SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Not Roth per se; an IRA to Roth conversion (that incurs income tax liability.)Did you put a huge chunk of money in a Roth IRA? Would that increase your federal tax due?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not Roth per se; an IRA to Roth conversion (that incurs income tax liability.)Did you put a huge chunk of money in a Roth IRA? Would that increase your federal tax due?
Did you put a huge chunk of money in a Roth IRA? Would that increase your federal tax due? Would that count? Talk to a tax person toot sweet
"semi-wealthy" is your opinion. I suggest staying with "~ top 40% of US household incomes eligible."
Was the reduced capital gains on investments "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
Is non-progressive taxation, e.g. on car fuel, "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
Are the myriad tax breaks only available to small business "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
Are the tax breaks available to organized religion "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
Are the tax breaks available to corporations "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
Are the tax breaks available to homeowners "designed" to benefit the wealthy ?
I'm tired of typing, so if you don't yet see the fallacy in your reasoning I give up.
I see the effect; my point is that your proclivity to conclude that ONE effect of a tax law that benefits the wealthy (whatever that means) is proof of a grand design for the wealthy (again: whatever that means) is silly.Passing a law that has a predictable effect means you have accepted that effect as part of the design. There may be reasons why you think that effect is acceptable but not acknowledging it is disingenuous at best.
I see the effect; my point is that your proclivity to conclude that ONE effect of a tax law that benefits the wealthy (whatever that means) is proof of a grand design for the wealthy (again: whatever that means) is silly.
To the extent that an EV on the road has a societal benefit, that benefit is not determined by the income of the driver. Sheesh
Ah ... the 20 year old beaters poor people pick up for $1000. Do you really think these owners are just waiting for your refundable credit to buy a $35k Tesla ?Yes it is, I'm also pretty sure that people with less income are more likely to drive older more polluting cars. Society would benefit more from replacing those with EVs.
Ah ... the 20 year old beaters poor people pick up for $1000. Do you really think these owners are just waiting for your refundable credit to buy a $35k Tesla ?
I get it -- you want a refundable credit. So do I. But let's not turn this into some class warfare argument for fools.
The only reality here is you want a refundable credit. The rest is window dressing.If pointing out reality amounts to class warfare
So the bias in the tax credit towards those with higher incomes is a figment of my imagination?The only reality here is you want a refundable credit. The rest is window dressing.
ANY tax credit available to all is "biased" towards higher incomes.So the bias in the tax credit towards those with higher incomes is a figment of my imagination?
Perhaps the backer of the original bill wanted a refundable credit, but the opposition balked simply on budgetary grounds. And the compromise was to make the credit non-refundable, since some study said it would cost the government x% less to do that. The end result is a credit that looks like (and in practice does) favor the wealthy, but that wasn't the original goal, or even the final goal, simply a side effect of another competing goal that ended up having a higher priority. I could be totally wrong. I wasn't there for these negotiations. Were you?So the bias in the tax credit towards those with higher incomes is a figment of my imagination?
Ofcourse, it is ! Warren Buffet should obviously have a lesser tax rate than his secretary !So the bias in the tax credit towards those with higher incomes is a figment of my imagination?
Perhaps the backer of the original bill wanted a refundable credit, but the opposition balked simply on budgetary grounds. And the compromise was to make the credit non-refundable, since some study said it would cost the government x% less to do that. The end result is a credit that looks like (and in practice does) favor the wealthy, but that wasn't the original goal, or even the final goal, simply a side effect of another competing goal that ended up having a higher priority. I could be totally wrong. I wasn't there for these negotiations. Were you?