Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/31/2006 6:47:53 AM EDT
OK, I just do not get it - I finally thought, after all these years, that I would get to have a nice return. I bought a house this year, moved, had education expenses, business expenses, my wife has a home office, etc. We paid interest on a mortgage for the first time, paid property taxes, etc. So, I go to do my taxes.

And I STILL am better off taking the STANDARD deduction instead of itemizing. Hell, I even donated stuff to charity this year. But still, no dice.

I just do not get it - it seems that everyone else makes out like bandits by itemizing, but I just cannot seem to catch a break. Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:50:21 AM EDT
Fair Tax Here is the answer.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:51:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Fair Tax Here is the answer.



Ayup.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:54:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Fair Tax Here is the answer.




But if it's fair to us, then it's unfair to the disadvantaged...

Oh, wait.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:57:26 AM EDT
I made like $11,600 last year, paid in like $1350 in federal tax and should get back $678 with standard deduction of $5k.



?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:59:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:
I made like $11,600 last year, paid in like $1350 in federal tax and should get back $678 with standard deduction of $5k.



?

Under the fairtax you wouldn't have paid ANY income taxes or payroll taxes. You would have kept $11,600 + the matching funds paid by your employeer
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:01:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Fair Tax Here is the answer.



That is not correct.

You need to use the term they use when describing such a tax in political science and public administration realms:

REGRESSIVE tax.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:02:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
OK, I just do not get it - I finally thought, after all these years, that I would get to have a nice return. I bought a house this year, moved, had education expenses, business expenses, my wife has a home office, etc. We paid interest on a mortgage for the first time, paid property taxes, etc. So, I go to do my taxes.

And I STILL am better off taking the STANDARD deduction instead of itemizing. Hell, I even donated stuff to charity this year. But still, no dice.

I just do not get it - it seems that everyone else makes out like bandits by itemizing, but I just cannot seem to catch a break. Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?



I don't understand how the standard deduction can be better for you, not with the items you list.

The home office is generally not worth it ... although it depends upon the size of the home and the size of the office, since everything is pro-rated on that ratio. The BIG problem is that you have to keep track of all the tax deductions you mkae, forever, so that when you sell your house you can pay the appropriate taxes on that part of your house -- that part not being tax free, because itd a business premises, not a home. For the actual reduction in taxes (at least in my case) its just not worth the hastle.

The stadard deduction for two people is ~ $10k -- are you certain you didn't pay out more than that in mortgage interest, state tax, property tax etc?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:04:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 7:07:38 AM EDT by VoodooChile]
I'll get back to you on that after I get through changing and feeding "Cha-ching", "Goldmine" and "Chri$tmas in February"
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:04:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Fair Tax Here is the answer.



That is not correct.

You need to use the term they use when describing such a tax in political science and public administration realms:

REGRESSIVE tax.


The fairtax is not regressive, it is probably the most progressive forms of taxation. Poor people don't buy as many things as rich people. Not to mention everyone recieves a prebate for the costs of necessities.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:07:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The fairtax is not regressive, it is probably the most progressive forms of taxation. Poor people don't buy as many things as rich people. Not to mention everyone recieves a prebate for the costs of necessities.



No, you aren't thinking properly. Bash yourself in the head with a hammer a few times until your IQ drops enough to realize the point:

Any tax that on the surface charges a "poor" person the same ammount of tax on a gallon of milk as a "rich" person is REGRESSIVE.

Now keep repeating that before you end up being hauled off to re-education camp.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:13:52 AM EDT
I found that at my income,401k/IRA, and housing level, I have to donate somewhere around 5%+ of my income to charity to get the itemized deduction. I usually do about 12-14%, but I'm damn poor,so it doesn't amount to much $-wise. If you bought a house mid year, you might not have enough mortgage interest this year to make it worthwhile.
Did you max out 401ks and/or IRAs for you and your wife? That's the other big pillar of the itemized deduction. Reducing your income with retirement investments lowers your taxes enough to make your itemizable deductions valid.

Fair Tax is an interesting idea, but Boortz's book did miss a few things. I don't see the transition being very easy. There's also a huge opportunity for fraud in that system via the mechanism of hiding what is and is not a final retail transaction (since only final retail transactions are taxed under FairTax). That's why Europe uses the VAT taxes applied at every state of production. As flawed as VAT is,there's no point to claiming that items are nontaxable and "for resale" since it doesn't matter under that system-it taxes everything at each point of the system, not just at the final transaction as in FairTax. Fair tax has lots of good points. It would boost sales of non-taxed, already used goods. Neal's protests aside, it would be hard on charities. A lot of them are donated to for tax purposes,his objection to that fact notwithstanding.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:14:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By tyman:
I made like $11,600 last year, paid in like $1350 in federal tax and should get back $678 with standard deduction of $5k.



?

Under the fairtax you wouldn't have paid ANY income taxes or payroll taxes. You would have kept $11,600 + the matching funds paid by your employeer




It was more of a post for Greywolf but ya, thats cool.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:15:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?


I am single with no kids. Own a condo and pay about 2100 in property taxes. I give somewhere around $300-$500 in charity a year. I always end up getting between $750 and $1500 back between state and federal.

What are you doing wrong? Is this the dreaded "marriage penalty?"
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:16:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
OK, I just do not get it - I finally thought, after all these years, that I would get to have a nice return. I bought a house this year, moved, had education expenses, business expenses, my wife has a home office, etc. We paid interest on a mortgage for the first time, paid property taxes, etc. So, I go to do my taxes.

And I STILL am better off taking the STANDARD deduction instead of itemizing. Hell, I even donated stuff to charity this year. But still, no dice.

I just do not get it - it seems that everyone else makes out like bandits by itemizing, but I just cannot seem to catch a break. Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?



I don't understand how the standard deduction can be better for you, not with the items you list.

The home office is generally not worth it ... although it depends upon the size of the home and the size of the office, since everything is pro-rated on that ratio. The BIG problem is that you have to keep track of all the tax deductions you mkae, forever, so that when you sell your house you can pay the appropriate taxes on that part of your house -- that part not being tax free, because itd a business premises, not a home. For the actual reduction in taxes (at least in my case) its just not worth the hastle.

The stadard deduction for two people is ~ $10k -- are you certain you didn't pay out more than that in mortgage interest, state tax, property tax etc?



$1400 property tax
$3500 Interest and points
No state tax
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:18:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:
I found that at my income,401k/IRA, and housing level, I have to donate somewhere around 5%+ of my income to charity to get the itemized deduction. I usually do about 12-14%, but I'm damn poor,so it doesn't amount to much $-wise. If you bought a house mid year, you might not have enough mortgage interest this year to make it worthwhile.
Did you max out 401ks and/or IRAs for you and your wife? That's the other big pillar of the itemized deduction. Reducing your income with retirement investments lowers your taxes enough to make your itemizable deductions valid.

Fair Tax is an interesting idea, but Boortz's book did miss a few things. I don't see the transition being very easy. There's also a huge opportunity for fraud in that system via the mechanism of hiding what is and is not a final retail transaction (since only final retail transactions are taxed under FairTax). That's why Europe uses the VAT taxes applied at every state of production. As flawed as VAT is,there's no point to claiming that items are nontaxable and "for resale" since it doesn't matter under that system-it taxes everything at each point of the system, not just at the final transaction as in FairTax. Fair tax has lots of good points. It would boost sales of non-taxed, already used goods. Neal's protests aside, it would be hard on charities. A lot of them are donated to for tax purposes,his objection to that fact notwithstanding.



As I understood it, you don't get an itemized deduction on pre-tax 401k contributions, nor do you get deductions for Roth IRAs.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:21:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 7:23:37 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
As I understood it, you don't get an itemized deduction on pre-tax 401k contributions, nor do you get deductions for Roth IRAs.



The advantage for most retirement investments is that the income put into them does not count against your reported taxable gross income.

I don't think you have to itemize to get that....
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:21:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The fairtax is not regressive, it is probably the most progressive forms of taxation. Poor people don't buy as many things as rich people. Not to mention everyone recieves a prebate for the costs of necessities.



No, you aren't thinking properly. Bash yourself in the head with a hammer a few times until your IQ drops enough to realize the point:

Any tax that on the surface charges a "poor" person the same ammount of tax on a gallon of milk as a "rich" person is REGRESSIVE.

Now keep repeating that before you end up being hauled off to re-education camp.


If I understand you, you are being sarcastic right
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:22:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
If I understand you, you are being sarcastic right



Shh!!

The walls have ears.....
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:23:32 AM EDT
I don't make enough of an annual income to pay taxes. All my taxes come out of my paycheck.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:24:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
I don't make enough of an annual income to pay taxes. All my taxes come out of my paycheck.



Huh??

Do you mean that you don't have to pay additional taxes after filing your 1040 forms???
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:25:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
If I understand you, you are being sarcastic right



Shh!!

The walls have ears.....

The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall


Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:26:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
I don't make enough of an annual income to pay taxes. All my taxes come out of my paycheck.



Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:26:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:28:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Quit yer whining.

I sold stock and stock options last year, and got hit up for the "Alternative minimum tax" (AMT) this year. FUCKERS! I will have paid more in FIT this year alone than I made in my first year at this job.

Move to TX if you want to itemize. Property tax will run you around $4000 or so for an average house. No problems being abe to itemize with that...



I have never understood what in the hell the AMT was all about.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:41:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:

As I understood it, you don't get an itemized deduction on pre-tax 401k contributions, nor do you get deductions for Roth IRAs.


By lowering your AGI, they make it easier to take deductions that are limited based on your AGI- medical expenses and non-qualified charities for example. Those are a stretch anyway though.
It looks like your lack of state income tax deductible is probably what keeps you in the standard deduction anyway.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:45:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:48:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:


I have never understood what in the hell the AMT was all about.



It's a way to tax folks who have incomes over $60k or so, but manage to have a ton of various deductions such that they can recover most of their tax. Basically it's designed to punish skilled tax avoiders who can take advantage of "too many" simultaneous deductions. It's quite arbitrary. They love socking it to guys who own a lot of investment property or those who use their home equity loans to leverage investments.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:49:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:


I have never understood what in the hell the AMT was all about.



It's a way to tax folks who have incomes over $60k or so, but manage to have a ton of various deductions such that they can recover most of their tax. Basically it's designed to punish skilled tax avoiders who can take advantage of "too many" simultaneous deductions. It's quite arbitrary. They love socking it to guys who own a lot of investment property or those who use their home equity loans to leverage investments.

[liberal]And the greedy rich still don't pay enough. We really need to make them pay for being smart[/liberal]
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:53:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:


I have never understood what in the hell the AMT was all about.



It's a way to tax folks who have incomes over $60k or so, but manage to have a ton of various deductions such that they can recover most of their tax. Basically it's designed to punish skilled tax avoiders who can take advantage of "too many" simultaneous deductions. It's quite arbitrary. They love socking it to guys who own a lot of investment property or those who use their home equity loans to leverage investments.

[liberal]And the greedy rich still don't pay enough. We really need to make them pay for being smart[/liberal]



Gotta keep Vaseline in the black somehow.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:55:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:55:41 AM EDT
Try having your own business........
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:59:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
Try having your own business........

AKA self-employment tax You make $40,000- $15,000 probably goes to the guberment
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:03:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
OK, I just do not get it - I finally thought, after all these years, that I would get to have a nice return. I bought a house this year, moved, had education expenses, business expenses, my wife has a home office, etc. We paid interest on a mortgage for the first time, paid property taxes, etc. So, I go to do my taxes.

And I STILL am better off taking the STANDARD deduction instead of itemizing. Hell, I even donated stuff to charity this year. But still, no dice.

I just do not get it - it seems that everyone else makes out like bandits by itemizing, but I just cannot seem to catch a break. Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?



What are your deductions weekly? And what do you make? (Not really expecting an answer on that question)
Depending on your income, If you are claiming married with 2 deductions and DO NOT have at least 150k on mortgage and pay out at least 2k in property taxes and other taxes (exise, state etc) then you WILL either break even or pay.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:04:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wave:
I'm at $21,525.41 in Law Enforcement Deductions...I wonder if that's a good thing?



It is if you make $10.00 a year.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:16:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 8:27:00 AM EDT by Wave]
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:16:41 AM EDT
ina nutshell:
made 71K, income tax with held=10065
house interest=8500 house tax=4200 church donation=4000 union dues=600 2 kids and ole lady

return=5800
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:41:03 AM EDT
The AMT was originally put into the tax code as a punitive tax alternative in order to get 22 people to have to pay taxes that weren't otherwise. It has now ballooned so that a large number of middle and lower class people have to pay increased federal income taxes.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:15:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:48:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 9:49:25 AM EDT by Greywolf2112]

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
OK, I just do not get it - I finally thought, after all these years, that I would get to have a nice return. I bought a house this year, moved, had education expenses, business expenses, my wife has a home office, etc. We paid interest on a mortgage for the first time, paid property taxes, etc. So, I go to do my taxes.

And I STILL am better off taking the STANDARD deduction instead of itemizing. Hell, I even donated stuff to charity this year. But still, no dice.

I just do not get it - it seems that everyone else makes out like bandits by itemizing, but I just cannot seem to catch a break. Of course, I do not have children, which is a huge deduction - but Christ - do you have to have a $300,000 house, pay $5000 in property taxes, and give 20% of your income to charity to itemize these days?



What are your deductions weekly? And what do you make? (Not really expecting an answer on that question)
Depending on your income, If you are claiming married with 2 deductions and DO NOT have at least 150k on mortgage and pay out at least 2k in property taxes and other taxes (exise, state etc) then you WILL either break even or pay.




I think I may have found the problem.

For the first 7 months of the year I worked part-time, with an occasional decent bonus. My weekly pay was so low that often I didn't get any taxes withheld. My wife had 401ks and medical insurance reducing her withholding as well. She makes $40,000. I made $20,000 for those 7 months, but again a lot of times my weekly pay was not enough to get anything taken out. She is at SINGLE claiming 0, and I am at Married claiming 0.

Starting in August I started a new job, full time, still Married claimin 0, and made about $18,000 in that time. So, total adjusted income for the year was $78,000 - but only about $8000 taken out in withholding instead of more.

We're going to get about $300 back, but ONLY because of a $1200 credit due to my tuition and some moving expenses. Next year, if we don't change anything on our withholding, and I make $50,000 and she makes $40,000 then we'll be looking at owing about $800.

Mortgage is $127,000. Taxes $1400 a year.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:53:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wave:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By Wave:
I'm at $21,525.41 in Law Enforcement Deductions...I wonder if that's a good thing?



It is if you make $10.00 a year.



how about $88K? around $14K withheld



Oh, you're screwed, buddy. Definitely screwed. They like 'high paid' NY cops.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:17:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:22:13 PM EDT
I'm still waiting on my 1099's.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:24:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JFP:
ina nutshell:
made 71K, income tax with held=10065
house interest=8500 house tax=4200 church donation=4000 union dues=600 2 kids and ole lady

return REFUND=5800



You file a return, you get a REFUND.
Top Top