• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Taxation....How To Do It?

Underhill

Well-Known Member
The argument over Trumps big loss a couple decades ago
involves some assumptions which aren't being addressed.
This thread isn't about Pubs v Dems or Trump v Hillary or the election.
Those topics may come up, but should remain incidental.
It's about Americastanian taxation in general.

Some questions......

These answers are off the cuff so I reserve the right to change my mind upon further education.

Should taxpayers be able to deduct losses from their income?

Investment losses? No. It's allowing people to write off gambling debts.

Should capital losses be deductible from not just capital gains, but also ordinary income?

Capital gains should be counted the same as payroll income. So capital losses would simply lower your income.

Should losses exceeding income in the year incurred be allowed to be carried forward to future years?

No.

Should taxpayers have to pay income tax on loans they've defaulted on? (Currently, they must.)

Never really thought about this one. So if I default on a 30 yr mortgage after 10 years I have to pay taxes on the remainder of the principle? hmm no idea.

Seems counter productive is someone has an inability to pay. Like throwing kero on a burning man. On the other hand, if someone wracks up 30k in credit card bills and defaults he spent the cash as 'free' income...

Yeah, no idea. But probably would have to say yes.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Under my preferred system, there will be no entity consisting of more than a hundred or so people, and "system" consisting of more than a few thousand people, operating on a scale of no more than a few thousand square miles. Don't know if you can call egalitarian democracy on that scale "authoritarian," but that would be another discussion.
Sounds like the end of large political parties.
Too authoritarian for me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But in the case of an unsecured loan, what's the asset? For the taxpayer, the debt is a liability. Are you talking about the cash that was received as the loan principle?
Unsecured loans have no asset pledged as security.
Cash received from a loan (minus total principal payments made) is the loan principle.
This applies to both secured & unsecured loans.
(There are additional complexities which we'll ignore.)
But is that the asset you're talking about when you say that the sale of the asset should be the trigger for taxation? That's what I'm trying to get at.
And what about unsecured debt that doesn't have any relation to a specific item, like credit card debt? What's the trigger for taxation then?
A "taxable event" can occur when....
- The creditor deems the loan a "bad debt" on his taxes.
- The borrower sells the pledged asset.
- The asset is destroyed.
It sounds like we're muddying two issues here. Recognizing the forgiven debt as income doesn't necessarily mean collecting right away.
Tell that to the IRS & the fed gov.
They squeeze the debtor for whatever they can, & settle for that.
I have no issue with the IRS allowing payment plans when it would create a hardship to make the person pay the tax owing in full right away.
That's one option they use.
But one problem is that if you want to refinance a property with a defaulted loan,
the lender will require that you have enuf cash on hand to pay the full tax liability.
This is a tough requirement which prevents many from solving their problems in
the optimum way. The fed is a very destructive force in such cases.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know. No professional sports, either; whatever will people do on Saturday and Sunday?
Edit: Or argue about on the internet? Oh, wait...
We, the gadflies of RF, are disorganized.
So that's OK.

Hmmm....under your proposal, our economic system
would become as productive as RF. Let me know if
or when you gain power. I'm moving to Canuckistan.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
We, the gadflies of RF, are disorganized.
So that's OK.

Hmmm....under your proposal, our economic system
would become as productive as RF. Let me know if
or when you gain power. I'm moving to Canuckistan.
If nominated, I shall repudiate; if elected, I shall abdicate!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A "taxable event" can occur when....
- The creditor deems the loan a "bad debt" on his taxes.
- The borrower sells the pledged asset.
- The asset is destroyed.
You've argued against the first option. The second and third options don't apply when there's no associated asset.

So what are you suggesting in these cases? That no tax ever be paid?
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Some questions......
Should taxpayers be able to deduct losses from their income? Should losses exceeding income in the year incurred be allowed to be carried forward to future years?
Yes. Having losses as well as gains is part of normal business operations. Whereas gains are taxable in the current year, losses aren't usable in the current year. The only fair way to include losses incurred is to net them against future profits. Or even to be able to carry them back against profits earned earlier.

Should capital losses be deductable from not just capital gains, but also ordinary income?

This is a trickier question. Capital income/losses are from investments, not from operations (except for businesses whose business is making investments). The question here is, should gains/losses from investments be included with regular business operations? Right now, the tax code is unfair regarding this question. Currently,capital gains are included in business taxable income, but capital losses aren't included. I think the code needs to be changed to either include all capital items or exclude all capital items.

Should taxpayers have to pay income tax on loans they've defaulted on? (Currently, they must.)
Yes, it is fair. Taxes are assessed against any improvements in income to an entity. When a loan is taken out, the loaner's capital is increased by the amount of the loan. But since it is assumed that the loan will be paid back. the expected net increase to the loaner will be zero (although the cost of the loan (i.e. interest) is a net outflow). If a loan is not paid back, then the loaner has a permanent increase to their capital. It is only fair to tax the entire amount of the loan. If forgiven loans are untaxed, then loaners would be encouraged to never repay loans.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I am curious about loopholes, too, and how they are exploited. I hear about it a lot in the media but I honestly have no clue how that works.

Loopholes are misnamed. They are meant to refer to un-intended items in tax law that entities use in ways that Congress never intended. But in practice, almost all "loopholes" are closed by technical corrections bills within the same year. The way that people refer to loopholes nowadays is in items in the laws that Congress purposefully wrote into the law. For example, many jurisdictions have tax credits for businesses that hire additional workers, particularly from economically depressed areas. I've heard people refer to worker tax credits claimed by these businesses following the law that Congress has written as "loopholes".
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Loopholes are ways people with tax knowledge know how to reduce their tax burden. The laws are typically written by republicans in congress. The majority of Americans aren't familiar with this, which is why tax attorneys exist. But most people can't afford those either. Corporations and the wealthy hire people to do their taxes with this knowledge.
My family does the same thing.

First, both political parties write the tax laws in ways meant to induce particular economic behaviors, not just Republicans. Second, the tax law is so voluminous and complicated, that no one person is familiar with the entire tax code. Tax professionals, like myself, are familiar with the portions relevant to our businesses. Third, I'm very glad that people like me get hired for having this knowledge. It gives me an avenue to earn a living.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
All income should be taxed with no deductions for anything. That would allow the rates to be set low enough to not be a burden. It would also make the system very simple. Otherwise you inevitably get into a high rate complex mess as we have now. Allowing deductions for losses means that we'll continue having an army of accountants turning everything in sight into a loss for tax purposes. And that applies to corporations as well as individuals. Otherwise individuals who have to pay tax on income are at a disadvantage from corporations which don't have to pay.

The simplicity which you are trying for doesn't exist. A first question is "what is income?". This question has been the cause of millions of court cases, tax laws, and technical rulings. For example, if a utility company collects security deposits, is that income? If a company sells goods subject to easy return offers and typically has 80% returns within a year, how much of their initial collections are income? Can any of their returns be written off? Hopefully you can see that differing business models make definition of "income" difficult.

Most starting businesses have losses for the first two-three years, only starting to earn profits afterwards. If losses couldn't be deducted, many businesses wouldn't have the capital to continue to the fifth year. Your stance against allowing any losses doesn't square with the typical business model.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You've argued against the first option.
No, I haven't.
I say that a loan gone bad should be an expense to the lender.
It's a very real cost of doing business.
To disallow such deductions from income would increase a lender's
risk, thereby raising the cost & difficulty of borrowing.
The second and third options don't apply when there's no associated asset.
Yes, this is obvious.
I listed some causes for taxable events related to debt.
This doesn't mean that each one applies in all cases.
So what are you suggesting in these cases? That no tax ever be paid?
Of course not.
It would be absurd to presume that because a taxable event occurs that anyone need never pay income tax.
I've been addressing what can cause such events, & how the results would be applied.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, it is fair.
Fairness is complicated here......
1) The circumstances which led to the default make the borrower unable to pay the tax liability generated.
2) Because the IRS will often settle for pennies on the dollar from a distressed taxpayer, is this fair to other taxpayers?
Taxes are assessed against any improvements in income to an entity. When a loan is taken out, the loaner's capital is increased by the amount of the loan. But since it is assumed that the loan will be paid back. the expected net increase to the loaner will be zero (although the cost of the loan (i.e. interest) is a net outflow). If a loan is not paid back, then the loaner has a permanent increase to their capital. It is only fair to tax the entire amount of the loan. If forgiven loans are untaxed, then loaners would be encouraged to never repay loans.
What do you think of the alternative I offer to immediate tax liability,
ie, reduce the asset's basis by the amount of principle forgiven,
thereby postponing tax payment until the taxpayer is likely healthier?
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
The capital loss offset in the 1040 Tax Form, the dollar amount shown, is not the dollar amount which reduces the taxes by the amount shown in that year. This is only the remaining amount of loss one lists after any maximum amount reduction is applied, and is typically what is left (carryover) and a lesser amount from the initial loss documented on the Schedule D from a previous year after subtracting the maximum amount of reduction you are allowed to take which in no way even approximates the losses in the case of large businesses or in the case of corrupt real estate and other write offs by corrupt politicians.

For example, Hillary Clinton listed a loss in the 2015 tax return on the capital loss carryover of over $699,000 dollars. This does not reduce her taxes by $699,000+ dollars in 2015, anymore than the amount shown on Trump's 1995 1040 form illegally obtained by the New York Times which the NYT also used the capital loss carryover in their 2014 taxes but in the case of the NYT's the New York Times actually did not pay any taxes in 2014 since their profits were so bad that even the maximum allowed to reduce taxes was higher than their profits.

So in the case of Hillary, the $699,000 dollars plus carryover in 2015 was a carryover from much higher losses from an initial report from years ago and only reflects the amount from the previous year after reducing the line item by the amount that was the maximum reduction in 2014. Likely, the initial loss of Clinton was a much larger amount and in 1995 due to bad real estate deals in the business climate, the same Trump faced. However, I suspect since politicians were involved in the case of Hillary instead of private business heavily audited by the IRS as in the case of Trump, these were corrupt deals and likely corrupt write offs.

The IRS is targetting political enemies and is totally politicized. It is an arm of the regime to harass and silence and persecute political enemies.

I want to eliminate the IRS and replace it with either a flat tax, or only an elevated consumption tax. Perhaps Revoltingest has some ideas or better ideas, but like most Americans I hate the corrupt IRS. The IRS was formed in 1952 and is a modern Service using "career public servants". About 80 years after the foundation of this country, the Commissioner of Revenue was simply under staffed to accurately report revenues so as to set budgets. So a Bureau in the 1800's was formed for Revenue accountability, transports of Alcohol, Tobacco, Gunpower, some raw commodities, Tariffs and so on, and a "multi-partisan" staff and a powerful commisioner. The focus really wasn't on the private citizen, but on the corrupt government officials - for example tariffs were used to collect revenues but corrupt officials were abusing, over reaching, redirecting the revenues to themselves and to corrupt politicians and their pockets and to corrupt court judges and their families and even to Presidents. Court judges were using the collection of government fees designed to collect revenue to line their pockets and to employ hired assassins to murder other competition from lawyers and so on.

The government corruption was really the focus of the audits.

In 1914 under Truman, the income tax was formed to, in claim, pay for the war. Upon analysis, it likely contributed to the great depression in it's own way. In 1941, as part of reforms coming out of the depression, it was determined that business taxes at a time of business losses causes a domino effect to increase the impact of a depression. Thus the capital loss carryover, now business losses can be itemized and an amount of the initial loss can be listed which can reduce the taxes owed by a maximum amount set by Congress (the maximum amount is not the same as the dollar amount listed on the carryover) and the difference can be carried over into the next year to again apply what ever is the maximum reduction allowed by law.

Today tens of thousands of businesses make use of the carryover on losses. Now if Hillary, who also used this method, objects to this then let her (1) fully disclose the Schedule D and associated worksheet forms of her 2015 taxes so that the public can see exactly the itemized "losses" specifically, and (2) announce officially to all the businesses in America that she will eliminate the capital losses carryover provision of IRS law passed in 1939 for most businesses and then in 1941 for all Americans which were part of reforms to help prevent another great depression.

I can guarantee you, within 7 days of revorking this provision and the situation of business and the business climate and reality of today and international competition, America will go into a massive depression in less than two weeks.

As for me, I do not want to see it revoked, but much better I want to get rid of the IRS and replace it with either a flat tax, an increase in a consumption tax which is a system largely on consumption only so we can control our own taxes but which excludes taxes on food, or if someone has a better idea I am all ears.

I believe the shoe is about to drop. We are over $20 trillion in debt. The government is corrupt, out of control and overreach, is totally unaccountable and we have no idea what they are doing with our money as nothing is audited and we are lied to on a daily basis by the government who wants to control us as the peasants of the new aristocracy which is the government class.

Out today.

Unemployment rose today to 5%.

Only 156,000 jobs were created, the 3rd drop in a row of job creation since June and will not keep up with job age population and college graduates seeking employment.

A record 94,184,000 are no longer in the labor force overall, most have given up.

Our GDP is only 1.4, that isn't the 3+ needed to come out of recovery mode and into growth mode that is needed to provide jobs to substain growth much less jobs for college graduates.

Many jobs are going to foreigners as Americans are displaced from jobs. All the 1 percenters from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Oracle, Berkshire-Hathaway, and the others whose agenda is cheap labor and open borders all support Hillary Clinton and donating to her campaign huge amounts of money.

The latest Guccifer data dump shows huge amounts of money that went into the Clinton Foundation which is supposed to be a charity but instead was going to politicians through the proxy of the Foundation, money which went to Democrat politicians who are close operatives with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton in order to exceed maximum political contribution limits, top Democrats including Nancy Pelosi funneled TARP Funds to their PACs, Nancy Pelosi (Democratic Party, California) was also using a personal computer for confidential government affairs and had her personal computer hacked by multiple countries, and clearly indicates Nancy Pelosi's Goat Hill Pizza Restaurant was used as a front company to funnel money to the Democrats and herself in far excess of campaign contribution limits.

And Hillary is hell bent on going to war with Russia.
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
These answers are off the cuff so I reserve the right to change my mind upon further education.
Investment losses? No. It's allowing people to write off gambling debts.
Will have to disagree with you on a major point.
You can not write off all of your gambling debts. You may only write off your losses to the extent of your taxable winnings.
Example:
You win $5000 gambling during the year and report it to the IRS as winnings. However, you lose $8000 in the same year. You may only write off $5000 in losses. This additional $3000 can not be carried forward into the next year. You cannot just deduct your losses without reporting any winnings, you must report winnings and losses. In other words you can not use gambling in a profit and loss scenario
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Will have to disagree with you on a major point.
You can not write off all of your gambling debts. You may only write off your losses to the extent of your taxable winnings.
Example:
You win $5000 gambling during the year and report it to the IRS as winnings. However, you lose $8000 in the same year. You may only write off $5000 in losses. This additional $3000 can not be carried forward into the next year. You cannot just deduct your losses without reporting any winnings, you must report winnings and losses. In other words you can not use gambling in a profit and loss scenario

Valid point. I understand that, but was not very concise in my statement.

That was what I meant in response to his questions. Someone investing in the stock market is gambling. I think it should be handled the same way. Taxed on earnings as income, losses cannot be written off beyond what you earned.

So your daytime job pays 100k. Taxed at normal rate. If you earn another 20k in stock investments tax it as income. If the market tanks the next year and you lose 10k, you cannot write that off against your regular income... only as a loss against investment earnings that year. (If you can't afford to lose it, you shouldn't be gambling.)
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The simplicity which you are trying for doesn't exist. A first question is "what is income?". This question has been the cause of millions of court cases, tax laws, and technical rulings. For example, if a utility company collects security deposits, is that income? If a company sells goods subject to easy return offers and typically has 80% returns within a year, how much of their initial collections are income? Can any of their returns be written off? Hopefully you can see that differing business models make definition of "income" difficult.

Most starting businesses have losses for the first two-three years, only starting to earn profits afterwards. If losses couldn't be deducted, many businesses wouldn't have the capital to continue to the fifth year. Your stance against allowing any losses doesn't square with the typical business model.
Fair enough. Let me modify my statement to "gross receipts" rather than "income". I realize that this is a controversial opinion and that there are those out there to state it's a bad idea. But if someone can come up with a system that does not immediately turn into a complex mess with many loopholes and exceptions that benefit those who "pay" for those changes, I've not found one. I've also not found a dollar-to-dollar comparison that would state how low the rate would be for such a tax compared to the mess we have now.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Fairness is complicated here......
2) Because the IRS will often settle for pennies on the dollar from a distressed taxpayer, is this fair to other taxpayers?

Yes. The settlement rules are meant to be fair to the IRS. not the taxpayers. Before the IRS reduces an entity's tax liability, they scrutinize all an entity's assets and determine if there is any blood to squeeze from the stone. Only then will the IRS settle for less, as they make the decision that getting something is better than getting nothing. And they can close the case. Otherwise these open cases would pile up beyond their ability to work them.

What do you think of the alternative I offer to immediate tax liability, ie, reduce the asset's basis by the amount of principle forgiven, thereby postponing tax payment until the taxpayer is likely healthier?

It's not bad. But you know the IRS would rather collect for the year that income is recognized. If the gain reduces the basis, the IRS would have to wait until the asset is sold (if ever) to collect their money. Knowing that an asset sale would trigger a large tax is similar to expecting companies to disburse dividends or repatriate money to the US, they just wouldn't do it. Knowing people would just avoid the actions that result in large tax bills.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes. The settlement rules are meant to be fair to the IRS. not the taxpayers. Before the IRS reduces an entity's tax liability, they scrutinize all an entity's assets and determine if there is any blood to squeeze from the stone. Only then will the IRS settle for less, as they make the decision that getting something is better than getting nothing. And they can close the case. Otherwise these open cases would pile up beyond their ability to work them.



It's not bad. But you know the IRS would rather collect for the year that income is recognized. If the gain reduces the basis, the IRS would have to wait until the asset is sold (if ever) to collect their money. Knowing that an asset sale would trigger a large tax is similar to expecting companies to disburse dividends or repatriate money to the US, they just wouldn't do it. Knowing people would just avoid the actions that result in large tax bills.
Hmmmm....I begin to suspect that the IRS is predatory.
Whoodathunkit?
 
Top