DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Its Tax Time

Yet Trump is the only one to hide his tax returns from the American people in over 50 years. Hmmmmm... One helluva long audit isn't it?



And Buffet?

Warren Buffet himself stated that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. In 2010 he claimed his tax rate was 17.4%. Much like I've been stating that the uber rich and large corporations pay. Not the crazy 36% rate stated that the GOP uses to try and claim that's what they pay and carry a huge tax burden.

Well, that was before the Trump tax cuts. Obviously they average paying even less than 17% now.

Lets start by saying I think your numbers are spot on for the two families.

I have seen road use as an argument for a flatter tax structure, but I disagree because of scarcity of resources. Put simply, $1000 for the first family is worth about 4.8X compared the second family on a linear intrinsic basis. That family simply has less money. To use a real life example, my oven glass door broke last night. Freak occurrence. I'm now out of pocket $1800. A bummer? yes. But if I was making half of what I make now, which I did at one point in the past, I'd be much more upset about it. Because that $1800 had a much higher intrinsic value then as compared to now. Today, I can make up the loss much more quickly and not let it be nothing more than a small speed bump in my overall financial picture. As a taxpayer I want high quality roads and infrastructure, and as a highly compensated individual I am willing to accept my share in that solution as being more. I don't think it's fair that my past self who made significantly less money should pay just as much as my current self. My past self needs the money more because he has less of it. Just my 2c using a personal example. Replace my past self with someone on fixed income or someone at or below median income if you prefer.

Unrelated but since you brought it up: why is the long term cap gains rate not 15% for the first family? I thought long term cap gains was capped at 78,750 for married couples. You're the tax preparer so I'm assuming I'm missing something here.

$1800 for the door, I'd just by a new oven.

Oh yea, we bought a new oven. That one wasn't terribly old but never heated things evenly anyway...

The assumptions you used - whether real life examples or otherwise - are type of income, deductions, dependents, previous tax credits etc - there maybe more .... were they 100% equal for both families? If not then the example while relevant and insightful would not be apples to apples.

As for trump and warren - I think it was you that noted what a large % of tax is paid by the wealthiest section of society - so their examples are relevant. And while Trump hasn't made his returns public ... I am more than happy to assume he pays a comparatively low % of income tax because he would use all the same advantages Warren uses .... if you want to claim this is an unreasonable assumption and you think Trump pays a high % of tax, make your case. Using a well founded and educated assumption isn't unreasonable.

As for what I wrote - it says what I meant perfectly. Don't blame me for your comprehension. I don't know if you were speed reading or on a phone or whatever ... but my comment is structurally and grammatically correct.

I'm still waiting for my etrade tax documents, but I'm looking at about $500 due this year ($7k refund last year), and $500 due at state level ($2k refund last year). And this includes earning less money than last year and adjusting my W4s to take more out.

Single, without kids, upper middle class in a high cost state apparently what the government doesn't want.

Example... If you made $50k in 2017 and you paid $5,000 in Fed Tax... And this year you earned $50k and you paid more, the tax break wasn't a tax break., if you paid less, you got a tax break.... I get that. (total dumb numbers, just an example)

I'm just saying that that if they lured you into thinking that the tax cut was working for you by increasing your take home, then lowering your refund on the same number, you got scammed unless it works out to be the same.

1800 for an oven, what are you Chef Jonathon?

Gordon Ramsay!

My wife wanted another double oven range... my wallet looked sad but agreed. She cooks all the time and does use the feature all the time.

The top capital gains rate went up to 20% a few years ago.

I gave you the number of family members (aka dependents) and the income earned (meaning wages). No capital gains or tax in that example for either family. Both took the standard deduction. I have already posted that family #1 received tax credits that aren't available to family #2 due to family #2 making too much money. The only things not 100% equal are income, tax liability and tax credits.



I don't believe either guy has EARNED income. It is likely ALL capital gains income. (Trump donates - or doesn't take - his Presidential salary.) How could their tax situation be even close to relevant in this discussion? How many people do you think fit that description above?



Did you know that Trump released his personal financial statement ((PFS)? You will learn a lot more from a PFS than from a tax return. Do you think many Americans would understand his tax return? Many don't even understand their OWN tax return.



Here is what you wrote:

Those that I know personally pay the least as a % of their income, like Trump and Buffet - they take advantage of loopholes and end up paying comparatively little. I don't blame them, anyone would do the same.

Here is what you meant:

Those that I know personally pay the least as a % of their income. Like Trump and Buffet - they take advantage of loopholes and end up paying comparatively little. I don't blame them, anyone would do the same.

Pesky paragraph when a period was more appropriate.

Do you see the tax returns of those people you know? What type of income do they have? Earned or investment?

So you joined the fray to tell everyone that your tax bill went up...without also telling us that your income also went up. Classic.

As to your second paragraph, that is not what happened for 2/3 of the population. As I have stated before, I am amazed at how un-knowing "people" are about their tax situation. But by golly, they want to see Trump's tax return.

Then if we wouldn't understand it anyway, why not release them? I mean, he said he would,,, what's he hiding.

By the way, I don't need to understand them, the forensic accountants at the FBI will do that and report what they find.

Bad things=Trump in trouble
Good things=Trump not in trouble.

Can't get easier than that.

I'm convinced that he won't release them on his own.. he worried about what they'll find.

Oh, for the record, being audited is not a good excuse to anyone with a brain.

Daman,

There is a line on your tax return that says:

This is your total tax.

That is the number you need to study. Better yet, take your 2017 income numbers and plug them into the 2018 tax software you use. Then compare the "total tax" computed on each return.

That's essentially what I did last year on every return I prepared...where 90% fared better under the new law. (The software includes a feature that did that for me.)

Ok,, but what about him releasing his tax return? Do you have anything to say about his unwillingness to do so and to also lie about being audited as the reason?

again, what's he hiding.

I'm not going down that rabbit hole very far. Trump is (or was) being audited. If he is doing anything illegal, the IRS will find it. If the findings are egregious-enough, the case will be referred to the FBI. The FBI won't/wouldn't get involved until the IRS brought them in as a result of their audit.

The tax return release "issue" is nothing but political theater and - if released - political fodder.

You can have the debate on Trump's tax return in this thread. I'm trying to get people to better understand their tax liability and how the new law affects them.

LOL Run don't walk.

I'm not into derailing the thread here. I have no idea why he won't release his return. If I cared, I'd study his PFS instead. There is already a government agency charged with verifying the accuracy of income tax returns. I have no idea if he is hiding anything...that is the job of the IRS.

FWIW, I doubt I could make much sense of his tax returns and I do that for a living. If he releases his tax returns without the supporting documents, what do you think would/could be "found"? A math error? His PFS will show his income...his tax return will show his tax. The income - and the source of the income - is what matters...and that would be found on the PFS.

From/to what?

Am I the only one that noticed once Tax Liability was explained, the conversation went straight to Trump?

Why are we focusing on Trump for a thread about Tax Time??

Everything you have stated in regards to Tax returns and Tax liability to the best of my knowledge, is spot on. I am not a tax professional, however I do my own and being in the financial industry I see quite a bit of them when processing loans, verifying income, etc.

FYI - since we are so worried about Trump. A tax return shows how much income is reported. It DOES NOT SHOW where that income came from. A financial statement details where what income came from what source. To those who think Trumps tax returns are going to show that Russia sent him millions of dollars, it wont - even if they did.

I do appreciate the response.

When it comes to the tax rate on the wealthiest - and your previous quote (I'm going from memory - don't shoot me) that the top 10% pay 70% of either all tax or income tax ...... I do think that looking at the 10% and the 1% is worthwhile. If the top 10% have more than 70% of the wealth/income/increase in net worth why wouldn't they pay at least that much? And in every country I know - there is a sliding scale and as your income increases (from whatever source) more you pay more tax up to a threshold. That threshold and what's reasonable can be hotly debated.

As for my sentence and how you rewrote it - that would be one way to make it clearer. Another would be to accentuate the difference between the two groups and add the word 'just' ... Those that I know personally pay the least as a % of their income, just like Trump and Buffet - they take advantage of loopholes and end up paying comparatively little.

Really, you don't understand that? Really

Did you notice who I responded to when HE brought up about Trumps Taxes? Did you miss that.

Tax Returns are considered private and protected by law as such, so he has no legal reason to do so. Just because people want him to , does not mean he has to.
I would not have thought any different for anyone, president or not, I don't understand what people think they will find out by seeing the tax returns. As WSU said, we wouldn't understand what we were looking at anyway. People would focus on the final dollar amount, without knowing how they got to that number.

Nope, I saw you whine about trump/buffets tax returns, when you were told by someone who is much more versed on the subject, what is more important.

A fact that has been stated multiple times on these boards. Yet you still cry foul about something that honestly is not important. You already proved you don't know the different between tax refund and tax liability, so what are you going to explain to the rest of us about the returns he would release?

And if I am not mistaken, there were returns released previously showing he paid MORE TAXES than Bernie. Weird.

I don't know if Trump is dirty. Honestly, I assume ALL BILLIONARES have some feet in the mud. Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, and the above mentioned Trump as well at one point or another.

But a tax return will not show that. It will only show the number he received in income, hit tax liability, etc. It wont show where the income came from as far as if it was Russia, China, etc.

I was asking about the 0% rate, not the 20%. I know the 20% rate applies to married filing jointly past $479k. I was under the impression that 15% applied to those filers who were in the 22% bracket or higher, at least up until the 20% bracket takes over.

For 40 or so years, every presidential candidate has provided them.. Trump himself said he would, then lied and said he was under audit so he couldn't. Yes he could have.

he just doesn't want to... What's he hiding

Fairness is never based in reality, but it is how people perceive reality. There is no such thing in nature, as 'fair', it is a concept that humans apply to situations, like all other ontological concepts, it's extremely subjective with just the slight anchor to reality. To give a quick example, saying something is fair, is like saying something is beautiful, it 100% is only beautiful to the eye of the beholder. You ask someone else, they may say it looks like a baboon's arse.

Fairness is often brought up in the tax code along with the idea of a flat tax, because people think that's the most fair. However, it ignores how different people make their money, but most importantly, what our government spends money on. To quickly point out how ridiculous the idea of 'fair' and 'obscene' in your example, take the disabled person who cannot leave their house. Whether they're a cripple or have agoraphobia, the specifics don't matter for the example, however we know that the person can't leave their house. Should they be taxed for roads they can't use? Federal Parks they can't play in? Schools that they don't use? Well, under the idea of fairness, they probably should not. If someone doesn't use something, they shouldn't have to pay for it, goes conventional wisdom. Should there be an agoraphobia tax break?

Finally though, the idea of fairness in the tax code is bonkers, because it ignores how the US spends its money. The majority of the federal spending goes to military, which goes to pay for all the bases, weapons, vehicles, salaries, the yada yadas, and so on. Now who gets more of a benefit from our military state? The average person in middle America who works for an American company that only does business in the Americas. Or the fortune 500 executives who oversee a global business where military force is often used to keep global employees in line. Who benefited more from the war against terror, oil companies or guys like me and you, who have never been threatened by Muslims extremists and literally don't have to worry about them every day? I do agree that we should make our tax code work for everyone instead of the select few, which is why I've always been in favor of taxing companies more as well as those within the top 3% the most. I'm curious, and of course, you don't have to disclose, but do you do any taxes for anyone in the top 3% of earners? What have their taxes looked like compared to the average American?

This is a comment by WSU that I was responding to.. Nothing else.. That's the comment that took us down this rabbit hole.. That's a move off topic, but I didn't make that move, I responded to it.

As far as Netflix is concerned, I also have no idea why they should ever pay taxes under any iteration or version of our recent tax bills. We'll have to completely change how we think of ecommerce before they should ever have to pay taxes.

I understand why some think trying to hold Trump to the same standard as every president over the past 50 years seems so unfair. It's called partisanship.

To answer your last question(s). I do not have any clients in the top 3% of earners or income. However, if they have earned income and are in that 3%, there are no magical loopholes or tax breaks that open up for them that would not open for family #2 in my example...meaning there aren't any new breaks for that group...only higher marginal tax rates.

FWIW, the rest of your last post is very reasonable and I agree with most of it...maybe all of it actually. However, my reference to obscene and/or fair circles back to my point of 'how much more paid in is enough'?

If a family that paid in $120,000 in federal taxes now pays in $105,000 due to the tax breaks, that doesn't mean they aren't still paying in an awful lot of $$$. Of my higher, taxpaying clients...far and away the majority are ok with paying more - and paying at higher rates even - but they've had enough of politicians making them out to be evil and making them out to be people who 'don't pay any (or enough) taxes'. Hence my (and their) question of how-much-is-enough?

Another rabbit hole I won't go down. Your point doesn't change the fact that people who can't understand their own return will not gleen anything of value from a return like Trump's surely is.

It's political theater and fodder...but is better than focusing on the new jobs, unemployment rate, the economy etc.

Your posts have been very informative and interesting.

A far cry from the usual monkeys throwing their poop around here.

Thanks!

Once again, those who support him do not feel he should be held to the same standard as every president for the past 60 years. And they have a myriad of excuses for it.

So which one are you? Hear no evil, speak no evil or see no evil?

This site has a good table...remember...it's based on taxable income...not total income or adjusted gross income.

I already know Trump is a very wealthy person. I've looked at his PFS. I'm not going to gain any new, valuable insight by seeing his tax return. Maybe you will...I don't know.

I don't have an excuse, I just don't care to waste the time complaining about not seeing something I won't look at anyway...and especially so if it were something I wouldn't understand anyway.