The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sales.

Yes it could, back before the Reagan years!!!

 

You haven't checked the rules since the 1980s. Sales tax hasn't been deductible on US federal income
tax for about 2 decades. Gone are the days of saving every receipt in a shoebox (remember that?) to add
up that sales tax at the end of the year.

 

Steve,
Dude, you SERIOUSLY need to bump up your W-4 deductions (assuming they
let you -- here in Michigan, they don't ).

 

Contrary to your assertion that people who don't itemize are getting something
they are not "actually entitled to," tax code makes it clear that they are
entitled to, by law.

I read just fine, thagnk you.

That's right. You will note that I mentioned exactly this in my earlier
statement.

Your are entitled to the highest deduction that the law allows. For some, the
highest deduction is the standard deduction, for others, it is their itemized
deductions.

With the standard deduction, expenses are not relevant. Think of the standard
deduction as a way of reducing everybody's adjusted income at least x dollars.
The tax code is a composite of credits, deductions, rates, etc. People are
entitled to what the law permits.

If that's what you think, buddy, you sure screwed up. Care to try to explain
your creative reasoning?

 

| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:34:38 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
|
| >Steve Barker wrote:
| >> And as I stated in my email, you are wrong. It doesn't "SEEM" anything.
We
| >> have to claim last years refund as this years income on the state return.
| >> Just as stated before. There also is no deduction from the federal return
| >> for the state tax.
| >
| >
| >If you itemize deductions on your 1040, then you can claim state taxes
| >as a deduction.
|
| Further, if you don't itemize, you get the standard deduction, which
| is far higher than most people are actually entitled to.

Huh?! Your statement doesn't make sense. Tax law says that most people ARE
entitled to the standard deduction, otherwise the official IRS forms/worksheets
would not have been designed as such. Or is it more your opinion that "most
people" are not entitled to the standard deduction amount? (legally they are
though) If it's your opinion (and that's fine), what is the basis for your
opinion on that?

 

Why?? So I can owe them each year? Yes, I know, I could make better use of
the money, but for us it has worked well to be able to buy something nice
each year, where as if we changed the deductions, then we wouldn't save, and
we'd have nothing except a tax to pay each april. I like it this way. But
I understand your point.

 

Well you can pay them now or you can pay them later. But remember the time
value of money. Why pay them now and let the government play with your money
before you have to?

Why do you need the government to make you save? Why not just save?

 

Except if you have a small business you can write off the Hummer in
the first year. No need to show that the business needs a Hummer as
opposed to a subcompact that could not be written off so quickly.
Supposed to be used only for business but I would guess that these
things see a lot of personal use.

 

If you don't have the discipline to save and invest the money, then
letting the IRS hold onto for free is probably better than blowing it.
However, if you changed your withholdings, took the difference and
invested it, you could buy something even nicer each year as you'd have
the money, PLUS the interest it earned over the course of a year.


Matt

 

James C. Reeves wrote in rec.autos.misc

I think it was poor wording on his part. What I think he means is that
the standard deduction is higher than most people are entitled to by
itemising their deductions.

--
Dick #1349
Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me.
To her housekeeper, who had begun to pray aloud.
~~ Joan Crawford, actress, d. May 10, 1977
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

 

Right on! Thanks, Matt.

Or, Steve, if you're going to give someone a free loan, give it to your
kids, or parents, or siblings, or an enterprising young person you know.
There are MANY better places for YOUR money, if you just want to give it
away!!!

 

He's also welcome to send it to me each month and I'll hold onto through
the year for him and then send it to him around April 15th of the
following year.


Matt

 

A note of irony: We're using the internet (ne ARPAnet) which was developed
at government expense to gripe about the government not giving us anything
useful for our money.

 

That's right. Sales tax as an itemized deduction was eliminated by
one of the Reagan tax cuts. Interest on consumer debt also became
non-deductable.

State Income tax remains deductible. That is because it is neutral or
progressive in how it varies with income levels. To understand how
tax decisions are being made in this country, all you have to do is
look at how progressive or regressive each tax is.


Progressive Taxes
(shift burden to rich) Current Trend

Earned Income tax (Fed) Decreasing and becoming less progressive
Luxury tax Eliminated
Cap Gains tax Decreasing, calls for elimination
Dividend tax Decreasing, calls for elimination
Estate tax Being eliminated
Real Estate tax Increasing (proceeds to local
schools, services)
Business income tax Decreasing
Wealth tax What's that?



Regressive Taxes
(shift burden to
poor/middle) Current Trend

Social Security tax Increasing, Benefits decreasing
Medicare tax Increasing
Sales tax Steady to Increasing
Use taxes Steady to Increasing

 

However the loophole is that you can take a loan out on your home and
pay off the consumer debt then deduct the interest.

You forgot the state lotteries. Studies show that the poor play the lottery
a lot more than the rich do, probably because they can't afford to run
to Vegas to do their gambling, or they don't understand odds or some such.

Ted

 

The truth is, though, that the standard deduction is a fiction.

What the government does is not unlike a retailer, they give you a series of
fat credits, like the standard deduction, exemptions, etc. then they jack up
the percentages in the tax tables. So people end up paying them what they
want, but the stupid ones are conned into believing that just because they
are
married, or have a lot of kids, or some such, that they are "getting"
something
from the government via the tax exemptions/deductions/etc.

There's really only a few ways that an ordinary person can really and truly
reduce the amount of money they pay the government. One way is to
buy a house and carry enough of a mortgage on it that the interest written
off exceeds the standard deduction - once that happens you can then
take advantage of a whole collection of pork barrel writeoffs that various
special
interest groups have inserted in the tax code. Another way is to save via
an IRA. And another way is to run a business out of your home. But
beyond that, the loopholes that regular people can take advantage of have
pretty much been completely removed.

Ted

 

But, depending on your tax bracket, you pay 3 dollars or more in
interest to save a dollar on your income tax. Hardly a great trade.
Can you outline some of these pork barrel write-offs as I have a large
mortgage and am able each year to easily itemize, but I sure haven't
found all of these write-offs you allude to.

An IRA is a pretty good deal that most should take advantage of, but
often don't. Few Americans really have any saving discipline at all.


Matt

 

That's why the lottery is called a tax on people who are bad at math.

Perhaps you've hear it said that the chances of winning the lottery are
similar to knowing someone that lives in New York City, but no clue as
to where within the city, then picking a house totally at random
anywhere in the city, knocking on the front door, and the person who you
were looking for answers the door. Hard to imagine a person too stupid
to understand that, but there must be plenty of 'em.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

">

Well that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that
someone is going to win. There's no way you can control who wins, but there
is one sure way to control who does NOT win. -Dave

 

If that's a justification for playing, that's pretty lame - see "tax on
people who are bad at math" in my earlier post.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")