• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
  • Mikalai Zaikin

living in country with high income taxes/high tax exemptions

Posts: 1332
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Max Habibi:

Fact beats logic, no matter how gymnastic the logic.

Irrelevant in the absence of facts. No one has posted any facts regarding tax fraud. A couple of people have posted assertions without evidence worded as if they were facts, but pretending that they are facts don't make them so.

A contrary opinion to what I said would be that

"the vast amount of tax fraud is not committed by the higher income earners, as measured by the amount of money involved."

You stated two different things. That would be the contrary opinion to the second half of your statement. I was disagreeing with the first half of your statement, the "It's a cinche" part. I don't think it's a cinche; that's why I said "I don't think it's obvious".

I don't have an opinion on the second half of your statement, because I haven't seen any facts on it either way - only assertions by people who haven't actually provided any facts. I've found that it's extremely common in these situations that the facts don't actually back up what people think "is obvious".

The point was that the rich can expense the gas for some vehicles that they can afford, while the poor cannot do likewise for the vehicles that they can afford.

Okay. It wasn't clear to me that you were implying that the person owning the super heavy SUV was a rich person. I took your statement be a disagreement with my comment that complexities in the tax code favor the rich by showing a situation where the complexities were favoring someone (you with the super heavy SUV) who was not rich.

Now that I understand what you are saying, it seems to me like it's yet another example supporting my point that complexities in the tax code favor the rich.

[18 wheelers]

I don't know what you're saying here. Are you accepting my assertion, or rejecting it? Are you implying that because rigs qualify for one tax break, they couldn't qualify for an alternative one? Either's fine, just please clarify.

I'm questioning your assertion without outright rejecting it. I don't like to outright accept or reject an assertion without evidence; I prefer to wait until I have some facts or logic to support one position or the other. I'm providing my reasons for thinking that some of your statements may be false or an oversimplifications.

I have read the IRS regulations on farm equipment federal fuel tax refund (not deduction), and as I read them, they wouldn't have permitted the refund on 18 wheelers or SUVs unless they were actually used on a farm. However, this is some years ago (before I started using a computer for my tax returns and quit reading through every instruction for every form), so things may have changed since then.

[Map only fixed markup to prevent any further confusion ]
[ January 08, 2005: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
If you do just the smallest bit of research, as Thomas Paul obviously did, you'll find that the vast amount of tax fraud, as measured by the amount of money involved, is committed by the higher income earners.

Most tax fraud by individuals (both number and dollar value) is committed by low-wage earners (IRS estimate of 20% and about $4 billion) who cheat in order to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

In other words, exactly the reverse of what Steven wanted Thomas to have said
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic