Closing Loopholes for the Rich will hurt everyone
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
August 4, 2011 10:57pm CST
First a loophole is a legitimate tax deduction created by Congress that can be used by all citizens.
If we close some of the loopholes that are being talked about - the home mortgage interest, and the charitable contributions loopholes. While visiting family in another state we drove by a hospital I remember as a child. It was one large building. Now it is completely gone and in its place are several larger building such as the Martha Smith Cancer Research Center, or the John Doe Trauma Center and Rehabilitation Center, or the Sam and Mary Rich Children's Hospital. These and many other buildings and wings of the different buildings were made possible not bu tax payer money but by Evil Rich People who wanted to avoid paying taxes (or in most cases wanted to do something for the community and the people). By donating several million dollars they can spread the tax deduction over several years by paying part of the donation every year. Such donations are great for people who are treated at these hospitals and clinics but also for the community because of the number of skilled and semi skilled people that are employed. In this hospital people come from hundreds of miles to be treated. Is that a loophole you want closed.
If you look at the other donations that people make to colleges to build buildings or to fund a teaching position or for scholarships. Money given to churches, schools, community groups, youth groups and groups that help single parents, battered and/or abused women, and animal shelters to name a few would no longer have the funding they were used to.
If the mortgage interest deductions was eliminated demand for housing would be reduced, home builders would be cut back and people may choose not to remodel their homes.
If these two loopholes were closed for the rich it would not be too long before the rich became the middle class and finally the loopholes 9deductions) would be eliminated for all people. If that happened we would all be paying higher taxes and not just the rich. In addition to higher taxes we would be losing things we take for granted.
2 people like this
7 responses
@RBBantiles (347)
• Philippines
5 Aug 11
You are right on this one. But how about the tax loopholes and subsidies to the big companies like the big oil corporations? Would you like these loopholes and subsidies to continue?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
5 Aug 11
If you want to see how evil big business is just look at the donation charts for charitable organizations like Give Kids the World. Their biggest donor is the big, evil, horrible, Walmart! I know we're taught to hate big oil and with good cause. Those evil oil companies are the ones heating our homes, fueling our cars, and providing jobs for Americans. I assure you, if you look at their books you will see big charitable donations as well.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
6 Aug 11
One of the "loop holes" they want to close for big oil is the accelerated depreciation schedule. That is the cost of drilling and producing oil is spread out over 5 years rather than 10 years. This means they pay less taxes but they are also encouraged(by the tax code) to produce more oil. Big oil also pays a royalty on every barrel of Oil that comes from a government oil lease on government property. When the President stopped drilling in most of the Gulf of Mexico he cut the revenue to the government also. One of the unintended consequences was that oil companies moved to other countries and made more money but never brought the money back to the US and therefore they made billions and paid little or no tax because the money was made outside the US. Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face - no royalties and not tax revenue. Add to that the fact that the government paid companies to produce "green energy" and gave them a tax credit and they pay no royalties. GE made millions and paid no taxes and many of the "green" jobs created were overseas. The problem is not big oil or big business it is big government.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
7 Aug 11
I would actually support removing all "loop holes", but in place of that, lowering taxes.
Instead of 30% Capital gains, lets drop that to 10% and remove all the loopholes.
I don't like the idea of any loop hole or tax deduction. The idea that government gets to deem me unworthy of a tax cut, because I bought a 96 Grand Marquis, while this rich guy over here gets a huge cut because he could afford a Toyota Prius... um. no.
What happened to equality under the law. Oh, so those people government approves of are more equal than others? Because he did something government likes, and I didn't? Isn't this supposed to be a government by the people, not a government over the people?
Government should never be picking winners and losers with arbitrary rules.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
6 Aug 11
In regards to the charitable donation loophole - this encourages a basic American action. However, the liberals want all "charity" to be controlled and doled out by the federal government. This is another way that they want to take any kind of control from the tax payer. For instance, I do not want my tax money to go to Planned Pregnancy however I donate regularly to The Pregnancy Resource Center.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
7 Aug 11
The basic idea behind the tax code is that the people could support those things that they thought important. Charities that did not receive the support of the people would go wanting. Such a thing happened after 9/11. The American Red Cross had so many donations for the 9/11 victims that they diverted some of the funds to other disasters. People were upset and the Red Cross changed to collecting for disasters in general but still allowed people to give to a specific. When the government takes in the tax money and then decides what charities are most in need you have no control and the charities look to pleasing the government rather than the people.
I received an email the other day asking that I contact my congressmen about funding for Lung Cancer that is not smoking related. The Government has decided that smoking related Lung Cancer is important and is funding only that research. According to the email between 1/3 and 1/2 of all lung cancer is not related to smoking but receives no Government funding and most of the big research schools focus only on Smoking related Lung Cancer. I don't know if this is true or not but why should the government be the one to decide who gets funded or not?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Aug 11
"Loophole" is another term that has become misused almost on a regular basis. It has never meant "tax deduction" or even "subsidy"
A "loophole" is used when unscrupulous people try to get away with something that is inherently illegal, by twisting the wording of a law.
Now people use it to discredit legitimate tax deductions and other laws because they are jealous of the people who are willing to use them.
Almost all tax deductions are open to every taxpayer, regardless of income, but since most middle class and poor people use standard deduction, they choose not to use them.
I often challenge people who resent tax deductions to use them. But of course, most people refuse because it's "too much work".
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
5 Aug 11
Yeah, I constantly tell people that they are just as capable of writing off "business lunches" and travel expenses as any CEO. My wife tracks, calculates, and writes of her business expenses diligently even though the net profits from her business are relatively miniscule and sometimes nonexistent after business expenses. You don't need to be a Fortune 500 company to use those deductions. You just need turbotax home business edition.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
7 Aug 11
First of all, I'm not in favor of ending tax deductions for charitable contributions as long as they're legitimate regardless of income but I do think maybe they're should be an income ceiling for the mortgage deduction. I'm not really sure about that one, to be honest. Anyway, I'm a bit confused by your reasoning that without these and other loopholes the rich will become the middle class; I think the REAL danger is that the middle class is disappearing to the point of being almost gone as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class become part of the working poor. Without the spending power of the "middle class", where will most of the "rich" get the money to stay that way?
What I feel absolutely needs to be done is the Bush tax cuts needs to finally be allowed to expire as they were intended to when the bills were written and passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law a Republican President. Considering the gains they've made during the past decade while the rest of us have lost ground or stood still, why shouldn't income earners pay an extra $30 in federal income taxes for every $1000 they earn over a certain amount such as $250,000? Who among us really thinks of someone earning over $250,000 per year as "middle class"? I realize it doesn't go as far in some parts of the country than others and there should be allowances for that but for most of us $250,000 is still a lot of money. Would it really be a horrible "punishment" for them to pay an extra $30 per year per $1000 over that amount? Would their lifestyles be so destroyed the economy would come to a grinding halt? I don't think so!
I don't think the rich are vile and evil nor do I think they should be expected to should the entire burden but I DO think if the poor, the elderly, children, the sick and disabled and working families are expected to participate in this "shared sacrifice" so should those who have so much more to give back.
Annie
@ReViewMeMedia (3786)
• United States
5 Aug 11
I don't get the whole "Rich people are EEEEVVILLLL!" mentality that the media loves to portray, sure there are people who get rich by scamming people but most people work hard to make money and if they get rich it's because they worked hard and earned it. And lots of them give to charity too.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
6 Aug 11
If you study American history you will learn about the Robber Barons of this country and how evil they were. Recently I read a book called A Patriots Guide to American History. Frederick Weyerhaeuser the Lumber Barron owned the land that he cut trees from and planted 3 trees for every one cut down. The Government sold the timber on public lands and didn't require replanting. John Rockerfeller the oil Barron. He was a wealthy man when he developed the process that could extract Kerosene from oil and used it as a source for light and it was cheaper than whale oil which was becoming so expensive that most households could not afford it. Gustavus Franklin Swift who developed the first practical ice cooled rail car to deliver meat world wide and brought cheap meat to the US and world. He also developed other uses for the by products. These are just a few of the robber Barons that we learned about and how they cheated people when they were innovative men who had the opportunity to do good for mankind and made money doing it. they also gave back much of their fortune to help the people who used their products. We should be singing praises to these men and what they did for this country and the world rather than degrading them for becoming rich.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Aug 11
It's simply, it's the bigotry that is socially acceptable.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
5 Aug 11
I agree with ParaTed. Calling these "loopholes" makes these legitimate tax deductions seem dirty or evil.
Some people don't understand the application of the two deductions you mention because they just take the standard deductions as someone above has already mentioned. I remember being on the border line between standard deduction and itemizing in terms of which would give me the best benefit. It came down to donations which I had but was low on. The next year I spent ALOT more on donations knowing that I'd get some of it back. Hopefully wealther people see it that wya as well.
I am deservedly despised I suppose for saying more taxes are necessary right now, but I have no desire to remove these legitimate tax breaks.
I know it's off topic but the only comment that upsets me is thinking we need more housing construction just to maintain the economy. You also mention housing improvements and restoration and that is where we need to be focusing in the housing market. For every house I see being built around here, it looks like ten are going empty. I'll look up numbers on this later, but I urge people to support reusing existing structures and quit allowing inner cities, small downtowns and older suburbs to fall into shambles.
Recycling includes buildings!
Love,
The Reused Rat
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
6 Aug 11
many of the houses you see in disrepair and unoccupied are owned by the government and they don't want to sell them because it will decrease the value of existing and new homes. How many home builders would buy city blocks of houses if they were sold and fix them up for resale if the government would sell them rather than manipulate the market like they are doing.
