In article <N2iol.11202$pr6.6801[at]flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com> ,
"San Diego CPA" <gcollect1[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:

- quote -

Compared to most people who bitch about taxes, I am rather mellow. Last
year was the first, and probably last year for which my standard
deduction would not take care of my state taxes. I would be happy to
have an income that would require twice as much or more tax as I pay
now. I do not feel that strongly against taxes. It is a small price to
pay for being able to live in the USA. I do want to have some FAIRNESS
in the process. This business of having hedge fund executives converting
earned income into capital gain seems obscene.

With this tax break being proposed as a stimulus, I was just suggesting
that it show up as a combination that makes filling out forms easier.
The Government has decided to let us keep more of our income. Fine. Let
them do it by losing revenue in a way that gives us less writer's cramp
or repetitive stress injury.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Salmon Egg" <SalmonEgg[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-1B3A00.08531220022009[at]news.la.sbcglobal.net...
- quote -

This is a case of wanting to have your cake & eat it too. If you actually
meant your statement above about being happy to pay a couple hundred extra
dollars in exchange for a more easily filed return, then given that your
next statement about being on the borderline between itemized and standard
deduction means that if you're willing to forego the little bit extra tax
benefit from the apparently massive imposition on your time of keeping the
records, then you'll just happily go w/ the standard deduction and be able
to prepare your return in 15 minutes and save however many hours per year of
recordkeeping and related aggravation. But alas, you're not actually
willing to give up a couple of dollars of extra tax to avoid the time,
aggravation & tax preparation fees.



Your closing sentence is exactly the reason why taxes are complicated. You
want simplification but you *also* want those precious few deductions that
from which *you* actually benefit. Now, multiply that personal agenda by
300 million people in the country and stir in several thousand highly
compensated lobbyists and 500 people in Washington who are always willing to
pander to their constituents and we can't help but have a tax code filled
with complexity.



On the other hand, Reagan did actually give millions of Americans simplicity
in the tax preparation process when he significantly increased the standard
deduction and indexed them for inflation. Yes, it was at the expense of the
above-the-line deduction of sales tax on the big ticket items, but that's
simplification because who wants to keep those pesky receipts!


- quote -

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <MMxnl.6310$qa.6251[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net> ,
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

I, for one now especially now that I am getting older, would be happy to
overpay the Government a few hundred dollars not to have to go through
the hoops in preparing a tax return. Getting professional tax
preparation help requires me to keep records for the preparers. This
means no net simplification for me.

In my case, I a at the borderline between taking a standard deduction
and lots of record keeping for a slight possible reduction in my tax. It
certainly would be to my benefit if a standard deduction could be used
for all the nickel and dime stuff while big and easily recorded items
like state income tax could be tossed in as an additional deduction.

As an aside, I remember sitting next to a semiretired CPA on an airplane
trip before the Reagan "simplification" plan became law. He was
speculation on how he might just as well fully retire if the plan would
be enacted. I guess he had nothing to worry about. \

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Salmon Egg" <SalmonEgg[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote
- quote -



I believe many people, including many in the tax preparation business, would
agree.

The bulk of the complexity comes from tax deductions, credits, exemptions,
etc.



- quote -


The burden is in the keeping of the records for the deductions, exemptions
and credits.


I have a business lunch meeting today. If I didn't want to take the
deduction as a business expense, I could just not keep the records necessary
to substantiate that expense.

We, as tax payers, can decide to make our returns as simple as pie by not
taking all those complex deductions and credits. But we, as tax payers,
want them and will carry the burden of record keeping.





--
Paul Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 19, 8:08*am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -


The 86 Act was not intended to reduce taxes; it was intended to be
revenue neutral. It was meant to simplify the tax law by broadening
the base (getting rid of a lot of deductions) and lowering the rate.
Of course it did raise some people's taxes and lower others', but the
intent was revenue neutrality. Whether that actually worked out, of
course, is probably unknown because there are so many other variables
that impact tax revenues.

Of course it didn't really simplify things all that much either. The
86 Act is where we get the oxymoronic "passive activity," a concept
that still shifts my brain into neutral. I've always said, another
round of simplification like that and I'll be outta here.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gnk05j$s8l$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

I am not very wealthy but reasonably well to do. I unexpectedly got some
modest benefit from the inflationary tax reduction. But I also was
relatively thrifty and did not live high on the hog. No second homes,
boats, luxury cars, fancy vacations, or many other optional things
people do not seem to be able to live without these days.

Much of what I managed to put together for retirement is now gone
because of the collapse of the economy. But now I need even less than
before. Was the pain we are seeing now worth the Reagan miniboom? I
doubt it.

As for tax cuts, I would like to see them come from simplification
rather than from new programs like tax credits. What would be wrong with
getting tax cuts by increasing standard deductions? If I could get away
with filling out fewer schedules and forms, that would be worth more to
me than merely the amount I save on taxes

If new programs are to be created, they could be by having standard
sub-deductions linked to income. There used to be a standard deduction
component to state sales tax. That is gone. There could be a similar
deduction for investment expenses. Instead, we now have to have a
minimum before taking a deduction. The Government (Congress) has
burdened with too much record keeping to allow for easy filling out of
tax forms.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 19, 8:08*am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Well, that's a modification of a quote generally attributed to Hermann
Goering, but actually from the play
"Schlageter" by Hanns Johst: "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich
meinen Browning!" [Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-
catch of my Browning!] (Act 1, Scene 1)

The play was first performed in April 1933 for Hitler's birthday.

Refs:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_Goering
and especially for Harlan Lunsford
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A961948260

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Whenever I hear tax simplification, I reach under my pillow
and click off the safety catch on my Luger.
(That's not original to me, but I don't recall to whom
I should give credti)

Now CCH reports that the New Mexico House has passed a
Tax Simplification bill.

Without looking at this bill, my money says this bill will
significantly increase New Mexico tax revenues. If you
live in the Land of Enchantment, you voted for these guys.

Has anyone ever seen a tax simplifation bill that did not
raise taxes. I'm still trying to find those wealthy
people who alledgely benefited from the '86 Tax Act.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >