…and elimination of deductions.

Let’s start with:

-eliminating the mortgage deduction (A brilliant move during a housing slump)

-eliminating deductions for charitable donations

-eliminating deductions for health care (exempting unions of course. Is that fair? Obama has to pay back the unions that supported him though)

-cap and trade (not a tax per se but will have the same effect. Do you think businesses will pass the increase on to you?)

-VAT tax (A federal sales tax on all purchases)

What else you got?
Oh yeah. Letting the top tax rates go back up for individuals earning over 0,000.

And raising the corporate tax rate.

…and elimination of deductions.

Let’s start with:

-eliminating the mortgage deduction (A brilliant move during a housing slump)

-eliminating deductions for charitable donations

-eliminating deductions for health care (exempting unions of course. Is that fair? Obama has to pay back the unions that supported him though)

-cap and trade (not a tax per se but will have the same effect. Do you think businesses will pass the increase on to you?)

-VAT tax (A federal sales tax on all purchases)

-Letting the top tax rates go back up for individuals earning over 0,000( Bush tax cuts expire)

-And raising the corporate tax rate.

What else you got?
Melissa you have your head so far in the sand it’s amazing you can come up and use a computer

Okay. So I don’t believe that taxes should be raised for anybody. I actually believe that we should switch to a consumption tax. However, this notion that Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich is unfair is starting to bother me a little.

Our tax system allows for multiple deductions based on the depreciation of assets, interest payments on real property and charitable donations, etc. Just owning a house gives you a great deal of deductions.

Is it not logical to think that a person with the means to reduce their taxable income through deductions can potentially pay a smaller percentage of taxes in relation to that income?

Example: If my tax liability is ,000.00 and I have a total of ,000 in deductions, which lowers my liability and my amount due is now ,000. My ability to invest in businesses, buy property and other assets, allows me to use my capital to lower my liability. (Okay, these numbers don’t make a whole lot of since. I’m just trying to prove a point)

What are your thoughts? I’m not an economist so your opinions would be pretty cool.

Gross income is ,000, but I have a ton of deductions from employee/business expenses (like ,000!) making the adjusted income on my taxes around ,000. I have read somewhere that you can deduct moving expenses (relocated for job), and another place that you can deduct charitable donations too (which we have a lot of, also) Can I deduct these expenses and apply them to make a lower AGI on the FAFSA?

Also does anyone know anything about the ‘displaced worker’ on the form? I think I qualify for that as I was laid off from my position and my spouse does not work outside the home.

Any info from anyone with experience on this? THANKS

The following are excerpts from U.S. Congressman Ginny Brown-Waite, of the Ways & Means committee, newsletter to her constituents:

Congress’ spending binge began with one trillion for the so called ’stimulus’ which only stimulates more government & more debt.

This week we have learned more of Obama’s proposed budget which increases our national debt by more than three trilion dollars over the next five years and RAISES TAXES ON ALMOST EVERY AMERICAN & SMALL BUSINESS.

President Obama’s budget proposal is troubling due to the massive tax increases. His budget contains tax increases are hidden in using language like Cap and Trade when it shoul really be called "Cap and Tax".——This proposal will TAX ANYONE IN THE U.S. WHO USES ELECTRICITY. President Obama’ economic advisors have admitted the budget proposal is misleading & that just when they expect the economy to recover, President Obama plans on instituting a trillion to trillion tax on all Americans who use electricity.

Another misguided tax increase is an attempt to reduce the extent to which some Americans may take Itemized deductions on charitable donations. The administration estimates the reduction will yield 8 billion in revenue in 10 years. This will discourage charitable giving at a time when charities are seeing a rise in the demand for their services because of the struggling economy. President Obama’s budget makes clear that he favors a massive expansion of the entitlement state in which the federal government will take the place of private charities.

President Obama’s budget proposal also contains cuts to the popular Medicare Advantaage program; means testing for Medicare Part D in order to push more seniors out of the prescription plan; and a cut of billion in funding for the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY so that he can increase the budget of the State Department more money to SEND OVERSEES hardly seems like an effective use of tax dollars.

Congresswoman Brown made clear that President Obama’s budget proposal is just that; a proposal. It is the beginning of the budget process, not the end. The law requires the President to submit a budget to Congress but the law does not bind Congress by the President’s budget. Congress has the discretion to reflect different priorities than those of the President.

From heidi4: Please everyone contact your own representatives and let them know how you feel on these issues. They forget but we must remind them they work for us!

And I mean flat across the board. Everybody pays 5%, for example. But to make sure everybody pays that 5%, no exemptions for yourself or dependents. Not deductions for work, charitable donations, etc. No deductions for business losses. Capital gains are considered income and taxed at the same rate. So you bought your house for K, sold it for 0K, you made k that year, it gets taxed like any other income. You inherited cash property or anything else, it’s income and gets taxed 5%. And all income gets taxed the exact same 5%. No hiding money for the future in 401(k) plans or IRA plans–no need to anyway, since the flat tax defeats the purpose. All income of any kind, a flat tax. No exceptions, including churches, which are currently tax exempt.

Anybody for that?
Let me clarify some things about my question. One, I am not sure whether I am for a flat tax or not. But I have thought that richer people have more opportunities to get out of paying taxes than poorer people do. So I wondered if richer people would still be for a flat tax if the the playing field were completely level–ie, no tax-sheltered retirement accounts, no itemized deductions for charitable contributions, no loopholes of any kind, as well as calling and income at all as taxable income, including the sale of private property, and also doing away the the tax-excempt status churches and not-for-profit organizations enjoy. Totally fair. Would they still go for it?

I forgot to add many of my charitable donations to my tax deductions last year. Am I allowed to file them as donations if I did not claim them as such last year?

Also, what can be considered a charitable donation? What about costs associated with doing it? Like transportations?