you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 135 points 5 months ago (64 children)

/uj

The "money spent on survival" is the standard deduction and deductions in general. Deductions are viewed as if you never made that money in the first place. Whether standard deduction should be larger is another question.

  • source
  • hideshow 64 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago*

    Person: $16k for food is part of standard deduction. No deduction for car or rent if you are an employee.

    Corporation (which is legally treated as a person): $150k for food for one party. $150k for CEO's Mercedes. $500k for condo for ceo to use when visiting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Yeah, because $16k is enough to survive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    A diet of nothing but rice and beans, living in a rented room in a garage, and dumpster diving for all the remaining necessities and you can almost live in California!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I'm on a fixed income and cannot live in California. I do thanks to parents giving me some intergenerational wealth early by paying my $2k-ish rent for me. (They're in their eighties and still alive.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    New York? A half month in a leaky but somehow airtight corrugated metal shed, no air conditioning and a communal bathroom that also happens to be the yard your "bungalow" is in

    Ohio? 6 months in a house that used to be someones starter home but they added more to the house, cut it in half, and now charge the same if not more rent for each half than someone paid for the original mortgage. You will be harassed for the rent because "i have to pay the mortgage" but it was paid off over a decade ago. The landlord takes multiple vacations, out of the country, every year. Conveniently around storms and bad weather, so when your roof falls in there's nothing they can do for two weeks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    That doesn’t answer my question at all and you’re not the person I asked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe asking questions on the Internet isn't for you ❤️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    OP even acknowledged this and this shit is still top reply. Dumb fucks everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    OP acknowledged the amount itself is of course debatable, and is an entirely separate topic. Yet here we are, again. The concept of whatever you think is a valid argument is moot, a totally separate topic, and there's no argument to be invalidated in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    You're right, of course. But I also think it would open up a giant loophole for the wealthy. A car is essential for survival! A three million dollar car? ... A 15,000sqft house?

    Of course, they could set reasonable limits. But when was the last time congress was reasonable?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 48 points 5 months ago (29 children)
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (28 children)

    The government tells you what the standard deduction is. You don't have to claim that standard deduction. You can specifically itemize the deductions you wish the claim instead. You can claim considerably more than the standard, if you so choose.

    Whether we should be able to claim more and whether the standard deduction is large enough are different questions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (26 children)

    You can claim considerably more than the standard, if you so choose.

    You can say that you would like to claim more, but the government sure as hell isn't going to let you claim survival expenses like that. Go ahead and try to claim your rent. Unless you are using part of your rental for business purposes (not just living) they'll just tell you to get fucked and pay the taxes anyway.

    So yes, you can put it on the paperwork. But actually claim it? Almost certainly not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (24 children)

    Rent alone here is higher than the basic personal amount, let alone any other necessities. And I'm in one of the cheapest cities in Canada for rental housing.

    Which is to say, almost every single tax paying person in the entire country would be getting more than the basic personal amount (Canada's version of the standard deduction in the US) if we were allowed to claim basic necessities. And not by a small amount.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    None of that changes the fact that if you have more deductible expenses than the standard deduction, you can claim greater than the standard deduction.

    You are missing the point that for a business everything is a deduction and for an individual almost nothing counts as an itemized deduction.

    It is a lie to say "you could itemize" when the IRS specifically does not allow W2 employees to itemize rent, transportation, food, and entertainment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    You don't have to be just a W2 worker

    That's the OP argument! You can't say, employee taxes aren't unfair, just be an employer. It's ridiculous! You have only restated the OP's claim: businesses can deduct virtually everything and employees can deduct virtually nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    You keep trying to change the argument from the lack of fairness in tax policy to a discussion of how you can dodge taxes by becoming a business.

    Yes by becoming a business you can dodge taxes like other businesses. That's not the argument.

    OP: "rent is high" YOU: "no its not, just buy a house" OP: "that's not what I said" YOU: "You're not listening, here are tips to buy a house cheaply."

    You buying a house cheap doesn't change that the OP said rent is high. Becoming a business doesn't change the tax policy allows deductions for businesses that employees don't get.

    And your "garage sale tip" is bullshit of the highest order. If you've done it, you are lucky you haven't been audited. You can't deduct on a loss every year without being classified as a hobby. If you are holding a garage sale, you aren't earning a profit- that's why its not taxable. You selling a 20 year old $10 beanie baby for 25 cents is a loss and you don't have to pay taxes on that 25 cents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Maybe with a small penalty

    Small penalty is when you make a mistake. Gigantic deductions with no income would have them charging you with tax fraud. The lawyer fees to defend yourself would be worse than the penalties.

    Lack of profit doesn't mean a business is unsuccessful

    Companies like Amazon showed losses a decade because they had income from investors. So they had income, it was only that the "business" side of the business was unprofitable.

    You can't get away with deducting your mortgage as a business express from a unprofitable garage sale. Certainly not year after year.

    Why do you assume you won't find a profitable niche in the process?

    So we are back to, "just buy a house if you can't afford rent."

    Tax avoidance schemes isn't the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Tax fraud would be claiming deductions for expenses that were never incurred.

    You aren't even googling before making shit up now.

    https://gordonlaw.com/learn/taking-too-many-deductions/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Sometimes+called+%E2%80%9Cpadding%2C%E2%80%9D+typical+overstating+deductions+tactics+include%2Ccharge+parties+who+overstate+deductions+with+tax+fraud.

    Look, you’re entering into this from the assumption that I’m suggesting you defraud the government.

    I'm entering this from the assumption that you are steering the argument into something completely unrelated because you were proven wrong.

    IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU CAN LEGALLY DODGE TAXES BY RUNNING A BUSINESS. THE OP STATED THAT W2 EMPLOYEES DON'T GET THE DEDUCTIONS OF A BUSINESS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    you claimed you could deduct part of your mortgage for a garage sale.

    You claimed it isn't fraud if you can show the source.

    You aren't allowed to deduct your mortgage for a garage sale.

    https://www.irs.gov/publications/p587

    Fraud can be overstated deductions. Given that you aren't allowed to deduct your mortgage for a garage sale, and you are doing it every year to offset your W2 earnings, the amount of your phony deduction could be considered fraud. You can't deduct hobby expenses.

    If you don't like that, don't work as a W2 employee

    That's not the discussion and you know it.

    "Rent is high" you: "buy a house" "Police are corrupt" you: "become a policeman" "Tax policy is unfair" you: "start a successful business"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I claimed that a garage sale was a business activity.

    You can't deduct housing for a garage sale as you claimed.

    The fact that the IRS requires your regular commute and other expenses to be included in your negotiated pay as a W2 employee means that your expenses are effectively considered "reimbursed".

    They specifically say you can't deduct even if the employer doesn't reimburse.

    "Employees can’t deduct this cost even if their employer doesn’t reimburse the employee for using their own car."

    https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/heres-the-411-on-who-can-deduct-car-expenses-on-their-tax-returns

    So the IRS does not consider your salary as including reimbursement for transportation.

    "you can work as a 1099 contractor rather than a W2 employee."

    Companies do not offer that choice to everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    You can’t deduct housing for a garage sale as you claimed.

    Your own link says that I can, especially when you get around to acknowledging that the garage sale was just one small business activity of the whole business I described. I included "online retail" as an additional business activity specifically because I thought you would have a problem with the garage sale alone. I've already addressed your "garage sale" concerns; I addressed them before you raised them. Your own link says I can deduct from my housing costs the percentage of the house I use for business purposes. It specifically says I can use any "reasonable method that accurately reflects your business-use percentage" to make that determination.

    They specifically say you can't deduct even if the employer doesn't reimburse.

    The IRS basically acts as though your regular pay specifically includes reimbursement for your regular commute. Your regular commute is already paid for with your pay, which is why you can't claim it. The pay you negotiate with your W2 employer already includes (but does not specifically itemize) reimbursement for your regular commute. That is why you don't get to separately deduct it.

    Your regular pay does not cover atypical travel. If you are temporarily forced to drive 5 miles further to a different job site, you can claim that additional 5 miles. Compensation for that additional mileage is not included in your regular pay. If that additional mileage is not specifically reimbursed, you can claim it, even as a W2 employee.

    Companies do not offer that choice to everyone.

    Then find a different company. Find three, or ten. You're a contractor: you provide a contracted service, not your time. You provide it to anyone you want, not just a single company. That's what it means to be a contractor, rather than an employee. You have the flexibility in defining exactly what business you will be doing. You don't have to fit the narrow IRS restrictions associated with W2 employment. You operate as a business, and you are taxed as a business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (4 children)

    especially when you get around to acknowledging that the garage sale was just one small business activity of the whole business I described.

    Read what you wrote:

    "Forget all of that, hold an annual garage sale.

    Now, you’re a business. You get to deduct the poster board you purchase advertising your sale. You get to deduct the balloons and price stickers.

    You also get to deduct that part of your rent or mortgage that you spend on the garage where you keep your inventory. That is now your “warehouse”, which is part of your (non-employment) business. How about your attic? The attic is part of your home. You pay mortgage/rent/taxes on that part of your home right along with every other part. I doubt you use it for anything but storage anyway. Put the crap in your attic on your lawn with a price tag once a year, and you get to deduct the part of your housing payment that goes toward your attic.

    You get to deduct the cost of acquiring your inventory. That is also a business expense.

    Spend an afternoon in a lawnchair while your neighbors look through your junk inventory, and you get to claim thousands of dollars in business expenses.

    If you’re worried the IRS might take issue with you if you only do this once a year, you can put up an ebay, etsy, craigslist, or marketplace listing, and it becomes a year-round operation."

    You posted what the IRS could classify as fraud and then added "If you are worried..." as an addendum.

    Creating an ebay account does not allow you to deduct your rent. You need to sell regularly as a business to qualify. Only the portion of the space used exclusively for business is deductible.

    So we have everything that isn't profit for a business is taxed vs everything that isn't business related for a taxpayer is taxed. It hasn't changed the OP's statement at all. If a business needs an office to operate its completely tax deductible but the bedroom of your house where you need to sleep isn't tax deductible.

    The IRS basically acts as though your regular pay s

    "Acts" is your opinion. I specifically quoted the IRS publication where they said that isn't true.

    The pay you negotiate with your W2 employer already includes

    The IRS said they specifically do not consider it is included.

    Then find a different company.

    People are forced through from their birth lottery (intelligence and family wealth) into a system that dictates the rules. Finding the perfect job is often impossible because the choice isn't there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    You posted what the IRS could classify as fraud and then added “If you are worried…” as an addendum.

    You claim they could. Not them. They would be burdened with proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which they can't do, because you can cite their explicit guidance to support your claim of business use. It's not fraud, because they specifically state that you can claim everything I said. You linked the exact statement that allows it, and I've cited it earlier. The "addendum" I added was for your benefit, because I recognized that the "garage sale" example was probably too foreign a concept for you to rationally consider. But yes, if 50% of my home is used exclusively for business 1 day a year, I can deduct 1/365 * 50% * annual rent of my home. If I use a room that is 10% of the floor space of my home exclusively to store and handle merchandise for my online storefront, I can deduct 10% of my rent.

    Creating an ebay account does not allow you to deduct your rent. You need to sell regularly as a business to qualify.

    You need to regularly offer for sale.

    If a business needs an office to operate its completely tax deductible but the bedroom of your house where you need to sleep isn’t tax deductible.

    Correct. You're restating what I said in my initial comment: "You also get to deduct that part of your rent or mortgage that you spend on the garage where you keep your inventory." You're repeating my words back to me, after declaring my words to be fraud.

    “Acts” is your opinion. I specifically quoted the IRS publication where they said that isn’t true.

    That citation does not apply to the circumstances we are discussing here.

    The IRS said they specifically do not consider it is included.

    This entire discussion is predicated on the fact that they do not allow deductions for things like commuting, when they do allow deductions for 1099 contractors to travel to job sites, and they do allow W2 employees to deduct travel to places other than their normal place of work. They do not allow these deductions where the travel costs are reimbursed, whether for W2 employees or for 1099 contractors. So, regular commuting is not deductible; reimbursed travel is not deductible. Regular commuting is treated the same way as reimbursed travel. Contrary to what you think you read, the IRS does treat normal commutes as reimbursed travel.

    People are forced through from their birth lottery (intelligence and family wealth) into a system that dictates the rules.

    Horseshit. Pure, unadulterated horseshit. There are millions of 1099 workers in the economy. If this tax issue is sufficiently important, you will join them. If it's not important enough to do something effective, you can try to achieve some sort of change through the political process.

    Finding the perfect job is often impossible because the choice isn’t there.

    In this discussion, you have repeatedly and consistently misidentified perfectly legitimate business practices as "fraud". You have repeatedly defamed me for promoting these perfectly legitimate business practices by declaring them fraud.

    You now argue that you don't have the "choice" of your perfect job.

    Your perceptions are the problem here. You are failing to recognize the wide variety of choice that you do have. The constraints of "fraud" aren't where you think they are. You are allowed to do far more than what you think you can do. This "lack of choice" problem is entirely within your own head. You are rejecting good options because you don't understand that they are good. You are mistaking them for fraud, then claiming you don't have them.

    Be the choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    If it's not important enough to do something effective, you can try to achieve some sort of change through the political process.

    And you have constantly refused to acknowledge that the tax laws aren't consistent.

    Your equivalent position: "Police brutality isnt a problem, become a policeman so you are above the law or change it with politics."

    I've been on all sides. I've been W2. I've been W2 with a side business. I've been president of a large ISP. I don't have to be in the fight to see injustice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    And you have constantly refused to acknowledge that the tax laws aren’t consistent.

    I've shown the consistency.

    A W2 worker is, effectively, a subcontractor to a prime contractor who reimburses all normal work expenses. The subcontractor doesn't get to deduct their travel expenses, because they are part of the normal compensation. The subcontractor doesn't get to deduct PPE, because they are provided by the prime. The subcontractor doesn't get to deduct clothing or laundry or tools, because all of those are provided (or reimbursed) by the prime. This arrangement between the prime and the subcontractor is functionally identical to that of the prime with a W2 employee.

    The subcontractor does get to deduct atypical expenses not included in the normal, negotiated pay. So does the W2 employee.

    The term for the comparison between "W2 Worker" and the type of subcontractor I described is "consistent". They are able to make the same deductions for the same reasons. They are taxed the same. A W2 worker is a subcontractor whose normal expenditures are all reimbursed by the prime. The distinction between them has no relevant difference.

    The tax scheme for a W2 employee is simplified relative to that of a 1099 worker. This is the sine qua non of W2 employment. This simplification is the explicit reason why this category exists. This category of worker incorporates all "normal" expenditures, making all of them the responsibility of the employer, and included in "normal", negotiated pay. These "normal", routine, recurring expenditures don't need to be explicitly itemized on the tax return. They are already treated as reimbursed through regular pay, so they are already incorporated and not subject to deduction. The need for these expenditures is included in your pay negotiation with your employer.

    This simplification does not extend to abnormal or atypical expenses incurred by the worker. Where the W2 worker incurs abnormal or atypical, non-reimbursed expenses, they can, indeed, claim these expenses. Only normal, recurring expenses are included in the pay negotiated with the employer.

    What you are trying to achieve is something that already exists in the tax code. Colloquially, it's called the "1099 Worker". We already have the "1099 Worker". You're trying to reinvent the "1099 Worker". But we already have the "1099 Worker". Everything you are trying to achieve for the W2 employee is already present in the "1099 Worker" category. If you want the benefits of a "1099 Worker", go ahead and become a "1099 Worker". You can certainly hire yourself out to one or more businesses as a "1099 Worker". Companies hire "1099 Workers" all the time for specific purposes. Yes, the overwhelming majority of jobs are filled by W2 employees, but certainly not all. There is plenty of opportunity for you to operate as a "1099 Worker" if your specific needs aren't being met by W2 employment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    W2 worker is, effectively, a subcontractor to a prime contractor who reimburses all normal work expenses.

    I already quoted the IRS webpage where it specifically states that isn't true.

    But it doesn't matter. If you are a business and get income from a contract and that contract says "Part of this money includes travel expenses." it doesn't matter to the IRS. As a business, you get income and you have expenses. The details of that income do not matter to the IRS.

    For example a business gets $50k of income from a contract that says it includes travel expenses. At the end of the year you actually spent $49k in travel expenses. You report $1k profit to the IRS.

    A W2 gets $50k and has to report $50k independent of how much they had to personally spend to get that $50k.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    "If you’re not deducting that part of your home, utilities, vehicles, electronics, tools, and equipment that you use for various business purposes, you’re doing something very wrong."

    Ok, but why should it have to be for business purposes to be deductible? Why does a landlord get to deduct the same exact expenses a private homeowner cannot?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I haven't addressed that issue. I've addressed the fairness issue. If you can present your expenses as business expenses, you should. If the only reason you can't is because you aren't presenting yourself as a business, present yourself as a business and take the deductions.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    We're literally talking about corporations being "people" but able to deduct things that people can't. If corporations are people, and they can deduct rent (they can) why can't everyone else.

    You've completely lost the plot mate. You can't say THE LITERAL QUESTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT is a separate question, wtf lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    A large part of my house is used exclusively for business purposes. I deduct that part.

    I don't do this myself, but businesses are allowed to compensate workers with, in part, housing. Your home-based business could deduct the housing it provides to workers, including yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Overall, the general shape of the system makes sense.

    Everybody receives services provided by the government, so everybody should help pay for that government. The FDA tests to make sure food and drugs are safe. The NHTSA makes sure cars and highways are safe. And, of course, the big one, the military protecting the country from invasion. The standard deduction exists so that people only have to start paying taxes once they get their basic needs met.

    Of course, I know that in the real world it's much more complicated than that. The US military might actually make Americans less safe by getting involved in all kinds of conflicts overseas. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th would probably never have attacked if the US had a defence-only military. The FDA is being corrupted by an antivax nutjob, and so-on. But, the theory of everybody contributing taxes to pay for things provided for the common good makes sense. The real standard deduction is absurdly low and almost nobody can actually fully meet their needs with that minimal amount.

    It also makes sense in the abstract that corporations don't pay taxes on money that doesn't get distributed to the owners. If a Mom and Pop grocery store is doing really well and Mom and Pop pay themselves huge salaries, they pay personal income tax on those salaries. If they arrange to do it through corporate dividends or something, then it's the corporation that pays taxes. On the other hand, if the store is doing really well and they want to expand, it makes sense that the government not tax them based on their revenues if they're re-investing those revenues into the business. If they're investing the money into making a bigger, better store to serve their community rather than simply taking the money out as profits into Mom's purse and Pop's wallet that's good for the community. Also, if Mom and Pop made $400k in revenue but spent $390k on expenses, and that includes the wages of some cashiers, it's probably unreasonable to tax the revenue before the employees are even paid.

    The problem is really in the various loopholes and ways corporations claim to be re-investing the money. We wouldn't want Mom and Pop's grocery store to be unable to expand because they're taxed before they can even invest. On the other hand if Pop buys a Porsche SUV under the store's name and claims it's a grocery delivery van, that's not fair. Other people have to buy their SUVs with after-tax money. In theory, if Pop is caught claiming that SUV as a business expense but using it for purely personal purposes, the IRS will go after him. But, of course, the reality is that companies get away with that kind of thing all the time.

    I think part of the complaint here is based in the reality that corporations get away with lots of things, and that taxes are a real burden on the poor and middle class. On the other hand, I think there's also a lot of financial illiteracy where people really have no idea how the taxation system works. They just see ragebait on social media and get angry because something about it seems unfair.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    That’s the thing. Corporations report their own deductions, but individuals have to follow existing law, when there’s a high variance among necessary spending

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    You can also report your own deductions if you itemize. If your income is low, the standard deduction is probably just significantly bigger than your itemized deductions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Legal deductions are extremely limited if you are an employee. You can't deduct your car, your rent, or the big screen TV you bought.

    For employers, anything that didn't end up in the bank at the end of the year is a deduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Also, not true. You can deduct any expense needed for work. Uniform, supplies, food if you're required to eat on the clock, car payments if you're a delivery driver, all deductible. You can deduct a haircut if your employer has a grooming policy.

    It's just not worth it for most people. You need to save receipts and be able to prove it was a job-related expense, and if you do something wrong, you could be charged with tax fraud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Commuting to and from the job is an expense needed for work. You can claim that part of your non-reimbursed travel expenses to temporary work sites that exceed your normal commute, but you can't claim your normal commute.

    You cannot deduct your commuting expenses. Not gas. Not bus fare. Not parking.

    Uniform items are deductible only of you don't get a uniform allowance.

    If they give you a $50/yr boot allowance, you don't get to claim your $300 Red Wings. If you buy your own tools but your employer provides a (shitty, shared) set, you don't get to deduct your tools.

    But, this is all about W2 employment. In practice, the overwhelming majority of expenses you incur in the process of W2 employment are not actually deductible, because your employer is already taking the deduction.

    But, if you are running your own home business, your usual workplace is your home, and you can claim transportation expenses anywhere you need to go for that business. You can deduct the use of a part of your home. You can deduct part of your utilities, your wardrobe, your tools. Even if your home business is one of the 30% that are operated at a loss, you can deduct the expenses incurred while doing business, and offset a part of your W2 income.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

    People can report their own deductions, too. It's just not worth it for most people.

    The problem is that the IRS "doesn't have the resources" to audit corporations and millionaires. They basically only audit small business owners.

    Edit for sarcasm quotes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Even that though, you can only deduct part of your living expenses. There is no food deduction afaik, there is no deduction for insurance as far as I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Most of us also pay a much higher proportion of our income in sales taxes. Businesses are exempt from such taxes; they are only paid by the end user.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    No, that's incorrect. I am very well aware of this. Businesses only have to pay sales taxes on purchases for which they are the end user. They'll pay sales taxes on their office supplies and services provided to the business. But manufacturers do not have to pay sales taxes on the raw materials they purchase. Retailers do not pay sales taxes on wholesale purchases they make for resale. Only the end-user pays the sales tax on a purchase.

    I work with a couple vendors that do not collect sales tax at all. They only sell B2B, and they only sell to businesses who provide them with a sales tax exemption certificate.

    What you are describing is more akin to Europe's VAT system. Still, under VAT, everyone in the chain pays VAT, and each vendor remits the collected VAT to the tax authority. But, the business-buyer reclaims that VAT from the tax authority if they are not the end-user of the purchased product. Everyone but the end user can reclaim their VAT payment.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'm pretty sure I read that auditing the wealthy is a huge profit center for the IRS, because they find people who aren't paying what's owed. Naturally conservatives (of any party) hate this and gut it whenever possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Auditing in general is profitable, but it's mostly due to it being automated for people that aren't making 7 figures. Auditing the not absurdly wealthy is also generally a positive revenue. Auditing the extremely wealthy tends to not be a great net benefit as the costs of lawyers and court time outweighs the settlement check at the end. There's an argument to be made it's worth the cost to ensure the ultra wealthy do actually pay though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    True, and broadly deductions, but deductions are very different.

    For example, owning my house, the taxes do not care that I pay insurance and property tax on it. They do not care if I have to spend $10,000 on HVAC because it went out.

    However, if I own a house that I rent out, I can deduct all of that. And this is ignoring the standard deduction, you can deduct this stuff on top of the standard deduction.

    I think this is the sort of BS, that a business can wave away most any expense but a private citizen just has to suck it up.

  • source
  • parent