$447 bil

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Sorry, but I was born for fancy talk. For instance asking questions like, "If you don't want to be taxed based on your investment earnings, then why should you be able to claim your losses as a deduction?"

Who is saying investment earnings shouldn't be taxed?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Sorry, but I was born for fancy talk. For instance asking questions like, "If you don't want to be taxed based on your investment earnings, then why should you be able to claim your losses as a deduction?"

Well...
I WAS going to surf me some porn.
You just put a stop to that now didn't you.
prick

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

How many times are the Middle Class taxed?

It depends on your definition of middle class but for many it is once.*


*For purposes of this discussion: exclude all taxes "everyone" pays such as sales tax, property tax, etc.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Who is saying investment earnings shouldn't be taxed?

I'm saying it should be taxed as income, because that's what it is.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

I know a few in the middle brackets using nothing more than good ole fashioned deductions.

What exactly is a "loophole" in the tax law?

It's like shoelaces but with words and money, from what I understand...

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.htm

Por ejemplo...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...loopholes.html

But if you want a semantic argument as to whether various technicalities in legalese qualify as "tax loopholes" or just "poor wording," I'm not really interested. If there's no such thing as a "tax loophole," then there's also no such thing as "price gouging," "slave wages," etc. etc.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

But if you want a semantic argument as to whether various technicalities in legalese qualify as "tax loopholes" or just "poor wording," I'm not really interested. If there's no such thing as a "tax loophole," then there's also no such thing as "price gouging," "slave wages," etc. etc.

No...arguing over stupid bullshit as a device to redirect a pissing match is something I tried to avoid and go fuck your self for trying to start an argument by accusing me of redirecting my pee.


I asked for a the meaning of Tax Loophole for clarity.
Common definitions\usage out in the real world do not always carry over to interwebz\forum\thread world and I don't like to enter pissing matches on topics riding on a cloud of misunderstanding (unless my patience or mood demands it).

This exemplifies a tax loophole -- the original intent is not illegal, but the definition can be exploited for personal gain.

A tax loophole is usually considered a murky legal maneuver. Many legitimate business and personal deductions are already well-defined in the existing tax codes. Some individuals and corporations may feel comfortable claiming even more deductions based on the ambiguity of the tax language. If the filer's tax records are selected for an audit, all of these deductions can be called into question. Because of this yearly auditing process, most tax loopholes rarely survive more than a few years before some corrective legislative action is taken.

Ok

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

No...arguing over stupid bullshit as a device to redirect a pissing match is something I tried to avoid and go fuck your self for trying to start an argument by accusing me of redirecting my pee.

I had to read this sentence 5 times.

Not because it was hard to understand, I just liked visualizing pauldun as a glam sticker on the back window of a lift-kitted F-150. Right next to the inevitable rebel flag. And/or "No Fear" decal.

That's my bad, I understood the term "tax loophole" to be fairly universal, so I assumed you were being rhetorical. Of course, that raises the topic of why I would feel the need to respond to a rhetorical question, and whether that need denotes some form of megalomania. Which are also rhetorical questions.

This thread is about porn, right?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I had to read this sentence 5 times.

Not because it was hard to understand, I just liked visualizing pauldun as a glam sticker on the back window of a lift-kitted F-150. Right next to the inevitable rebel flag. And/or "No Fear" decal.

That's my bad, I understood the term "tax loophole" to be fairly universal, so I assumed you were being rhetorical. Of course, that raises the topic of why I would feel the need to respond to a rhetorical question, and whether that need denotes some form of megalomania. Which are also rhetorical questions.

This thread is about porn, right?

I'm not even kidding when I say the following:
In my attempt to hide a slight chuckle (actually..more of a hmmmph + small grin) in the office, I ended up letting loose a giggle like that of a little girl. As I tried to suppress that little giggle...I let out a small fart.


I really need to relax more and not be so damn reserved.

[fatbuckRTO]

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm saying it should be taxed as income, because that's what it is.

When it comes to long term investment income the US Government disagrees.