"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
I dont think this discussion violates the new spirit of the NG as it is
about boats. Furthermore, it uses the desire of people to discuss
politics to talk about boats. If people prefer, I will simply drop the
discussion.


I vote for substantial tax increases for the wealthy.

Do they not contribute enough already Harry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Tamaroak wrote:
I vote for no deductions for second homes or boats or whatever. The poor
in this country don't qualify for these deductions and our government is
widening the gap evermore.

Capt. Jeff


Our system would be more equitable if only there weren't so many loopholes
for corporations, the rich, and "special deals." If these loopholes were
eliminated, and if corporations had to post legitimate financial figures
and be taxed accordingly, taxes could be lowered on the middle class.
Oh...and ALL income should be taxed.

We're in for a heap of trouble this Spring if Iran goes through with its
plan for an oil bourse pegged to the euro. That'll just about do us in
without a shot being fired, at least on the "other" side.


Sure raise the taxes on corporations to 50% of sales. Then no taxes for the
working people. Oops, prices just went up to cover the 50%, and those that
can not pass on the cost, and that is what a tax on a corporation is, will
fold. More unemployment.

wrote in message
ps.com...
I dont think this discussion violates the new spirit of the NG as it is
about boats. Furthermore, it uses the desire of people to discuss
politics to talk about boats. If people prefer, I will simply drop the
discussion.


Why did you dismiss (no reply) my post to you shortly after you started this
thread?

Jim:

I am not sure what you are talking about. What did I miss?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Jim:

I am not sure what you are talking about. What did I miss?


My reply to your initial post.

OK, I see the flat tax stuff and I agree with you. What else?
My concern is that people who buy seriously expensive boats or second
homes and write off the loan. I am not very concerned that less
affluent people pay for much less expensive boats with cash.

I vote for no deductions for second homes or boats or whatever. The poor
in this country don't qualify for these deductions and our government is
widening the gap evermore.

Capt. Jeff

wrote in message
oups.com...
OK, I see the flat tax stuff and I agree with you. What else?
My concern is that people who buy seriously expensive boats or second
homes and write off the loan. I am not very concerned that less
affluent people pay for much less expensive boats with cash.


When the tax deductions for expensive boats were killed for a few years,
lots did not buy those expensive boats, and the makers laid off most the
workers. You will never see a flat tax, as government is control, and the
maximum control is via taxation. Some industries are blessed by the
controllers and others not. then a few years later, the blessed industries
change. Maybe if the government wasted less money, we could have the
deductions and more money to spend. Years ago, we had the same deductions
for interest, and also for sales taxes, and excise taxes, and an overall tax
rate of about 22%. We built highways, bridges, levees and nice
infrastructure. Our tax burden is now about 46%, and the infrastructure is
collapsing. Where is the money going? As a kid in California, the sales
tax rate was 3%, now it is 8.25-8.75%, depending on region, and they are
proposing a 1/2% boost for infrastructure rebuilding. Where is the money we
pay now going?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
I dont think this discussion violates the new spirit of the NG as it is
about boats. Furthermore, it uses the desire of people to discuss
politics to talk about boats. If people prefer, I will simply drop the
discussion.


I vote for substantial tax increases for the wealthy.

I vote for substantial spending cuts so everyone can enjoy tax decreases.

Eisboch

wrote:
I see no reason why second home loans or boat loans should be
deductible on income tax. This is simply a subsidy for the rich. Now
that I have made myself so popular here, what do y'all think?


Being in OZ probably I shouldn't comment but agree it does seem a bit
odd. Certainly hard to justify on the grounds of taxation being for the
general well being of society in general & certainly seems open to
exploitation.

Here you can only claim a deduction on anything if the claim is directly
related to generating taxable income. That mostly rules out a domestic
home or a second not rented out holiday house or a pleasure boat etc,
regardless of it's fittings. A boat used to create "taxable" income is
fully claimable, however it needs to be in survey with the relevant
marine board or classification society.

Even then the claimant needs to show that the "business" will eventually
lead to some "taxable" income. How long a lead time depends on the
venture but a boat would need to be viable PDQ if you didn't want a tax
audit. Rental boats have been the subject of close scrutiny for some
years now, where the "investor" buys the boat but another manages to
asset for them.

Here "investment" properties are treated as a business so inputs are
deductible especially the interest on the capital. This has been the
main driver behind every man & his dog having a negatively geared rental
property & the inevitable glut of new ones being built. The crunch when
if comes will not be pretty, I've seen 3 over my life:-)

K