That is basically why the Standard Deduction exists.
Political Memes
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
I dunno how it works in the US but in Aus I can't deduct anything unless it's related to work, apparently feeding and housing myself doesn't contribute to that ..
In a lot of places a part of your income is exempt from taxes (eg brackets where you pay 0-20k @ 0%, 30-60k @ 30%, 60-100k @ 40%, 100k+ @ 50%; then your first 20k is not taxed), i think this is what they are talking about.
Edit: another possibility would be they do mean actual expenses, just reminded you can (partially) deduct education expenses from your taxes in the Netherlands.
I guess you could argue that that's the reasoning behind the progressive tax regime. Australia's progressive tax lines up with the low end of that but if you were going to claim that the tax free threshold was to cover general living expenses then it's going to need to be a lot larger, 20k bere is not enough to cover rent, food and utilities here, a 3x2 near Perth is like $800/week for rent and I would argue interest on a mortgage is comparable and Perth is on the cheap end of Australian cities. That's like 40k without utilities and food. So either the tax free threshold was poorly implemented without indexation against inflation and cost of living or the driver of it isn't to cover basic cost of living and is more to ease the burden on the poor end of town. I guess you could say it's a little bit of both but arguably indexation should be implemented.
Standard deduction is slightly different than an exemption. You're deducting a set amount (instead of itemizing it, which only makes sense to do if the total is more than the standard deduction, which it won't be for most professions).
An ~~exception~~ exemption would be removing a portion of the taxable income before it is taxed.
Pretty similar outcome for most people, but still an important distinction.
Edit: fixed autocorrect error
True, and perhaps credible for a married couple with a 31k deduction, but the 15k deduction for an individual might be a bit rough for single folks.
It’s complete bullshit. What city can you rent an apartment for 15k/year even with roommates?
It doesn't really make a difference if both parents are working and make similar amounts. Then that part is no different from filing separately.
Point is a couple shares rent. A couple's residence is unlikely to be twice the cost of a single residence, unless you have roommates. So 30k for a couple guess further than 15k living alone.
But if I itemize instead, I can't count those things.
I wrote a free spec script for a charity organization, enabling me to write off ~$50k in charitable donations for putting in a few hours of work.
Everyone should be looking for loopholes and ways to prevent the US government from getting their money.
I asked a CPA about this idea a couple months ago and was told that it doesn't work that way, and everything I can find on the internet backs that up. Can you provide a source saying otherwise?
I'm gonna agree with you. If OP gets audited, this will not hold up. OP cannot deduct money for a service that the charity pays nothing for. Only unreimbursed or out of pocket expenses can be deducted this way
If OP gets audited, this will not hold up.
The IRS actually already did look it over. They decided (rather arbitrarily) that the script I donated was worth ~50,000 instead of ~70,000 as I was trying to claim. Definitely not a full audit, but they already reviewed it at some level and it passed muster.
Right because you're donating intellectual property which is property. And that distinction is fucking nonsense but here we are. I doubt a full audit would allow market prices to survive on that though. They'd be like "hey now, this didn't cost you that." But to do a full audit we'd actually have to fund the IRS. Good luck getting that to happen.
I intend to pass the loophole my parents gave me to my children, really grateful for it
You sound like every business man ever.
You must learn from your enemy to defeat them.
Homeowners can write off the interest paid towards their mortgage. Renters can't write off shit.
If we have enough deductions to justify itemizing instead of taking the standard deduction.
I haven't had a need to itemize in several years.
That's not nearly as much of a perk as people make it out to be. It's good for a couple of years when you're mostly paying interest, but it's really not much.
Remember, a deduction is just removing the expense from your taxable income. It's not like we get that back from taxes...that'd be a credit.
So if I pay $5000 in interest over the course of the year, im not getting $5k back on my taxes. We just pretend my gross income is $5k less. And most the time, the standard deduction ends up being more anyway.
Most W2 workers take standard deduction. You aren't missing anything.
My primary income is W2, but I have a 1099 side gig (teaching scuba and underwater photography at a university) that usually results in me itemizing mostly because my gear is stupid expensive and I rarely make an actual profit. The write-offs are enough to let me justify spending the money on the gear to help me break even while teaching.
I do multi-year write-offs on the big-ticket items, because one underwater camera rig (camera, housing, strobes, wet-lenses, etc) costs what I make teaching underwater photography across 4-6 semesters.
Aren't business expenses normally filed under schedule C if youre a sole owner?
It’s by design, and in theory meant to encourage ownership to put personal stakes in the region. In practice, of course, homes are laughably unaffordable and it’s a free bonus for the rich.
In the US maybe, not that's not a universal thing.
You have to think about why it works that way.
A profit from a business is money that is taken out of the business. If the activities of the business generate more money than the business is spending, it doesn't have to become profit. It can also be re-invested in hiring more people, buying more equipment, training their workforce, expanding to new locations, even given as raises or bonuses to their employees. In theory, all of the things other than generating a profit are generally things that are good for the community. Employees can get hired, or trained, or raises. The business can expand allowing more people to buy from them, etc.
A profit is taxed because it's basically what a business does when it doesn't have any other useful ways of spending its money. In that case the excess money is just going to the business owners. The government is basically saying "ok, well if you aren't going to use that money for something that benefits everyone, and are just going to give it to the owners, we'll take our cut now. If the profits go directly to the business owners as income, they're then taxed again as income tax (again, in theory, in practice business owners don't want to pay that as income tax so they'll try to arrange to avoid it).
Income taxes are a different kind of taxation. They're basically a way for the government to own part of your labour. They go back to the time when peasants worked on the land. In exchange for the soldiers protecting them from bandits, the peasants shared some of their harvest. (I realize it was much more coercive than that, but the idealized theory is that taxes were to support the government which protects you or provides you services.)
The obvious problem with "after I've paid all my bills and rent" is that "all my bills and rent" is something that someone could always adjust so they had to pay zero taxes. Even if you just limited it to "my housing expenses, food expenses, water bill, and electrical bill" someone might buy a huge house, or buy only the finest groceries, or install lavish fountains, or run up their electrical bills. So, instead you might want to say that someone only gets taxed after reasonable living expenses are deducted... and that's how things work.
Progressive taxation schemes typically mean that you pay 0 tax on your first X dollars earned per year. X is supposedly set to the minimum of what someone needs to get by. The way it's done on the US is that the lowest tax rate is set at 10%, but the standard deduction is set at $15,750, so the 10% only kicks in once you've passed that. $15,750 is absurdly low. It should really be at least double that, if not triple, but the idea is there. That's the "only after I've paid all my bills and rent" number, if you assume someone is paying the lowest rent possible and their bills are the absolute necessities. But, I don't think anybody could realistically live on their own for $15,750 per year.
So... yeah, Lisa. Things already work like that. It's just that the numbers are all fucked, there are too many loopholes and exceptions.
Businesses do the exact same thing to hide their profits, espicially since the owners can now borrow money against the value of their shares instead of relying on profits.
Where are you from?
I can file a lot of the bills for my flat (e.g. things like repairs and facility service) at the tax office, as well as stuff like child care and most of my car's mileage (or my bike's mileage :-) ), to be exempted from income taxing at least (there are still other taxes).
Rent money would be fully taxed, though, as well as other cost of living like food and clothing.
Country is Germany.
I've tried writing everything off, but it's always been less than the standard deduction.
My CPA always reminds me, US tax laws are not written for us.
Businessmen don't get to write off their living expenses either, but feasibly you could start a business and become a contractor for your employer so you could write off things like footwear, home office square footage, and a standard deduction per mil driven between two work locations.
Best part is the ~~(Canadian?) IRS?~~ CRA will never audit you unless they have the staff and they can get more out of you than the cost of the audit (roughly 20k minimum).
I know a guy who started a business just to throw parties for his friends. He’d take a cover charge at the door and buy booze tax free and make sure to never turn a profit.
Got by with a banquet license which is like $8 for the night.
I knew a retired carpet cleaner who occasionally did that. He wasn't wealthy by any means but if he was going to owe more than 3k in Taxes it was always better for him to spend it on a "business trip".
home office square footage
Can you not do that as an employee in Canada?
In Australia employees who work from home can either calculate all your actual work from home expenses and deduct that, or use the standard fixed rate (which varies by year, but last financial year was 70 c per hour) which includes utilities and stationary/consumables. With the fixed rate you can still additionally deduct depreciating assets like computers and furniture (proportional to how often they are actually used for work).
That's how it works in many countries.
Business pays tax on profits (revenue - expenses). Salary has smaller tax for business compared to pure profits, employees don't pay it because it's not profit. So businesses have incentives to keep human employees instead of keeping all the profits for themselves.
And that applies to all businesses. So if you, for example, bought a carrot for $10, tax is included, you don't pay tax on it.
- The distributor bought it for $6, spent $1, pays tax on their profit ($3),
- farmer grew it, used fertilizer, seeds, labor, etc., pays tax on profit (maybe $2),
- the fertilizer company again pays tax on their profit, and so on
In US you pay tax on every transaction. You get salary, you pay tax, you buy a thing, you pay tax, you eat something, again tax. This makes you more aware government is taking money, compared to the first scenario. But it also gives government ways to make complicated rules and give different tax benefits to different people. In the first scenario, government help goes to everyone whether they have a job or not. In this case you only get Tax cuts if you already make money.
Progressive taxes are kind of supposed to take into account basic necessities and tax you more on estimated expendable income. So if you earn more, you can pay a higher portion of what you earn.
But also, I agree. Especially with cost of living being radically different depending on where you live. House, car, utilities, and grocery should all be deductible.
And the progressive tax on workers is way higher than on business.
Things you buy for work are also tax deductible, it’s more noticeable for businesses since they don’t generally make employees pay business expenses.
Makes more sense than it might seem, since when you pay all those bills, that's usually taxable income to the recipient. So if it isn't a write off, taxes can be paid many times on the same item.
That's kind of what the standard deduction is. Horribly out of date and not on pace with inflation, but still.
If corporations are people now then why do the get away with not paying the federal income tax?
If corporations are people why is it legal for them to buy and dissolve each other?
But then again, groceries and rent would go way up because they'd anticipate that, and instead of funding public spending that benefits everybody you'd give even more money to greedy capitalists.
Should make myself a business and right off everything as reinvesting in my life.
Heck even if overtime wasn't taxed fully that would be nice