cheats on his taxes.

Of the 11% that have no problem with cheating, I wonder what the percentage of those, are lawyers? LOL!!

That is stupid, most all of the Dems in congress are 1%, but you libs like to live with your heads in the sand,Obama is a 1% butyou act like he is the common man. He HAS NEVER held a job, or contributed to our nation in any meaninful way, yet he is your messiah? We are in way worse shape under Obama, he actually makes me miss Bush and I didnt like him at all.

As for cheating on taxes, the government cheats us everyday by misspending and criminal behavior, yet we are supposed to feel bad because we wont fund their crimes?

how's Obama's cabinet doing on paying their taxes this time around? any better?

or how about those democrats asking the wealthy to pay more who also owe back taxes?

Some things just need to be done and having a tax liability is one of them.

Everyone has an impact on society.

Our impact however, never was meant to place impact on others.

We are supposed to not take from other people so that we can have.

We are supposed to use our talents together peacefully so that we can all achieve our own personal greatness within each other through hard work, a constant maintaining and rebuilding of everything around us for our childrens sakes.

Through that alone everyone would have whatever they wanted because they earned it. But Thats Not What We Have Now Is It.

We need to do better and everyone needs to get their Butts' to work doing SOMETHING....

He HAS NEVER held a job, or contributed to our nation in any meaninful way, yet he is your messiah

last I checked, "law professor" was a job, so is "President"

more delusional BS from the right, where "facts don't matter, we make up whatever sh!t we want to and say its truth"

Hard to cheat when you don't pay......

Gary,

The 1% are those making over $1 million per year. The salaries of most, if not all the representative are significantly less than that, minus any outside income, such as speaking, investments or privately owned businesses.

Since most representatives are career politicians, they make whatever politically sanctioned money they are entitled to. Granted there are a large number who receive perks, illegally, from special interest groups. However, if the number were as great as you suggest, there would be no choice but to dump the whole mess and start over (I would support that). Since there are periodic audits (that's how many, to include former Congressman Tom Delay R-Texas, have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar) most are much less open with their relations concerning lobby groups.

The violators do cross the party lines, so this is NOT a single party issue. I would have to say, there are far fewer actual 1% in political office. Most are safeguarding their ability to protect their income AFTER they leave politics.

desktop... are you kidding?... the whole tea party?... it is people in GENERAL that hold some feeling that come Tax Time the government owes them something in return. Is it awful? Heck yes it is! I say that because I pay my taxes just like every other hard working American here and not just during each day but come tax time too. Yet another messed issue in a whole LINE of them and this has NOTHING to do with party!

thanks military man, for a voice of reason.

So, the poll on this sight shows over 12% think its okay to cheat in some form on paying taxes. Extrapolating this... there are approximatley 194 million tax payers in the US. If 12% of tax payers are cheating on their taxes and reducing their tax liability by just $500/year, the total amount of lost revenue to the fed gov. is over $11 billion. At a time when the country is fighting over cuts totaling $44 billion for the year, $11 billion is 25% of that.

Gary 420

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

http://newsone.com/2074186/mitt-romney-tax-evasion/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/10/29/romney-avoids-taxes-using-exempt-status-of-mormon-church/

and did you notice ROMNEY filed an "amended" tax return after the election? Hmmm

Most Americans cheat on their tax returns..they just say its a error or math mistake..(even though software programs do a good job stopping that) and they still LIE!

Your rant falls flat! I work for a paycheck so my taxes and fixed in stone, but why is it that the most conservative people I know earn the majority of their income in the form of unreported cash. They get paid in cash, buy most things with cash, and claim the moral high ground. Ahh yes, some things in life are predictably consistent.

you don't know any conservative people that's why. You guess, you assume, you stereotype and all of that is bigotry. you don't know. Then you're wide open to have your bigotry manipulated by our great leader who further fans the flames. Take a look who pays 90+% of all federal dollars received in taxes and it's not the little guy by any stretch. So stop whining and read more other than MSNBC etc. as you just get the liberal spin.

Yet you display a profound ignorance and trot it out as an epiphany. I know many conservatives, some I like and respect, others are narrow minded ignoramuses that like yourself are convinced they have all the answers, when in fact they don't even know what the questions are. You may wish to heed your own advice and turn rush off.

Kal - You're accusing Explorer of being a bigot and stereotyping and yet you assume that anyone who doesn't vote republican is a "spendaholic lib" and doesn't work for a living? "Earning a living won't kill you?"

I hate to burst your bubble, but most people work for a living, whether they consider themselves republicans, democrats, or independents.

Most of the "47 percent" either work full time or used to work full time...like my formerly republican father who worked everyday since he was 15 years old and now is retired. He lives, conservatively and frugally, on a very small fixed income, so he doesn't owe federal income taxes anymore (though he pays a fair share for state and property taxes as well as sales taxes, like everyone else). Because he is responsible with his expenses, he lives within his means.

Is is a "taker" now in your eyes because he's a senior? He stopped voting republican when that party stopped respecting the hard work and responsibility he showed his whole life and started calling him a moocher and a taker. If the republicans don't stop speaking so disrespectfully about so many hard-working people, they are never going to win another presidential election.

People's taxes change as they move in and out of different phases of their lives. Single people with no dependents pay higher taxes, then they may not owe federal income taxes if they marry, have children, and move to only one income for a time (which is a conservative "family value" - to have a mother at home)...and then then pay more taxes as the kids grow up or move out & both parents are working...and then they pay less when they retire. Your disrespect for many hard-working EMPLOYED Americans does your agenda no favors.

I work for a paycheck so my taxes and fixed in stone, but why is it that the most conservative people I know earn the majority of their income in the form of unreported cash.

@Explorer……Because you are among the sheep who have been brought up the FDR way, brainwashed into thinking that automatic payroll deduction is the only way to get compensated. I call it stealth theft. Personally, I like getting paid via a 1099 which allows me to get paid the gross amount in cash and I pay the estimated taxes quarterly to the IRS. I can keep better track of my taxes and I like having more cash when I need it even though I do eventually have to pay the taxes.

tell yah what kal - when you are in the grey bar hotel, I'll LAUGH in your dumbfounded looking FACE

You other fools who seem to "think" (you do "think" don't yo) that the system is patently unfair to higher income earners - bite me. I'm not rich - I'm not poor - I'm one of that vanishing breed of what we used to call "middle class".

Explorerdog, I find it the opposite, most of the cheats I know are liberals, most of the conservatives I know pay their taxes. Now lets talk, welfare, workers comp, extended unemployment, food stamps, living off the government, 90% of those are liberal democrats. Seems like the liberals want to make sure the conservatives are paying more so we can fund their laziness and poor work ethics.

oh give me a break, the cheats are on both sides of the political spectrum

Fork,

Until the SEC is given it's teeth back, none if this will matter. Most "White Callar" criminals don't spend a day in jail. Traders lose their licenses, violators receive fines that don't amount to much compared to what they steal.

It's worth it for large Investment firms to do business that way, since, depending on how many slip through the cracks, they will still make outrageous profits even with repeated fines.

We'll just cut the cash to you spendaholic libs and you'll get tremors like Obama is getting right now worrying

you mean like the right wingnuts would if it got slightly harder to get their gun fix?

Military Man-1740371

Fork,

Until the SEC is given it's teeth back, none if this will matter. Most "White Callar" criminals don't spend a day in jail. Traders lose their licenses, violators receive fines that don't amount to much compared to what they steal.

It's worth it for large Investment firms to do business that way, since, depending on how many slip through the cracks, they will still make outrageous profits even with repeated fines.

It's a sad situation, but I agree with your comments.

I've never understood why someone can get sent away for years in a harsh prison for selling a pound of pot, but if someone steals the life savings from 1,000 families they get a few months in a country club prison (if that).

That's communism. For a view of how successful that system has been, see Russia, formerly USSR. Or, see China, as it wrestles with trying to enter the modern world.

In a system like that, no one cares whether they do a good job or not, because they get paid the same amount regardless. Those who have a great deal of ability learn to hide it and coast by, and probably hide the money they make. No one has any incentive to develop their abilities, knowing that the fruits of their labors will be consumed by others.

No, a system is needed that balances financial reward for high producers with addressing the general welfare of unfortunate individuals who cannot produce at all, such as those with handicaps. Oh wait. That's kind of how the U.S. system works...

And who determines the needs?

I have some friends that used this approach for their business. One moved back home to save money and another lived on poverty level income to get buy. On the other hand, one of my friends defined their basic "needs" as a new car every few years (and not a cheap one) and $350k+ house to live in. The result was, one person's "needs" were more than twice the combined "needs" of my other 2 friends.

I've known all of them for years, and I don't think the person with the high "needs" was attempting to take advantage of the others...they just couldn't conceive of living on less than they were accustomed to.

By the way, the business eventually failed after a number of years. The one with the greater "needs" wound up with a good house that had appreciated in value and an expensive car, and the other 2 wound up with nothing. The whole situation didn't seem very fair to me...

Ron: man you beat me to it. The same guy who wants to live according to Marx wants to be the guy to decide who shall pay and who shall receive. Of course he and his friends are to receive, and those he doesn't know will be designated to pay.

too many people conflate "need" with "I want".

"need" is basic food, basic clothing and basic shelter with the opportunity to work to improve your position. enough to survive, but not enough to become comfortable and complacent

"want" is the new car every two years and the "pricey" house (on the other hand, $350k wouldn't buy a shack in some places)

I've read and reread FDJLakers1's post and I don't think any of you read it correctly. He was referring to "each" paying their fair share in taxes, or their obligation according to their community.
NOT everyone given hand outs.

Each pays according to what they've earned, in other words, 10% or 15% tax accross the board. Taxes are NOT communism, Social Programs are NOT communism, neither is having state sponsored programs to assist people who have lost their jobs, or have not been fortunate enough to be born with a "Silver Spoon" in their mouth, or free basic Healthcare.

"Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'" --Wikipedia article on Marxism.

That is exactly what FDJLakers1 said.

Why keep the first home ownership interest deduction?

I say take away all of the deductions except loss carry-forwards (since it's really just allowing you to take a deduction you would have been able to take in the current year if you had offsetting revenues).

As to deductions that allow businesses to pay nothing, I'm fine with getting rid of them (at the federal level), but do you realize these include things like incentives for companies to implement green energy and take on projects to improve the environment? Taking advantage of these types of deductions is mainly how GE avoids taxation.

Taking advantage of these types of deductions is mainly how GE avoids taxation.

actually the biggest thing they have taken advantage of is writing off losses incurred by the "financial services" arm (GE capital) when the housing market crashed. a division that appears to perpetually lose money (on paper anyways), yet they hang on to it for the tax write-offs

I personally know of at least 5 individuals who pay an accountant a full time salary just so they wouldn't have to pay taxes. They wear it like a badge of honor.

In my opinion, even if you use the system to avoid the responsibility, you're still trash. There are so many breaks and loopholes for the ultra wealthy under the Bush tax plan, I would be surprised if most of them paid any taxes at all from 2004-2012.

Military Man,

Can you give specifics on the Bush tax plan loopholes and tax breaks? I'm a CPA and I know the IRS is a lot more stringent about things like classifying personal expenses as business expenses than they were in the past. However, if your friends are evading taxes through fraudulent tax returns, then it does become pretty easy to avoid paying taxes (until they get hit with an audit and run the risk of massive fines or jail time).

I read an article a year or so ago talking about millionaires not paying taxes, but that was because most of their income was in tax-free government bonds and the rest was offset against prior losses in the stock market. These hardly seem like abusive loopholes/breaks, and they can be used by anyone (ex: I'm still using the stock market loss one due to the crash a few years ago).

All the Republicans I know cheat on their taxes.

People are lying through their teeth on this one. They say its bad to cheat on taxes and then go do it themselves.

we have a turd in the punch bowl... i repeat turd in the punch bowl. Think of this poll like when a teacher comes back after you had a sub for a week and she asks "Who behaved for the substitute last week" and all those little hellions raise their hands.

Why are you saying this? How many of the "other" people who responded to the IRS do you know? Or, are you saying this because you do not pay all your taxes, and you hate to think that you - and other cheats - are actually in the minority? I, personally, have met perhaps 3 to 4,000 people in my entire 68+ years of living. And, I have never asked one if they cheated on their taxes. So, I don't know how many cheat. Is that one of your conversation starters????? My name is _______, and do you cheat on your taxes or pay all that you owe? I will believe what people say, until they prove to me that they are liars. Makes it easy to relate to folks that I meet, and actually give them a chance.

i am just mocking the fact that a survey run by the IRS revealed that most people think they should be fair on their taxes. Of course it did. If the police put out a survey asking how many people think it is never ok to break the law, of course there will be a shift in the data towards saying "I have never committed a crime" but most people actually commit 2-3 misdemeanors every week, whether they know it or not. The only income i don't report is the income the government would arrest me for making. I would gladly report that income if it wouldn't lead to a jail sentence for doing so. I like paying taxes, it's my civil duty. I have no idea how honest people ar on their tax returns, I am as honest as HR Block, there are enough legal ways to avoid paying taxes, it would be stupid to risk avoiding them illegally.

lol coop thats like saying a liberals i know are on welfare. face it everyone they have won they have divided this country and now they are going to give it to all of us right up the ***.

starting with yours - BOHICA (bend over here it cones again) Sheesh - such teabagger paranoia

@coop yeah...

John Kerry republican, Tim Geithner republican, Mary Landrieu republican, Warren Buffet republican, Charlie Rangel republican...thats not including the 36-41 Obama aides that owe back taxes...

serious, where did warren buffet "cheat on his taxes'?

he didn't "cheat" any more than the kochs or romney do

so why is it ok for the very richest in this country to only pay 10-15% on their income while the rest of us who work end up around 25-30%? (a question that buffet asked himself)

back in the '60s without the electronic "overview", tax cheating was easier. It was nothing to increase the sales tax amounts and charitable deductions. Reported income and interest was about all they had to go on. Of course, I'm talking about the nickel and dime events where you might "save" $30 or $40 on taxes. I was audited in 4 for taking a $275 write off (as a total one time expense, no depreciation) on what was then a sophisticated hand held calculator. I was asked why i didn't depreciate it - told them that since the price of the calculator had dropped to $69, it was just an expense and depreciation was sort of a dumb way to extend the price of the device out over 5 years when the value had dropped the initial cost to 1/4 of what I had paid. Gee - the agent agreed with me (of course, their return would have been maybe $20 IF they hadn't, but whatever)

thanks for clarifying. I appreciate you getting to me before one of the new Liberal Re-education camps comes to take conservatives away. It's how Pol-Pot did it by the way.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

sadly I do. Starts with the over the top rhetoric and good versus evil posturing of the Great Leader. He instructs america to "hate" and they hate. It's the "rich" it's the "do nothing congress" but never, ever him.

Hate? I think the GOP wrote that book decades ago.

You're delusional Kal.

Kal Albert: LOL! If it wasn't so pathetic, it would actually be funny!

RWNJs abound,apparently

yea, you have to pay something to even get a loophole which is why libs so rarely use one. Like Obama's business advisor GE who skipped out, like John Kerry keeping his yacht in another state.

Do you think the green energy companies got lots of loopholes from Obama? Yea, they did.

Listen, you might want to retake high school critical thinking as I think you missed that year when you were doing your manatee massage in service.

You've got it all figured out don't you King Kal ? LMFAO ATWTTB

it's not that hard. Seems libs are the ones who constantly struggle and it's always libs telling others what they must do with THEIR money which, is usually, give it to libs to spend. An economics class might help you to broaden your understanding beyond Mother Jones headlines.

Struggle? Who is struggling? No one I know.

I was being sarcastic when I said that you've got it all figured out so don't let it go to your pea sized brain. Don't believe everything you think and certainly don't believe Fox Snooze is telling you the truth.

"don't believe everything you think" that's great advice to heed when the voices are talking to you huh? Anyways I know the libs are always shocked that things cost money. It's way easier to scream and demand money rather than earning it which is why libs scream and demand money but don't earn it.

Very good Kal. You're keeping up.

All the "libs" I know are doing quite well and have worked hard. Where do you Republicans get this business that "libs" can't "earn" a living? Like I said, don't believe everything you think is true. /p>

because the low-information, ignorant, nutjob, far right doesn't have a coherent argument, they have to come up with blatant BS they pull out of their a$$, like "liberals don't know things cost money

Lots of folks in federal penitentiaries can tell you all about it.

Get the SSN of someone's kid who isn't filing and claim them as an exemption.

File as Head of Household, when you're not actually paying for more than 50% of a household's expense (or you're married). Remember, marriage records are handled by the county. The federal gov't has no idea if someone's married or not.

For business owners, it's comes down to writing off unqualified expenses, like gym memberships, haircuts, etc.

Don't claim less income than you actually make, the computers will nail you every time.

Tax cheats don't get a prison sentence; they get a bill.

(No, I don't cheat on my taxes, but I work in finance and review people's tax transcripts daily.)

Flat tax would be fine with me if a reasonable % was applied. If all paid 5 - 10% (no more than 10%) that would probably more than do the job. Problem is, the tax vultures would want to apply rates higher than that. Then after you're finished with state and local taxes, you're sunk.

No the Federal Government is NOT required to care for Society. It is required to Protect Society via our Borders. Local Governments care for Society. No Government is required to provide Jobs either. That is the private Sector. You better go read the Constitution again. Oh, that "Pesky" document again that Obama hates so much. I believe Union dues should not be tax deductible. I believe that donations to Charities who actually use the money to help people and not line their pockets and 401k's before the people needing help get any money of which the Salvation Army is a good example. I believe that Organizations who do nothing but collect money and issue propaganda and do very little to support their cause other than their own pockets, should not be tax deductible or get a tax break. Groups like Green Peace, Sierra Club, PETA, HSUS, Red Cross, a number of Liberal Demoncrat Foundations whose only goal is to support Demoncrat Political causes, Organizations like "Bread for the World" who has yet to buy a loaf of bread but has a $30 million dollar budget..and so on.. If in reality if all your suggestions were implemented, and I can tell you have never really held a real job, or have and do not like to work but live off of others works, chaos would ensure. Because the majority of the items that you want to suppress are what keeps the economy rolling and it has since ancient times going back to the Greeks and even the Neanderthals who bartered and traded for what they needed, couldn't make, or didn't have access too. And then you forget to figure in the equation of those who do nothing and want to live for free off the work of others..those people, or 29%, or the the number of Americans in the Country right now, create a lot of problems for the Society and no Society has ever survived with that attitude for long. The Soviets for example. Hitler's Regime, Mao's China, etc. etc. None survived and the people died in the millions some Murdered like the Soviet Union and Germany... I was in Europe for a couple of years and I do admire two Countries over there who have a Socialist life style similar to what you saying, but,,again, they are ONLY successful because they expect EVERYONE TO WORK and contribute to the whole and have been taught that since birth. The Liberals here in America have done the opposite and have created 29% of the Society who believe they should not have to work but live off the work of others..SO, those Socialist Societies in Europe will not work here in the United States due to those 29% who want to live off the work of others..And where did that 29% number come from, those are the 29% of Americans who voted for Obama in November, which is 7 million less than who voted for him in 2008... Another similar Society that lived in a similar fashion to what you listed were the Native American Indians, but you see how long their Society lasted and they were a murderous bunch and in reality were not "good husbands of the land". They sucked an area dry of everything living and growing thing and then moved to another area where they did the same thing. It took an average of 20 years for each of the areas they devastated to recover, so they needed a lot of land to survive and therefore they warred with each other all the time.. You know the ONLY people in my life who suggested the items you suggested were College Professors who already had Tenure and had never worked at a real job without that sense of security Tenure brings..And when questioned would get angry or stomp out or try to punish the student in some way for daring to suggest they didn't work in a world of reality, but it is true, they don't. If they run short of money, they just raise student fees and tuition and the Sheep have to pay for it or they don't get that piece of paper..So you see, it all a fraud and won't work in reality..

The job of caring for society is the government's?

Please try reading the constitution some time, that is the exact mentality the founding fathers were trying to get away from which is called a monarchy.

Noob, YOU should read the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Note the part about providing for the general welfare of the United states. This clause is known as the tax-and-spend clause because it allows Congress to do just that. And clearly, general welfare is part of what has been authorized. That IS government's job.

As for a flat tax, the rate would have to be in excess of 10%--because right now, most people are in a higher bracket than that. Everyone thinks Oh, good, a flat tax, low tax rate. Sorry to say, it would have to be more like 25% to 30 %, maybe higher. Do you like that idea?

Of course the government has the ability to tax, nobody is saying here there shouldn't be taxes. The general welfare of the United States is one thing, (I agree with that part of Eddie's post) To provide for the general welfare does include building a military to protect people and setting up a government to provide for basic rule of law, but being a nanny to every citizen? I am 100% sure that was not the intention of the founding fathers when they wrote that clause. Our current system is backwards in so many ways, the main problem is that it gives people incentives for those who can, to not help themselves.

Ter Bear, well stated. A flat tax would be great if it would be able to be done in a way that would eliminate under reporting of income. I'm sure there are some smart people that could figure a way to accomplish that though.

Or use taxes, or when you buy something out of state and on the internet and no state tax is applied and on and on. The Beatles had it right in the "Tax Man" song.

If you sell something you own, such as used furniture, etc., it's a loss most of the time. You don't need to report it because losses on personal property are not deductible.

If you buy something and then sell it for more than what you paid for it, then that is a taxable transaction--you must report gain on sale. So not reporting that would be cheating.

Will the government catch you at it? It depends on how much you're selling. IRS isn't interested in catching "oversights" that would cost more money to pursue than would be generated by the tax collected. As tax returns and transactions become more and more computerized, the records become much easier for IRS to review. If you're making a bundle on eBay, better report it.

I get what you are saying...

My point is that most of the holier than thou crowd on this issue are themselevs tax cheats whether they know it or not...

How many have claimed charitable ddeductions that are multiples higher than they could get selling the same item?

How many have had a vehicle given to them by granny, sold it and pocketed 100% of the proceeds?

How many have had a contractor ask for cash to avoid reporting rules?

How many have doctored a car registration by claiing they paid much less than they did to cheat on sales taxes?

As pointed out above, any personal used property that you sell probably results in a loss. Not always, but much of the time. So it is not reportable.

Oh yea it is.

eddie - stand in front of a mirror and look at the moron staring back at you. Those tax dodges were CREATED for the high income makers (not EARNERS, just MAKERS). I agree that the tax "code" is aptly named - only the code is too garbled for any of us mere mortals to understand

It's funny really, the Democrats blame the rich for tax dodging (using loopholes to avoid paying taxes) even though many of those "rich folks" are democrats themselves while avoiding the elephant in the room, which is those folks who do not pay taxes and still earn a refund check. For what? If we removed both of these "conveniences", the middle class would thrive.

Headshaker, I don't understand your comment at one point. Let me present a hypothetical and then you explain it to me.

Let's take a high school senior, who had income of $7,500 in his/her part time job last year. Assume the student turned 18 last year, and is no longer eligible to be claimed as a dependant on their parents taxes. So the person paid $600 in federal withholding through the year (a number I pulled out of the air). The standard deduction is what, 5,950...and the personal deduction is ~3,800. This person's entire AGI is 0. They will pay no taxes and get a refund on the $600 they paid into the system.

Exactly what is you problem with this person?

You didn't give a correct analogy is the problem. Someone who holds no job and has no income can still qualify for the additional child tax credit; as well as, first time homebuyer tax credit. Paying people to have more children seems dismal IMO, especially if they have no means to support them. Paying people to purchase homes is equally dismal if they can't afford the homes they purchase. Especially since congress hasn't outlawed subprime lending practices.

You said

avoiding the elephant in the room, which is those folks who do not pay taxes and still earn a refund check.

I provided you with a person who paid no taxes and earned a refund check. However you seem to mean people who hold no job (which isn't what you said) and earn a refund check. There are thosands of people who work, still live at the poverty level, and get a refund back of what they have paid in. What I was suggesting, subtly I admit, was that perhaps you should reconsider where your venom goes.

Actually, they are most likely following tax law. They paid good money to buy those loopholes!

You do understand that the tax rates in the UK peaked at 99.25% during WWII and remained above 90% during the 50s and 60s, right? When they sang "There's one for you, nineteen for me" they were being literal.

Still want to moan about the 39.9% US rate?

I see... so it's all about context, not about having any moral character. I disagree. I won't let the actions of others dictate how I behave.

@Jay.......Like everything, it's about money. I try to keep as much as I can. The liberals and the IRS try to get as much from me as possible. Case and point: Having been forced to leave home to find work, I am allowed to write off expenses such as lodging and meals. The IRS tells you that you can do that up to a year at any one employer as long as the job is at least 50 miles from your home. Well, I worked in one state for seven months. When that ended, the same employment agency got me another job in another state with a different company. That lasted six months. I kept good records of my expenses and deducted them from my tax return. Two years later, I got audited. The IRS agent on the case called me back and said all my records checked out and I was in the clear. Then three months later, the same agent called back and said his boss would not let him close the case and needed more information. Translation: I got off too easy. Well, they did find something, even if it was controversial. The agent said because I worked a total of 13 months with the same employment agency, I was not allowed to deduct my expenses. I said you can’t be serious. I worked in VA for seven months and in Georgia for six, and I can’t deduct any expensive because you say that’s over 12 months? My accountant said that was BS. I worked for two different employers in two different states and each was less than 12 months. But you can’t fight the almighty IRS. I had to write them a $4,000 check for tax deductions I took for the expenses, including the expenses for the first 12 months. What little trust I had for the IRS evaporated.

JobSeeker, consult a tax lawyer and take it to tax court. I think an argument can be made that they were individual jobs lasting less than 12 months.

Don't trust the IRS--you have to look out for yourself.

The question is whether it would cost you more to fight it than the taxes cost you. If IRS loses, they will owe you interest. It may be that it's the principle of the thing, if you can afford to take it to the next step.

so is the floor on the amount of deductions necessary to get over the amount to have a NET effect on the amount