Wow! Deduct sales tax on tax return?
Originally Posted by mingster,Oct 15 2004, 10:19 PM
. . . this would be GREAT for me as I bought 2 cars this year and I can deduct an extra 4~5k on sales tax on just that!
Originally Posted by magician,Oct 17 2004, 12:51 AM
In California you don't pay sales tax on cars, you pay use tax. It's calculated at the same rate as sales tax, but it is technically a different tax. Because of this technical difference, it may not fall under the provisions of this bill. This is a question for a tax accountant.
all of this is probably moot anyway... i would assume mingster's california taxes paid exceed the amount he paid on cars.... but I may be wrong.
It's an either / or tax deduction, so Steven975, if your state has no income tax, you can deduct your sales tax. If you have both, you can chose. And Magician, when you buy a new car, it's a sales tax, which would be deductible. Under the old law, when sales taxes were deductible, you could also deduct the use tax on a used car, so I expect you can now also. The use tax, generally, is if you bought your car out-of-state, then brought it to California.
However, for most Californians that itemize deductions, your state income tax will probably be higher, so this law change doesn't do a damn thing. And it was planned that way to punish California for voting for Gore in 2000.
However, for most Californians that itemize deductions, your state income tax will probably be higher, so this law change doesn't do a damn thing. And it was planned that way to punish California for voting for Gore in 2000.
You think I am joking? There are about 10 states that have a sales tax that have low or no income tax, that this provision will benefit (the most). With the exception of Washington state, every single one of them went for Bush in 2000, and they are all swing states in this election. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you think?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no doubt whatsoever this is solely a political move to garner votes in Florida, Nevada, and Washington. I haven't read through the entire bill but I'm guessing it's mostly pork barrel stuff to help win elections.
I just thought the idea that it's somehow targeted at CA was funny.
I just thought the idea that it's somehow targeted at CA was funny.
Originally Posted by Docent,Oct 16 2004, 08:44 AM
I'm going to have to agree with you, but also I have a question. First off, some key states that tax cut will affect are Florida and Nevada. According to electoral maps these 2 states are in the "swing state" or "swaying" category. This tax cut can give a better leaning toward Bush for those states.
So my question, what exactly is the problem with a defeceit as long as it is being bought up by foreign countries? I have heard people say that it doesn't really matter because other countries are buying our debt.
So my question, what exactly is the problem with a defeceit as long as it is being bought up by foreign countries? I have heard people say that it doesn't really matter because other countries are buying our debt.

now you asked, "what exactly is the problem with a defeceit as long as it is being bought up by foreign countries? I have heard people say that it doesn't really matter because other countries are buying our debt."
it matters a great deal because those those foreign countries are not paying off our debts for us free-of-charge, but rather are giving the US a loan, and that debt will need to be repaid with interest.
the primary manner in which the US government solicits loans to fund it's debt spending is by issuing treasury bills. rather than having me go into a long-winded description of T-bills, take a look at this website. the short version is: essentially the US gov't is saying, "Hey loan us some money now (to be determined at the auction), and we'll agree to pay you back some fixed amount (the T-bill face value) when the bill matures." in essence, as I said earlier, it works out essentially the same to getting a loan and paying interest on it.
so when the US runs up a massive deficit (such as what the Bush administration has done), which means the gov't has requested and received services for which it currently doesn't have the finances to pay for (such as for building and repairing military vehicles, having more artillery built, rebuilding damanged infrastructure, paying Halliburton to over-charge the armed forces for the delivery of fuel
... heck, just look here for an idea as to our current expenditures in Iraq alone. which does NOT include the cost of the original valid intention of going to war in Afghanistan to find that guy named Bin Laden, which somehow got confused with Saddam Hussein.
)now, mind you, the US gov't has these large companies (like Halliburton) performing these services for us, and these companies then turn around and bill the government. since the US gov't no longer has a surplus (that is to say, no longer has adequate money in it's piggy bank) it has to then sell T-bill on the open market to get loans to pay off these services, as I mentioned earlier.
now here's the problem with why we can't just keep getting loans, and that is because those foreign countries have limited finances themselves to purchase more T-bills from us. they've already bought a bunch of our T-bills before, and now there is a whole flood of new T-bills on the market. as what happens when any market gets flooded, there are less buyers and less buyer's money to actually purchase those T-bills, so those T-bills have to get sold at a discount, which essentially means the US gov't agrees to pay a higher interest rate for those loans. on top of that, as when any person, organization, or gov't keeps putting itself deeper and deeper into debt, the question arises as to their ability to repay those loans.
now, why is this a big deal to us right? and why did I say that our children will be paying off these debts for us?
well it works in much the same way as what happens when you get a loan, you're agreeing to get some fixed amount of money now, and you pay it back with interest over several years.
this debt being run-up has to be paid for by the tax dollars we will be paying to the federal government for decades to come. that means, those tax dollars are not being used by our government to maintain and protect the infrastructure of the United States, but rather goes into the coffers of the foreign nations, or when bought by dictators and kings, it primarily just goes into their pockets.
which is why I said it is insidious, because that money is just leaving the US shores by the BILLIONS. we will never get to see what good that money could have done in our country because it is leaving our shores. and that money isn't just some esoteric concept, that money-- those dollars-- are a measure of the value of our labor, and this is where I want to introduce the term "efforta"... (see next post in a few hours... I gotta run...)
dont worry, most of us except the real young ones, will be long dead before this 7 trillion dollar deficit will hurt us, so yea feel sorry for your kids. Because they werent the ones only looking at the "tax cut" aspect of voting a president. Hopefully they will actually read up before they vote bc of a tax cut... americans want want want but dont want to give. No no dont take money from me, but yea i want that 5billion dollar bullet train. =/ Dont get me wrong I love a tax cut like any one else does, but its just not the right thing to do right now.
Originally Posted by steven975,Oct 16 2004, 02:48 PM
Here's my take:
In states where there is a state income tax (and no sales tax) the taxes are deductible.
In states where there is a sales tax and no income tax the taxes are NOT deductible.
It's only fair if the latter were reversed.
remember, this is NOT, NOT a sales tax REBATE, it is a DEDUCTION. For example, if someone made $100K and paid $3K in taxes, their taxable income would be $97K rather than $100K.
Also, tax cuts are a great economic stimulus, and they have worked (except in those states that are hostile to business development...cough, michigan, ohio, cough). On the deficit, we are in a WAR. Once tax revenues increase, though economic growth, they will probably be partially rolled back.
Also, on those saying the tax cuts benefit primarily the rich...HUH? The highest bracket was cut 1%, the lowest 5%. These are facts and are not twisted in any way. Of course somone who pays $1M in taxes deserves a bigger break than someone who pays $1K. IMO Kerry's biggest strategy is inciting class envy and warfare...hardly a platform. With his national health care proposal, he looks like an ass criticizing the deficit
On docent's question, debt matters and it doesn't. If worse came to worse, the government could simply print more money and pay the debt in full...of course the consequence is significant inflation
on foreign governments buying it, it means that they are taking the repayment risk (which is the lowest really). We still pay interest. Of course, with a recession plus a war, some investment (tax cuts) were necessary. Even Greenspan has said that short term deficits are not a problem and in real terms (the ONLY way to compare $ over time) they are no where near record recessions.
In states where there is a state income tax (and no sales tax) the taxes are deductible.
In states where there is a sales tax and no income tax the taxes are NOT deductible.
It's only fair if the latter were reversed.
remember, this is NOT, NOT a sales tax REBATE, it is a DEDUCTION. For example, if someone made $100K and paid $3K in taxes, their taxable income would be $97K rather than $100K.
Also, tax cuts are a great economic stimulus, and they have worked (except in those states that are hostile to business development...cough, michigan, ohio, cough). On the deficit, we are in a WAR. Once tax revenues increase, though economic growth, they will probably be partially rolled back.
Also, on those saying the tax cuts benefit primarily the rich...HUH? The highest bracket was cut 1%, the lowest 5%. These are facts and are not twisted in any way. Of course somone who pays $1M in taxes deserves a bigger break than someone who pays $1K. IMO Kerry's biggest strategy is inciting class envy and warfare...hardly a platform. With his national health care proposal, he looks like an ass criticizing the deficit
On docent's question, debt matters and it doesn't. If worse came to worse, the government could simply print more money and pay the debt in full...of course the consequence is significant inflation
on foreign governments buying it, it means that they are taking the repayment risk (which is the lowest really). We still pay interest. Of course, with a recession plus a war, some investment (tax cuts) were necessary. Even Greenspan has said that short term deficits are not a problem and in real terms (the ONLY way to compare $ over time) they are no where near record recessions.






