tax break for suv drivers.

[Sushi X]

SUV, truck owners get a big tax break

Loophole allows hefty write-off for vehicles

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Eligible vehicles


Here are the 38 light truck models that qualify for an extra $24,000 accelerated depreciation tax break:
BMW X5
Cadillac Escalade
Chevy Astro
Chevy Avalanche
Chevy Express
Chevy Silverado
Chevy Suburban
Chevy Tahoe
Dodge Durango
Dodge Ram Van
Dodge Ram Maxi Van
Dodge Ram Wagon
Dodge Ram 1500
Dodge Ram 2500
Dodge Ram 3500
Ford Excursion
Ford Expedition
Ford Econoline E-150
Ford Econoline E-250
Ford Econoline E-350
Ford F-150
Ford F-250
Ford F-350
GMC Yukon
GMC Safari
GMC Savana
GMC Sierra
GMC Sierra Denali
Land Rover Discovery
Land Rover Range Rover
Lincoln Blackwood
Lincoln Navigator
Mercedes ML 320
Mercedes ML 500
Mercedes ML55 AMG
Toyota Land Cruiser
Toyota Sequoia
Toyota Tundra




Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery


WASHINGTON -- Karl Wizinsky wasn't thinking about buying a new vehicle, and certainly not a big SUV. So why is there a brand-new $47,000 Ford Excursion sitting in his driveway?

He was able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense.

"We really did it because it was a pretty hefty deduction," said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi.

At the same time the tax code sanctions $30,000 write-offs for SUVs, prospective purchasers of a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles qualify for a relatively small $4,000 tax credit.

A deal to extend similar tax credits to other environmentally friendly vehicles remains stalled in Congress.

It's all legal, and accountants and auto dealers are beginning to catch on.

"If it can save the consumer money, it's most likely that the dealer is going to know about it," said Andrew Beck, spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers Association. So far, there is no indication anyone in Congress wants to close the loophole. In fact, even higher depreciation tax breaks are on the table as part of the next round of tax cuts President Bush is planning.

The SUV tax break is becoming a staple of advice in the accounting world, as small business owners such as Wizinsky are advised on ways to reduce end-of-the-year tax bills.

The size of the tax break has been growing under a schedule that became law in 1996. That's when Congress changed tax law to encourage business investment.

The scale of the tax break surprises accountants and tax experts, who feel bound to recommend SUVs and other light trucks to small-business clients.

"As I understood it, the reason (for the tax break) is to encourage business investment. That's what happened in my case," Wizinsky said.

At the same time, the tax break seems to contradict other national goals, such as improving vehicle fuel efficiency. A more economical fleet would aid two important national goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gasses.

The total cost of the loophole hasn't been calculated by the government, but Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan Washington watchdog group, estimates the SUV tax loophole could cost taxpayers between $840 million and $987 million for every 100,000 vehicles sold to businesses.

Aileen Roder, the group's program director, questioned whether there is a national need to subsidize sales of the largest light trucks -- given Americans are buying SUVs in record numbers.

"This is one of the most lucrative breaks in the tax code," Roder said. "We're making it a fiscal no-brainer for businesses to buy giant SUVs."

To get an idea of the scale of the SUV tax break, a credit aimed at making it easier for small businesses to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act costs $525 million per 100,000 uses.

A tax credit to reimburse teachers for classroom supplies annually costs the treasury $250 million per 100,000 uses.

And a provision allowing taxpayers to put up to $3,000 of tax-free earnings per year in private retirement accounts costs about $90 million per 100,000 taxpayers, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

There are long-standing limits on deductions to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing luxury-car purchases. But the limits do not apply to 38 light trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or more, including the Cadillac Escalade, Dodge Durango, Excursion and Lincoln Navigator.

"We recognized it immediately and started informing people about how to use it," said James Jenkins, an accountant in Southfield. "It's just fabulous. My clients have been drooling."

Jenkins said five clients have used the loophole so far and five more are considering it. Jenkins even considered using the break, test-driving several SUVs.

"It makes you think very hard about it," Jenkins said. "But it was a 30 percent larger vehicle than I wanted."

Here's how the SUV tax break works:

Suppose a business owner wants to purchase a $45,000 luxury SUV for use in his business. He or she could write off $24,000 of the cost under section 179 of the tax code as accelerated depreciation. Then the buyer could write off additional depreciation of the remaining $21,000 under a five-year schedule -- 20 percent, or $4,200, in the first year.

That's a total $28,200 tax write-off.

The balance of the vehicle could be written off over the next five years. A more expensive large vehicle, like a Mercedes E-class SUV, a Range Rover or a BMW X5, would qualify for an even greater tax break.

The break for trucks got bigger this year under a schedule Congress adopted in 1996 when businesses could claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment.

That lump sum increased to $20,000 last year. It went up to $24,000 this year. Next year and thereafter the deduction will be $25,000.

In 1996, Congress estimated the five-year cost of the tax break -- for all business equipment -- to be $1.6 billion. But luxury SUVs had barely cracked the market at that time.

IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland said the agency does not keep data on how much the tax break has cost. According to figures supplied by Autodata, there were 3.8 million of the 6,000-pound light truck models sold in 2001.

There are no estimates for how many of the vehicles that qualify were sold to businesses or how many businesses that bought vehicles took advantage of the deduction.

The code is not as generous for luxury cars.

A business owner wanting to purchase a Lincoln Town Car would have to live with a $7,660 deduction, one-fourth what he might save by buying a Lincoln Navigator. It would take more than 15 years to recoup the entire cost of the car.

After Sept. 10, 2004, the luxury-car write-off will revert to $3,060.

Tax experts say the light-truck tax loophole was originally targeted for farmers, so their working pickup trucks would not be treated, for tax purposes, like luxury cars.

There was no mention of the need to stimulate the luxury truck market in the 1996 tax debate.

The House of Representatives attempted to make the SUV tax break even more generous as Congress debated an economic stimulus package in March.

Under the House plan, the cap for accelerated depreciation would have risen from $24,000 to $35,000. That effort died in negotiations with the Senate.

 

[MortyJackson]

They may as well get a tax break since they are spending more money on gas and their cars.

 

[Sushi X]

how is that fair? they use more gas than any of us so they should pay an extra tax for such fuel consumption. why can't i get a tax break for driving a camero that gets 20 miles to the gallon. not much mileage per gallon for the amount of traveling i do to and from work.

 

[jesus 2]

they use more gas than any of us so they should pay an extra tax for such fuel consumption.

they do pay extra tax, when they buy extra fuel...

 

[Warik]

In other words, people who are able to afford such vehicles and, coincidentally, are over-taxed, have a tax loophole at their disposal designed to reduce their net tax rate to less insane levels?

I like it.

Kind of stupid though if you ask me - spend $47,000 to save a few thousand? I mean - DUHR.

Think about it.

Pretend that someone made $100,000 in one year. Taxable at 39.6% is $39,600.

But wait! We deducted $32,000 for our SUV! We now only made $68,000 taxable at ~36% = $24,480.

Scenario A = $100,000 - $39,600 = $60,400
Scenario B = $100,000 - 24,480 = $75,520 - $47,000 = $28,520.

Maybe I'm making an error in logic/math somewhere - but it would appear that we basically spent $47,000 to save negative $31,880. Um - duh?

-Warik

 

[MortyJackson]

how is that fair? they use more gas than any of us so they should pay an extra tax for such fuel consumption. why can't i get a tax break for driving a camero that gets 20 miles to the gallon. not much mileage per gallon for the amount of traveling i do to and from work.

They use more gas then they should get a tax break. They are spending more money which is good for the economy. They are paying taxes on the gas that they buy.

Maybe you do deserve a tax break for your camaro. Maybe we all deserve tax breaks.

 

[Sushi X]

morty, all working class people, and in my opinion because i am one, the working poor deserve a tax break. if my taxes were dropped from 17 percernt to 10 i'd be able to put more money to use which would stimulate the economy, well not just me everyone.

agree with me or not, i just don't like the idea.

warik, they are getting their taxes cut. anyone who makes more than 50k a year will see such wonders, while the likes of me and the working poor will see jack.

 

[MortyJackson]

morty, all working class people, and in my opinion because i am one, the working poor deserve a tax break. if my taxes were dropped from 17 percernt to 10 i'd be able to put more money to use which would stimulate the economy, well not just me everyone.

agree with me or not, i just don't like the idea.

warik, they are getting their taxes cut. anyone who makes more than 50k a year will see such wonders, while the likes of me and the working poor will see jack.

That person is already getting screwed by having to pay a lot more taxes than you do. Why should a certain class of people get any lower tax rate than the wealthy ones? There should be one flat tax rate for every income.

 

[Warik]

all working class people

So the wealthy don't work?

if my taxes were dropped from 17 percernt to 10 i'd be able to put more money to use which would stimulate the economy

Yeah - and if the wealthier's tax rate were dropped from 39.6% to 32.6% they'd be able to put more money - much more money than you presently could - to use which would stimulate the economy. So, since you're so altruistic and only thinking about the greater good, why do you oppose a tax cut to the wealthier citizens?

warik, they are getting their taxes cut. anyone who makes more than 50k a year will see such wonders

I thought the rich didn't pay taxes? Or was that last week's excuse?

-Warik

 

[kunta]

to get that depreciation you have to use it for business purposes that can be documented

 

[Sushi X]

flat tax won't work. say 15%. that 15% impacts those of us who don't make a lot of money more than those who do. why is it fair for them to be taxed the same amount when they make much much more? they way i see it is like this:

less than 10k a year=5%
10k-20k=10%
over 20k but less than 40k=15%
over 40 but less than 75=20%
over 75 but less than 150k=25%
over 150 but less than 300k=30%
over 300k but less than 500k=35%
over 500k capped at 40%

that is fair and reasonable. noone should be taxed over 40% though. i don't care if you make 300mil a year, 40% should be the cap.

 

[Warik]

15% impacts those of us who don't make a lot of money more than those who do.

By what logic?

-Warik

 

[MortyJackson]

flat tax won't work. say 15%. that 15% impacts those of us who don't make a lot of money more than those who do. why is it fair for them to be taxed the same amount when they make much much more? they way i see it is like this:

less than 10k a year=5%
10k-20k=10%
over 20k but less than 40k=15%
over 40 but less than 75=20%
over 75 but less than 150k=25%
over 150 but less than 300k=30%
over 300k but less than 500k=35%
over 500k capped at 40%

that is fair and reasonable. noone should be taxed over 40% though. i don't care if you make 300mil a year, 40% should be the cap.

Its fair because the wealthy earned their money. At a flat tax rate they will still be paying a lot more money than you will. There is no justification for punishing peoples success.

 

[Sushi X]

warik, check the math.

15% of my income which is about 12,000 a year is 1800 dollars.
15% for let's say someone who makes 100,000 a year is 15,000.

yes, that's still more than me. they are left with 85,000 a year to live off of. while i'm left with 10,200 to pay bills and such. you say they earned that money so did i. i'm not mooching of the governmetn, i'm working too. why are they entitled to keep more of there money more than me? cause they're rich? you all tend to forget, it's those of us who earn less that provide the services and goods the wealtier need and use. and they are more deserving.

morty, i'm not talking about punishing people for success, stop listening to rush limbaugh. what i'm talking about is more money for us working poor to be able to have to do things like the wealthier do, such as take a freaking vacation, or be able to go to the doctor when we are sick or hurt. why should we be left out of such things when we work just as hard if not harder. is it because we are not some smuck ceo or some rich kid who inherited his daddy's money? give me a break. you won't understand it until you see it from the eyes of us working poor. not the lazy won't work poor, the get up and go work 5-7 days a week poor who make ends meat.

 

[Sushi X]

warik, check the math.

15% of my income which is about 12,000 a year is 1800 dollars.
15% for let's say someone who makes 100,000 a year is 15,000.

yes, that's still more than me. they are left with 85,000 a year to live off of. while i'm left with 10,200 to pay bills and such. you say they earned that money so did i. i'm not mooching of the governmetn, i'm working too. why are they entitled to keep more of there money more than me? cause they're rich? you all tend to forget, it's those of us who earn less that provide the services and goods the wealtier need and use. and they are more deserving.

morty, i'm not talking about punishing people for success, stop listening to rush limbaugh. what i'm talking about is more money for us working poor to be able to have to do things like the wealthier do, such as take a freaking vacation, or be able to go to the doctor when we are sick or hurt. why should we be left out of such things when we work just as hard if not harder. is it because we are not some smuck ceo or some rich kid who inherited his daddy's money? give me a break. you won't understand it until you see it from the eyes of us working poor. not the lazy won't work poor, the get up and go work 5-7 days a week poor who make ends meat.

 

[MortyJackson]

morty, i'm not talking about punishing people for success, stop listening to rush limbaugh. what i'm talking about is more money for us working poor to be able to have to do things like the wealthier do, such as take a freaking vacation, or be able to go to the doctor when we are sick or hurt. why should we be left out of such things when we work just as hard if not harder. is it because we are not some smuck ceo or some rich kid who inherited his daddy's money? give me a break. you won't understand it until you see it from the eyes of us working poor. not the lazy won't work poor, the get up and go work 5-7 days a week poor who make ends meat.

Why should the wealthy pay to support you? You earn the money yourself and earn your vacations and healthcare. At the flat tax rate the rich still pay a lot more. There is no need for them to pay a higher percentage.

 

[JohnyJuice]

Flat tax is the right thing to do.

Here is a little example for all you.
This is for all those who bitch about the "rich" getting all the breaks. It also shows you the bullshit behind the democrat arguement.

How Taxes Work....

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1;
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18;
and the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. That's what they decided
to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a
curve (in tax language a Tax Cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only
cost
$80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So
the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But
what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six
men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man (who was paying $1) and
the sixth man (who was paying $3) would end up being PAID to eat their
meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work
out
the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing;
The sixth pitched in $2;
The seventh paid $5;
The eighth paid $9;
The ninth paid $12
Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared
the sixth man, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!".

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar,
too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I
got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!".

Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night
he
didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what
was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the
bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how
the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp
this rather straight-forward logic!

 

[HumorMe]

That, JohnyJuice, is exactly how the tax system works. I'm glad you posted that!

People can bitch and complain and beat the rich guys up but they are only fucking themselves without knowing it!

Ignorant fucks!

 

[Sushi X]

morty, when did i say that the wealthy should support me?

i work for my money, as do most rich or wealthy people do. the thing is do they deserve to keep more of their money more than i do and if so why? is it because they have more. all i am saying is that the government is paid for by taxes, the working poor do not make as much as the working wealthy. it's a fact. so i think it's fair for the working poor to be able to keep more of their money, notice their money not the wealthy's money, so they can afford things like food, healthcare, clothes, a vacation once in awhile, and many other things. it's not a lot of money, so why do the wealthy/republicans/conservatives all have to bitch and whine that the working poor want to keep more of their money? if the government could run on a flat tax system great, but it can't. to give the working poor more of their own money they have to cut their taxes, in return the money has to come from somewhere. why not the top 2% of the wealthiest? my not raise their taxes, it's chump change to them, to make up the difference and give the middle class a tax break as well. why? because the working poor insignificant even though we work and pay our taxes as well. the only way the working poor and middle class will ever get a fair tax break is if the government reduces spending and it's size, and the top 2% get a 1-5% tax increase. which is again, chump change to them.

 

[JohnyJuice]

You guys can thank MP5 for that tax assessment.
And Sushi, you said "i work for my money, as do most rich or wealthy people do. the thing is do they deserve to keep more of their money more than i do and if so why? "

They dont deserve to keep moreof their money than you do. They also shouldnt have to pay more. Everyone should pay the same amount, i.e. same percentage.

 

[Sushi X]

well, i'm glad you don't see it like most people do.

again, i restate that in order for a fair tax cut to occur, the gov has to reduce spending and reduce it's size. the top two percent can afford a 1-5% increase which is chump change. but since that will never occur we will continue to have this battle.

 

[JohnyJuice]

well, i'm glad you don't see it like most people do.

again, i restate that in order for a fair tax cut to occur, the gov has to reduce spending and reduce it's size. the top two percent can afford a 1-5% increase which is chump change. but since that will never occur we will continue to have this battle.

Let me get this right... If you are making 100k a year, paying 36k to the government is chump change? I have to disagree with you there. And how do you suppose the government is supposed to cut spending when you and your liberal buddies keep dishing out shit like welfare and medicare for losers and illegal aliens?

 

[Sushi X]

100k a year is not in the top 2%, i was speaking of those who make 10mil a year or more.

what's this you and yours bit? i think illegal alliens should obey the law and leave, we'll provide the bus ride home. you don't think it pisses me off that there are millions out there mooching off the government and not working, getting healthcare and food stamps again while i go to work to make ends meat and cannot get any help(not that i'd ask for it). i am all for putting the welfare burden on churches, non profit organizations, family(if it's you family in need) and communities helping each other. the tax payers should not have to fit the bill. now there are some who cannot work and i don't mind them getting something.

yes, i'm considered liberal by people but i would say i'm moderate/ slightly to the left. i'm what you call a different kind of democrat. so be carefull how you use the blanket "liberal" statement. i disagree on a lot of issues that they propose. especially this anti-gun agenda.

 

[JohnyJuice]

100k a year is not in the top 2%, i was speaking of those who make 10mil a year or more.

what's this you and yours bit? i think illegal alliens should obey the law and leave, we'll provide the bus ride home. you don't think it pisses me off that there are millions out there mooching off the government and not working, getting healthcare and food stamps again while i go to work to make ends meat and cannot get any help(not that i'd ask for it). i am all for putting the welfare burden on churches, non profit organizations, family(if it's you family in need) and communities helping each other. the tax payers should not have to fit the bill. now there are some who cannot work and i don't mind them getting something.

yes, i'm considered liberal by people but i would say i'm moderate/ slightly to the left. i'm what you call a different kind of democrat. so be carefull how you use the blanket "liberal" statement. i disagree on a lot of issues that they propose. especially this anti-gun agenda.

Sorry if my last post came off as hostile. I didnt mean it that way. Well, i agree with everything you said except for the tax deal. Fair is fair. everyone should put in the same percentage. I dont think my mind would ever change as far as that goes. And if your views are what you say they are, you are more right wing than you think.

 

[Sushi X]

nah, in the center or left of center. my generosity only goes so far. trust me, there are many things liberals stand for that i do as well. i won't go into them as there are too many.

dont' worry about the hostile thing, we're all friends here.

 

[MortyJackson]

nah, in the center or left of center. my generosity only goes so far. trust me, there are many things liberals stand for that i do as well. i won't go into them as there are too many.

dont' worry about the hostile thing, we're all friends here.

Liberals are hypocrites. You say the rich should pay more now but if you ever make a decent living you will change your tune. There is no reason why a person who makes more should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Its not you or anyone elses decision what these people can or cant afford. There should be an equal tax rate for everyone. You are using as much or more of the governments services and are already paying less for it. Why should they pay more and get less?

 

[thebabydoc]

warik, check the math.

15% of my income which is about 12,000 a year is 1800 dollars.
15% for let's say someone who makes 100,000 a year is 15,000.

yes, that's still more than me. they are left with 85,000 a year to live off of. while i'm left with 10,200 to pay bills and such. you say they earned that money so did i. i'm not mooching of the governmetn, i'm working too. why are they entitled to keep more of there money more than me? cause they're rich? you all tend to forget, it's those of us who earn less that provide the services and goods the wealtier need and use. and they are more deserving.

morty, i'm not talking about punishing people for success, stop listening to rush limbaugh. what i'm talking about is more money for us working poor to be able to have to do things like the wealthier do, such as take a freaking vacation, or be able to go to the doctor when we are sick or hurt. why should we be left out of such things when we work just as hard if not harder. is it because we are not some smuck ceo or some rich kid who inherited his daddy's money? give me a break. you won't understand it until you see it from the eyes of us working poor. not the lazy won't work poor, the get up and go work 5-7 days a week poor who make ends meat.

You're kidding, right?
Do you think that they just give out money because you're handsome and witty like me?
I make what I make because I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours into my education and now routinely work 100+ hour weeks. It is absolutely absurd to say that people like me haven't earned every dolar we make. Now if you want to talk about atheletes and actors....

 

[FLASHMAN1]

warik, check the math.

15% of my income which is about 12,000 a year is 1800 dollars.
15% for let's say someone who makes 100,000 a year is 15,000.

yes, that's still more than me. they are left with 85,000 a year to live off of. while i'm left with 10,200 to pay bills and such. you say they earned that money so did i. i'm not mooching of the governmetn, i'm working too. why are they entitled to keep more of there money more than me? cause they're rich? you all tend to forget, it's those of us who earn less that provide the services and goods the wealtier need and use. and they are more deserving.

morty, i'm not talking about punishing people for success, stop listening to rush limbaugh. what i'm talking about is more money for us working poor to be able to have to do things like the wealthier do, such as take a freaking vacation, or be able to go to the doctor when we are sick or hurt. why should we be left out of such things when we work just as hard if not harder. is it because we are not some smuck ceo or some rich kid who inherited his daddy's money? give me a break. you won't understand it until you see it from the eyes of us working poor. not the lazy won't work poor, the get up and go work 5-7 days a week poor who make ends meat.

this doesn't happen often, but I'm with Warik here... This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read... How do you figure that because I make more than you, I should have to pay a higher percentage of taxes than you? If I make $80k per year, and you make $15k, why should I have to pay a higher percentage? 15% is 15%, so because I work harder I should be penalized by paying a higher percentage of taxes??? that's stupid. A flat tax would work fine, it just wouldn't subsidize mooching, lazy,couch potatoes to encourage nothing but breeding yet another generation of lazy, mooching couch potatoes...

 

[WODIN]

This is the proper way to look at the SUV deal..

person A works a 9-5 company job
Person B works independently, has a small buis.

The write over 4 years (deperciation is taken against gross income and a 4500 first year reduction nets you back cash in effect 1260 bucks or 28% of the 4500 to arrive at AGI before tax).



A (JOB) B (SBO)
Income 100,000 100,000

FIT 28,000 28,000

Net Inc. 72,000 72,000


SUV Exp 6,600 6,600

65,400 65,400

Depr. Rec. 0 1,260

Net Affect 65,400 66,660

 

[Sushi X]

Liberals are hypocrites. You say the rich should pay more now but if you ever make a decent living you will change your tune. There is no reason why a person who makes more should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Its not you or anyone elses decision what these people can or cant afford. There should be an equal tax rate for everyone. You are using as much or more of the governments services and are already paying less for it. Why should they pay more and get less?

how am i using more of the government's services? maybe as much or even less but not more. i don;t ask for handouts or whatever. i earn my money and pay my bills. all i am wanting is a tax cut for people in my wage bracket. but like always we get left out.

 

[Sushi X]

You're kidding, right?
Do you think that they just give out money because you're handsome and witty like me?
I make what I make because I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours into my education and now routinely work 100+ hour weeks. It is absolutely absurd to say that people like me haven't earned every dolar we make. Now if you want to talk about atheletes and actors....

babydock, i understand what you are saying. those who work hard to get through school and in their jobs deserve a break. you maybe more than most cause you have to pay back loans, i assume you do, which will take years. what gets me is the super rich who inherited their money and don't work or do little of it.

i agree with you on the athletes and actors thing, that's plain stupid to pay someone 5 million a year to throw a football. that's why i prefer college ball over pro. don't get me started on basketball and baseball players.

 

[Sushi X]

wodin, i never said it was bad for small business owners. i think they do need a break so they can afford to run their business and maybe hire more people. fortune 500 companies, many whom get corporate welfare, do not need such breaks. i wont go into the big corporations as that's another argument, but for small businesses it's a good idea. it can be hard to run your own business as is.

 

[WODIN]

I'm n0t saying it's bad sushi, I was just clarifying the example...I'm looking at the Envoy myself.

LOL!!!

 

[bigguns7]

the top two percent can afford a 1-5% increase which is chump change

O, so now we're supposed to tax people on what they "can afford?"

You're making the most asinine points I've ever seen. You're saying things like people who inherit money don't deserve to kep as much as people who earn it. You're saying that if someone makes $100k a year, he won't miss an extra $5k because it's "chump change." You're complaining about the plight of the "working poor." If you're "working poor," get off your ass and do something with your life. Make something of yourself and strive to be somebody who actually thinks $5k is "chump change."

When your'e "working poor," it's easy to claim that 5% of someone else's money is "chump change."

 

[Sushi X]

you think it's that easy to get off my ass and make something of myself. i work my ass off and can't afford to go to school. my financial aid was cut cause i had to chose between classes and paying bills, mainly my car note. working poor aren't lazy we work just as hard maybe even more than you do but get paid less. and fyi, i'm trying to get into management where i work now so i can make a better living. those of you who have money think it's so easy to do things, you can keep living in that fantasy world too.

and as for 5%, i always said i'd take an that much extra out of my paycheck in order to have medical insurance. not too many people poor or not would say that, but seeing as how i am willing to work for what i want and need i will pay the extra bit to get insurance. bigguns, i am the working poor. i'm not saying things are totally bad, they could be better. i don't want to be rich or even get ahead, i just want to be even.

here's a bit of info for you, here in alabama, the more money you make the less state tax you pay. that's complete bs and totally unfair. but then again alabama is a republican state.

 

[Sushi X]

I'm n0t saying it's bad sushi, I was just clarifying the example...I'm looking at the Envoy myself.

LOL!!!

if i could afford it i'd like to have an avalanche. sweet ride there or one of the new dodge rams with the hemi engine. nice!

 

[HumorMe]

It's not about how much money you make but what you do with the money you make.

If I make $100,000 a year and spend $125,000 a year and bank nothing then I have accomplished nothing but living outside of my means and sinking further in debt.

If you make $30,000 a year and spend $25,000 and bank $5,000 then who is better off.

If you make $30,000 a year and have a $500 - $600 car payment then you better find a cheaper way to get around.

It's all about putting your priorities in line and what you are willing to give up in order to live comfortably.

 

[MortyJackson]

you think it's that easy to get off my ass and make something of myself. i work my ass off and can't afford to go to school. my financial aid was cut cause i had to chose between classes and paying bills, mainly my car note. working poor aren't lazy we work just as hard maybe even more than you do but get paid less. and fyi, i'm trying to get into management where i work now so i can make a better living. those of you who have money think it's so easy to do things, you can keep living in that fantasy world too.

and as for 5%, i always said i'd take an that much extra out of my paycheck in order to have medical insurance. not too many people poor or not would say that, but seeing as how i am willing to work for what i want and need i will pay the extra bit to get insurance. bigguns, i am the working poor. i'm not saying things are totally bad, they could be better. i don't want to be rich or even get ahead, i just want to be even.

here's a bit of info for you, here in alabama, the more money you make the less state tax you pay. that's complete bs and totally unfair. but then again alabama is a republican state.

Boo hoo. Cry for Sushi because he works hard and cant pay his bills. Thats nobodys fault but your own sushi so quit trying to take it out on the people who got educated and make a good living. You may physically work as hard as those people but arent as valuable. Too bad. Your fault.

 

[TheProject]

Okay, so explain this to Mr. Finanical Idiot here.

Does this mean I qualify for a dedcution because I have an Avalanche? Or do I have to be a small business owner for this to work?

 

[bigguns7]

you think it's that easy to get off my ass and make something of myself. i work my ass off and can't afford to go to school. my financial aid was cut cause i had to chose between classes and paying bills, mainly my car note. working poor aren't lazy we work just as hard maybe even more than you do but get paid less. and fyi, i'm trying to get into management where i work now so i can make a better living. those of you who have money think it's so easy to do things, you can keep living in that fantasy world too.

The reason the "working poor" are the "working poor" is that they actually think that we should be rewarded in life based on how "hard" we work, as is obvuiously your opinion.

It's not about how hard you work, it's about using leverage to get people working hard for you. These "working poor" who work so hard that they can't get an education really bother me. They don't realize that they would be much better off quitting work, getting student loans out the ass, and gettting a college degree, and then getting a good job to pay those loans off.

I'm going to give you two timelines of two men who start off with the same means but live their lives very differently:

Timeline of the average working man:

-Graduate high school at age 18, net worth = $0
-Get a job in construction, busting ass 60 hours a week, making $7 an hour, net worth after 1 year = $3,000
-After 2 years, get a raise to $8 an hour, net worth after 2 years $5,000
-After 3 years, get a great raise to $10 an hour, net worth after 3 years, $8,000
-After 20 years, he's making $20 an hour, net worth $60,000
-Retires at age 75, making $30 an hour, net worth $250,000

Timeline of the smart man who doesn't have to "work hard:"

-Graduate high school at age 18, net worth = $0
-Take out student loans to go to state college for 4 years, net worth = $-35,000
-Get a degree and a job at age 22 in corporate America, work 40 hours a week, make $16.75 an hour ($35,000 a year), net worth $-30,000
-After 1 year get a raise to $37,500, or $18.00 an hour, net worth $-22,000
-After 2 years, promotion, salary is now $42,000 or $20.20 an hour, net worth $-15,000
-After 20 years, he's making $85,000, or $41 an hour, net worth $250,000
-Retires at age 65, making $100,000, or $48 an hour, net worth $750,000


These two men are very average men, of average intelligence, and average upbringing, with not a dime to their names when they graduated high school. Their lives have turned out very differently, because one "worked hard" and one "worked smart."

Why should the smart worker pay a higher percentage of his earnings than the hard worker? Seems to me it was a choose your own destiny sort of situation, and the hard worker chose the wrong destiny. That's not the smart worker's problem.

 

[Sushi X]

Boo hoo. Cry for Sushi, because he works hard and cant pay his bills. Thats nobodys fault but your own sushi so quit trying to take it out on the people who got educated and make a good living. You may physically work as hard as those people but arent as valuable. Too bad. Your fault.

i can pay my bills you insignificant little puke. i'm not trying to take out anything on anyone so why don't you just step off. what makes a person more valuable? their money? not. the garbage men are just as important as doctors. without them who would take the trash to the dump? just like without doctors to take care of us when we are sick or hurt. both are different yet provide a very needed service.

bigguns, i went to school, i plan to try and go back part time on my own, no loans cause i gotta pay some back first, but it won;t be for four years. i'm thinking of renewing my emt liscence and trying to work in the field. but right now i'm trying to become a manager so i can get better leverage like you mentioned.

the reason i seem as if i'm complaining or whatever is that the government is not going to downsize, reduce spending or take a paycut. they will continue to rely on the taxes we all pay. in order for one group to get a tax cut the other has to pay more. whether or not it's fair, that's the way it is. i would love to see people only pay a minimal amount of taxes but that won't happen so the tax game will continue as is. nothing will ever change.

 

[MortyJackson]

i can pay my bills you insignificant little puke. i'm not trying to take out anything on anyone so why don't you just step off. what makes a person more valuable? their money? not. the garbage men are just as important as doctors. without them who would take the trash to the dump? just like without doctors to take care of us when we are sick or hurt. both are different yet provide a very needed service.

What makes a person more valuable is what a company thinks that the person can do for it. Education and work experience are a couple of things to increase your value.

Garbage men may be important but any retard can be a garbage man. You actually have to put in time and a lot of work to become a doctor. They are compensated for that difference.

Dont you understand capitalism? Its a beautiful thing.

 

[Sushi X]

yes, i understand capitalism. i know doctors work hard and train for many years to do what they do. i salute them for it too.

 

[MortyJackson]

yes, i understand capitalism. i know doctors work hard and train for many years to do what they do. i salute them for it too.

Then why do you want to punish them by forcing them to pay a higher tax rate? Even you realize they have worked hard and trained many years to get where they are.

 

[MortyJackson]

yes, i understand capitalism. i know doctors work hard and train for many years to do what they do. i salute them for it too.

Then why do you want to punish them by forcing them to pay a higher tax rate? Even you realize they have worked hard and trained many years to get where they are.

 

[javaguru]

I would like to point out a few things.

There will always be "working poor" because our economy requires cheap labor to function. This is generally accepted by economists, somebody has to be the janitor.

An across the board flat tax system is unfair to the working poor because their is a threshold income required for the basic necessities. To make a flat tax system fair it would start to resemble our current system but with two "brackets", income under x would not be taxed while all income above it would be taxed at the flat rate. In our current system if you make ten million a year your entire income isn't taxed at the top bracket, your income passes through all of the brackets until you're taxed at the highest rate on the remaining income. Therefore , under my hypothetical double bracket hybrid flat tax system a person making ten million a year wouldn't be taxed on the x threshold minimum living expense but would be taxed on the remaining 9+million remaining. See how this is "fair" to both parties.

In regard to fairness and the overtaxed wealthy. When you have money it's extremely easy to make money so let's not boo hoo over paying more in taxes since the wealthy also have many more opportunities to increase their assets and with deductions the tax burden isn't that bad. When I made 40k a year my net worth increased relatively slowly due to the aforementioned minimum required living expenses. Making 120k a year my net worth isn't increasing 3x as fast but more like 20x as fast even though my tax burden is greater. My girlfriend is also a great example, she owns her own business and made well into six figures last year, built a 300k house and already has 45k in equity, but she's going to show under 20k in taxable income due to deductions, of course they're not all legit. She's been audited by the IRS three times and each time they give her back more money so they've stopped auditing.

There are also a host of other issues with a flat tax system which I don't have time to go into detail. It would also hurt the housing market since you would no longer be able to deduct interest and you would have to pay your flat rate on the gains from the sale of your house. Congress uses the tax system to encourage certain behaviors, discourage others and stimulate the economy. On the surface a flat tax system seems perfectly fair and attractive until you delve beneath the surface.

 

[TheProject]

Okay, so explain this to Mr. Finanical Idiot here.

Does this mean I qualify for a dedcution because I have an Avalanche? Or do I have to be a small business owner for this to work?

Anyone?

 

[Sushi X]

Anyone?

i saw it on the news and from what they said it's for small business owners mainly but i think they might include anyone in general as well.

morty, i don't want to punish anyone for success.

javaguru, good points made. what do you do for a living?

 

[p0ink]

i was waiting for one of you to post this.

this is a COMPLETE SPIN by the media. the break is for small companies to get a tax break on any vehicle that they use FOR THEIR BUSINESS. not only do you liberals AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that these people are all going to buy SUV's, you try to paint some picture of the republicans being behind some diabolical plan.

good try, but the rest of us arent buying it.

 

[javaguru]

I work for a small software consulting company that has several Fortune 1000's as clients. I started as a software developer and now I manage all of our custom development and do pre-sales consulting but I still code on occasion because we are a small company(12 employees).

 

[Sushi X]

i was waiting for one of you to post this.

this is a COMPLETE SPIN by the media. the break is for small companies to get a tax break on any vehicle that they use FOR THEIR BUSINESS. not only do you liberals AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that these people are all going to buy SUV's, you try to paint some picture of the republicans being behind some diabolical plan.

good try, but the rest of us arent buying it.

not any, just suv's and trucks. which is fine with me as long as it's for small businesses who need breaks so they can survive the competition.

 

[Warik]

the garbage men are just as important as doctors. without them who would take the trash to the dump? just like without doctors to take care of us when we are sick or hurt.

Without the garbage men, who would take the trash to the dump? The doctors after 10 minutes of training.

Without the doctors, who would take care of us when we are sick or hurt? Not the garbage men.

The doctor could do the garbage man's job any day of the week. The garbage man could never hope to do a doctor's work. THAT is why a doctor is paid more than a garbage man and THAT is why the doctor should not have to pay a greater percentage of his salary to the government in the form of income tax.

That's the difference between blue collar and white collar buddy - notice how the blue collars are the ones complaining about how the wealthier do not pay more taxes.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

An across the board flat tax system is unfair to the working poor because their is a threshold income required for the basic necessities.

The current tax code has someone earning $15,000/yr paying 15% = $2,250 in taxes.

My idea of a flat tax code would have someone earning $15,000/yr paying 15% = $2,250 in taxes.

So, by your logic, it is unfair for everyone, including the poor man, to pay 15% income tax, but it IS fair for the poor man to pay 15% income tax as long as everyone else pays more.

I feel enlightened.

-Warik

 

[Sushi X]

there's no doctor i know of that is gonna ride around in a garbage truck and take the garbage to the landfill.

it's the white collars complaining about the blue collars wanting to pay less taxes as well. it works both ways.

i make less than 15k a year right now and pay 17%, so the 15% base you mentioned is a bit off. i would'nt mind it being 15% or even 10%. a flat tax sounds good but i doubt it would work and if it could i'd go for it. it'll stop the wealthy from whinning about not having enough money, and make everyone happy, almost.

 

[Warik]

there's no doctor i know of that is gonna ride around in a garbage truck and take the garbage to the landfill.

You've missed the point of my post completely. The point of my post is that ANYBODY CAN do the garbage man's job, but NOT ANYBODY CAN do the doctor's job. That is why the doctor is "worth" more to society (not personally as a human being, but professionally in terms of the service he is providing) and why he is paid more.

it's the white collars complaining about the blue collars wanting to pay less taxes as well. it works both ways.

Your point? They have a valid claim. Blue collar workers receive greater benefits from tax collection and they pay the least taxes while the higher up on the white collar ladder you go, the more taxes are paid and the fewer benefits are received.

Let me put this in terms you can't so easily twist.

You're a salesman selling new Fords. There are 3 other people on the sales staff. You've been selling cars for 5 years and you drive a Ford - you're a fucking beast at selling Fords. The other salesmen range in skill level from newbie to somewhat experienced.

Last week was a very good week for you and you made $500 in commission in addition to your normal salary. The other salesmen think it's not fair because they only made $100 in commission along with their normal salary.

According to the newbie (who just got hired last week), you should be making a smaller commission percentage because he's not as good a salesman as you and it's not fairi that you're making more than he is simply because you're a better salesman than he is. He thinks you should only be making $125 in commission from those sales.

How do you feel about that?

i make less than 15k a year right now and pay 17%, so the 15% base you mentioned is a bit off. i would'nt mind it being 15% or even 10%. a flat tax sounds good but i doubt it would work and if it could i'd go for it. it'll stop the wealthy from whinning about not having enough money, and make everyone happy, almost.

Why wouldn't it work? The only reason an inflated federal income tax rate exists is to fund all of the social programs that wouldn't exist if a) the lower middle class got to keep more of their money each year instead of sending it to the government or b) the government would stick to it's basic duty of upholding the constitution and defending the country from domestic and foreign threats as opposed to babysitting.

Who wouldn't be happy? The parasites. Quite frankly, who gives a fuck if they are unhappy?

-Warik

 

[p0ink]

not any, just suv's and trucks. which is fine with me as long as it's for small businesses who need breaks so they can survive the competition.

i have heard otherwise. please show me an article that says this tax break applies only to SUV's and trucks.

 

[thebabydoc]

By the way-

The accelerated depreciation schedule is for category three vehicles- trucks with a GVR of over 6000 lbs-

Only the Hummers (H1 & H2), Sequoia, LX450, and Land Rover qualify for this deduction- check your vehicular weights before buying. It is a "heavy construction machinery" deduction and therefore can be depreciated at an accelerated schedule (5 years instead of 10).

 

[Hengst]

ALL OF YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT

You all are arguing mathematics, the value of hard work and so on. The reason why this SUV tas break is so insidious is that it reveals the lies behind George W. Bush's rhetoric.

He repudiated the Kyoto Climate Treaty. Regardless, he claimed he was still concerned about the environment. HOWEVER, his tax plan subsidizes gas guzzling, air polluting, environmently damaging, oil industry dependant vehicles.

Promoting the use and sale of SUVs will continue the US dependancy on imported oil.

THAT is why it is so wrong. No one disagrees that small business owners should have help in these tough economic times. It just that there could be and should be other solutions.

 

[Sushi X]

SUV, truck owners get a big tax break

Loophole allows hefty write-off for vehicles

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Eligible vehicles


Here are the 38 light truck models that qualify for an extra $24,000 accelerated depreciation tax break:
BMW X5
Cadillac Escalade
Chevy Astro
Chevy Avalanche
Chevy Express
Chevy Silverado
Chevy Suburban
Chevy Tahoe
Dodge Durango
Dodge Ram Van
Dodge Ram Maxi Van
Dodge Ram Wagon
Dodge Ram 1500
Dodge Ram 2500
Dodge Ram 3500
Ford Excursion
Ford Expedition
Ford Econoline E-150
Ford Econoline E-250
Ford Econoline E-350
Ford F-150
Ford F-250
Ford F-350
GMC Yukon
GMC Safari
GMC Savana
GMC Sierra
GMC Sierra Denali
Land Rover Discovery
Land Rover Range Rover
Lincoln Blackwood
Lincoln Navigator
Mercedes ML 320
Mercedes ML 500
Mercedes ML55 AMG
Toyota Land Cruiser
Toyota Sequoia
Toyota Tundra




Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery


WASHINGTON -- Karl Wizinsky wasn't thinking about buying a new vehicle, and certainly not a big SUV. So why is there a brand-new $47,000 Ford Excursion sitting in his driveway?

He was able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense.

"We really did it because it was a pretty hefty deduction," said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi.

At the same time the tax code sanctions $30,000 write-offs for SUVs, prospective purchasers of a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles qualify for a relatively small $4,000 tax credit.

A deal to extend similar tax credits to other environmentally friendly vehicles remains stalled in Congress.

It's all legal, and accountants and auto dealers are beginning to catch on.

"If it can save the consumer money, it's most likely that the dealer is going to know about it," said Andrew Beck, spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers Association. So far, there is no indication anyone in Congress wants to close the loophole. In fact, even higher depreciation tax breaks are on the table as part of the next round of tax cuts President Bush is planning.

The SUV tax break is becoming a staple of advice in the accounting world, as small business owners such as Wizinsky are advised on ways to reduce end-of-the-year tax bills.

The size of the tax break has been growing under a schedule that became law in 1996. That's when Congress changed tax law to encourage business investment.

The scale of the tax break surprises accountants and tax experts, who feel bound to recommend SUVs and other light trucks to small-business clients.

"As I understood it, the reason (for the tax break) is to encourage business investment. That's what happened in my case," Wizinsky said.

At the same time, the tax break seems to contradict other national goals, such as improving vehicle fuel efficiency. A more economical fleet would aid two important national goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gasses.

The total cost of the loophole hasn't been calculated by the government, but Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan Washington watchdog group, estimates the SUV tax loophole could cost taxpayers between $840 million and $987 million for every 100,000 vehicles sold to businesses.

Aileen Roder, the group's program director, questioned whether there is a national need to subsidize sales of the largest light trucks -- given Americans are buying SUVs in record numbers.

"This is one of the most lucrative breaks in the tax code," Roder said. "We're making it a fiscal no-brainer for businesses to buy giant SUVs."

To get an idea of the scale of the SUV tax break, a credit aimed at making it easier for small businesses to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act costs $525 million per 100,000 uses.

A tax credit to reimburse teachers for classroom supplies annually costs the treasury $250 million per 100,000 uses.

And a provision allowing taxpayers to put up to $3,000 of tax-free earnings per year in private retirement accounts costs about $90 million per 100,000 taxpayers, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

There are long-standing limits on deductions to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing luxury-car purchases. But the limits do not apply to 38 light trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or more, including the Cadillac Escalade, Dodge Durango, Excursion and Lincoln Navigator.

"We recognized it immediately and started informing people about how to use it," said James Jenkins, an accountant in Southfield. "It's just fabulous. My clients have been drooling."

Jenkins said five clients have used the loophole so far and five more are considering it. Jenkins even considered using the break, test-driving several SUVs.

"It makes you think very hard about it," Jenkins said. "But it was a 30 percent larger vehicle than I wanted."

Here's how the SUV tax break works:

Suppose a business owner wants to purchase a $45,000 luxury SUV for use in his business. He or she could write off $24,000 of the cost under section 179 of the tax code as accelerated depreciation. Then the buyer could write off additional depreciation of the remaining $21,000 under a five-year schedule -- 20 percent, or $4,200, in the first year.

That's a total $28,200 tax write-off.

The balance of the vehicle could be written off over the next five years. A more expensive large vehicle, like a Mercedes E-class SUV, a Range Rover or a BMW X5, would qualify for an even greater tax break.

The break for trucks got bigger this year under a schedule Congress adopted in 1996 when businesses could claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment.

That lump sum increased to $20,000 last year. It went up to $24,000 this year. Next year and thereafter the deduction will be $25,000.

In 1996, Congress estimated the five-year cost of the tax break -- for all business equipment -- to be $1.6 billion. But luxury SUVs had barely cracked the market at that time.

IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland said the agency does not keep data on how much the tax break has cost. According to figures supplied by Autodata, there were 3.8 million of the 6,000-pound light truck models sold in 2001.

There are no estimates for how many of the vehicles that qualify were sold to businesses or how many businesses that bought vehicles took advantage of the deduction.

The code is not as generous for luxury cars.

A business owner wanting to purchase a Lincoln Town Car would have to live with a $7,660 deduction, one-fourth what he might save by buying a Lincoln Navigator. It would take more than 15 years to recoup the entire cost of the car.

After Sept. 10, 2004, the luxury-car write-off will revert to $3,060.

Tax experts say the light-truck tax loophole was originally targeted for farmers, so their working pickup trucks would not be treated, for tax purposes, like luxury cars.

There was no mention of the need to stimulate the luxury truck market in the 1996 tax debate.

The House of Representatives attempted to make the SUV tax break even more generous as Congress debated an economic stimulus package in March.

Under the House plan, the cap for accelerated depreciation would have risen from $24,000 to $35,000. That effort died in negotiations with the Senate.

p0ink, read the above. the list is at the top.

 

[thebabydoc]

Once more for the kids in the back of the school bus.

It wsa designed for vehicles OVER 6000 lbs- that's not your average SUV, definitely NOT your explorer, ecpedition, not your X5 or ML300's.

And the "loophole" has been around for more than 4 years, so IT WASN"T GEORGE BUSH'S LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. So why don't all of you liberal Bush-haters go try and find some other bullshit topic to sell the masses because as a topic to Bush-bash this one holds as much water as Hitlary being a New York state resident or even a heterosexual for that matter.

 

[Hengst]

listen babycoc

Taken from the article above:

"Tax experts say the light-truck tax loophole was originally targeted for farmers, so their working pickup trucks would not be treated, for tax purposes, like luxury cars.

There was no mention of the need to stimulate the luxury truck market in the 1996 tax debate.

The House of Representatives attempted to make the SUV tax break even more generous as Congress debated an economic stimulus package in March.

Under the House plan, the cap for accelerated depreciation would have risen from $24,000 to $35,000. That effort died in negotiations with the Senate. "

The Republicans have subverted the original intent of this lopophole. Indeed they even tried to expand it. A democratic controlled senate stopped that.

AND law in New York does not require a canidate for the senate to have to have residency of more than 100 days in that state to run for office, so who care if Hillary Clinton didn't spend much time there. Bobby Kennedy was Senator from New York as well and he came from Mass.

For that matter, Cheney was not a resident of Wyoming but a resident of Texas when Bush asked him to be his running mate. He quickly ran back to Wyoming and established residency there LIKE 3 DAYS PRIOR TO THE CUT OFF so that he would not violate the constitutional requirement that the president and his vice president not come from the same state.

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.



Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

 

[Hengst]

It wsa designed for vehicles OVER 6000 lbs- that's not your average SUV, definitely NOT your explorer, ecpedition, not your X5 or ML300's.

Actually, ALL of those vehicles DO qualify. I don't care if you are a doctor, you are an idiot. If even for blindly believing the crap Bush and his cohorts spew out.

 

[Sushi X]

You've missed the point of my post completely. The point of my post is that ANYBODY CAN do the garbage man's job, but NOT ANYBODY CAN do the doctor's job. That is why the doctor is "worth" more to society (not personally as a human being, but professionally in terms of the service he is providing) and why he is paid more.



Your point? They have a valid claim. Blue collar workers receive greater benefits from tax collection and they pay the least taxes while the higher up on the white collar ladder you go, the more taxes are paid and the fewer benefits are received.

Let me put this in terms you can't so easily twist.

You're a salesman selling new Fords. There are 3 other people on the sales staff. You've been selling cars for 5 years and you drive a Ford - you're a fucking beast at selling Fords. The other salesmen range in skill level from newbie to somewhat experienced.

Last week was a very good week for you and you made $500 in commission in addition to your normal salary. The other salesmen think it's not fair because they only made $100 in commission along with their normal salary.

According to the newbie (who just got hired last week), you should be making a smaller commission percentage because he's not as good a salesman as you and it's not fairi that you're making more than he is simply because you're a better salesman than he is. He thinks you should only be making $125 in commission from those sales.

How do you feel about that?



Why wouldn't it work? The only reason an inflated federal income tax rate exists is to fund all of the social programs that wouldn't exist if a) the lower middle class got to keep more of their money each year instead of sending it to the government or b) the government would stick to it's basic duty of upholding the constitution and defending the country from domestic and foreign threats as opposed to babysitting.

Who wouldn't be happy? The parasites. Quite frankly, who gives a fuck if they are unhappy?

-Warik

the ford thing is out of whack, i prefer chevy.
commission and taxes are different however i do see your point. anyway, i could'nt agree more that the government should downsize and do it's basic duty. what you are not getting is i never said anything about raising taxes, i'm all for a tax break but make the tax break go all the way across the board, from rich to the working poor. that's my argument, not raising taxes from their current level.

as for the parasites, a little biblical notation on that even though i try to keep politics and religion seperate. if a man will not work he should not eat. how do you feel about that one?

 

[Warik]

commission and taxes are different however i do see your point.

As with any analogy, the subjects are different but the principle is the same. Person B says that Person A should be penalized because Person A is better at something than he is. In regard to taxes, Person B says that Person A should be penalized (pay higher income tax) because he's better at making money.

if a man will not work he should not eat. how do you feel about that one?

I disagree, and I'll tell you why:

What if I'm 65 and spent the past 45 years worry about my retirement and now I'm kicking back golfing by day and relaxing by night. I don't work, does that mean I shouldn't eat?

Or how about Junior who spends all day at school and all day home studying. He doesn't work, so he shouldn't eat?

A more appropriate "rule" in my book would be "He who must take should not receive."

i.e.

Do you need to TAKE money from others against their will to pay for your healthcare? Then you shouldn't receive healthcare.

Do you need to TAKE food from the store because you can't afford it? Then you shouldn't receive food.

On the other hand, a child does not need to TAKE food from his parents because his parents give it to him.

Also, please don't try to twist this around by using a child support example. A child whose father doesn't want to pay child support does not fall under Warik's TAKE/RECEIVE rule because the father has a legal/moral responsibility to do so until the child is 18 years old.

However, ex-wifey who just absolutely "needs" $1,000/wk of ex-hubby's paycheck even though she refuses to work, lives in an overpriced apartment, and has a new boyfriend everyday is "TAKING" money from her ex-husband because it's not his responsibility to support her impractical lifestyle.

-Warik

 

[Sushi X]

what was saying with the no work no eat issue is people who will not work who can work. i consider going to college work, at least it's preparing you for something. a retired person has paid his or her dues and now deserves a break. what i was getting at was the people who can work but won't cause they'd rather sit around and recieve government money. it's those leaches who should not eat. the same goes for that ex wife example you had and also to the gold digging boyfriend/girlfriend. the child support thing i could'nt agree more on.

 

[thebabydoc]

Re: listen babycoc

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.

Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

Hectoring, now that's[/] a good 5-dollar word!

Oh I'm sorry, you caught me trying to steer the topic away from the truth- that Hitlary is a lesbian, a crook, a perjurer, tax evader, what more did you want I should mention?

BTW- those trucks DO NOT qualify. Their weights are under 6000lbs and they therefore do not qualify under section 179. Try talking to an accountant, or maybe you don't need one to file your 1040EZ at the 10% bracket. The article is a bunch of democratic Bush-bashing propaganda which, after all, is all the Democrats are capable of anyway since they have no platform whatsoever except "whatever the Republicans are for, we are against".

And talk about deviating from the truth... Last time I checked, Dubya was NOT in the White House in 1996. This is NOT his law, plain and simple, but I like it anyway.

 

[thebabydoc]

Re: listen babycoc

So stop trying to steer us away from the truth with hectoring and sidestepping the issues.

Typical republican response too, accuse some one of being queer to steer the reader/viewer from the main issue.

Hectoring, now that's a good 5-dollar word!

Oh I'm sorry, you caught me trying to steer the topic away from the truth- that Hitlary is a lesbian, a crook, a perjurer, tax evader, what more did you want I should mention?

BTW- those trucks DO NOT qualify. Their weights are under 6000lbs and they therefore do not qualify under section 179. Try talking to an accountant, or maybe you don't need one to file your 1040EZ at the 10% bracket. The article is a bunch of democratic Bush-bashing propaganda which, after all, is all the Democrats are capable of anyway since they have no platform whatsoever except "whatever the Republicans are for, we are against".

And talk about deviating from the truth... Last time I checked, Dubya was NOT in the White House in 1996. This is NOT his law, plain and simple, but I like it anyway.