Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

NOYB wrote:
The bottom 40% earn 10.4% of the income, but pay only 7.7% of the taxes.


That's TERRIBLE!
Those lazy SLACKERS!!

Those damn worthless poor people are stealing the bread out
of the mouths of millionaires!

The top 40% earn 77.9% of the income, but pay 81.6% of the taxes.


It should be a one-to-one correlation. In other words, if a certain segment
earns 77.9% of the income, they should pay 77.9% of the taxes.


I wouldn't disagree with that.

OTOH A progressive income tax is fair, if you accept the
premises:
1-Food, shelter, & clothing, the very basics of life, cost a
certain amount and therefor a higher percentage of poor
people's income devoted to them.
2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from
our social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to
offer more to support it.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
Considering that entitlements constitute more than 1/2 the federal budget
(Source: Today's OpEd in USA Today by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA), and
that the lion's share of entitlements go to the poor & middle class, it's
absurd for you to make such a statement.

That's 'fair & balanced,' all right.

You shouldn't hate yourself, Fred, just because you're not rich.

DSK

Boat deductions... yet more politics
 

-rick- wrote:
And we effectively have a flat tax to within about 1.7%.

Why would the wealthy complain?

Because bitching about paying taxes is one thing that all
rich people have in common, and pandering to that is one way
of getting elected. Now if you tie that into a certain type
of bigotry, and imply that all poor people are on welfare
and "yore hard-earned dollars" are supporting a bunch of
lazy inner-city minorities so we should cut taxes NOW, then
you have a great formula for gaining a consistent 51% of the
vote.



Shares of
Average Total Total
cash income taxes
income now
----------------------------------------
Lowest 20% $ 10,400 3.4% 2.2%
Second 20% 21,200 7.0% 5.5%
Middle 20% 34,500 11.7% 10.5%
Fourth 20% 56,300 19.2% 19.0%
Next 15% 96,700 25.2% 26.5%
Next 4% 201,000 14.4% 15.3%
Top 1% 978,000 19.1% 20.8%
ALL $ 56,800 100.0% 100.0%

Careful, you might confuse them with facts.

The funny thing is that even the most ardent flat-taxers
agree on the desirability of allowing poor people some tax
relief... in other words, a progressive tax scale.... they
just don't agree on where to draw the line,

DSK

Boat deductions
 

Harry,
When did Chuck Gould and all the other old timers become JimH's
facilitators?

The NG is better off without the mindless name calling.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Fred Dehl wrote:
Tamaroak wrote in news:576dnVxMv5qMfyTeRVn-
:

The poor in this country don't qualify for these deductions

It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE
PERCENT of income taxes.


Your "facts" are wrong. But, of course, demonstrating that would be making
a political statement, and such thinking is verboten in this mindless
morass of born-again, part-time, goody two shoes. Just ask the Rev. Jim or
his facilitators.

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:01:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE PERCENT
of income taxes.

I see that a few people are still SHOUTING their stupid
political lies here. Obviously you did not bother to check
the IRS web site for actual tax figures. The truth is very
easy to find.

Hey Fred, got a boat?

As for the reason for tax deductions for the *interest* on
boat loans, it depends on your point of view. In one way, it
is an indirect subsidy for the banking industry. In another
way of looking at it, it's a fair way of stimulating the
economy by encouraging people to buy things.

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for
years. There are several criteria, among them that the boat
has to have a potty & a galley, and you have to sleep on
board for a certain number of nights per year.

DSK

The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year." That
requirement would exist if you used your boat as a rental property. Here, from Pub
936:

"Qualified Home

For you to take a home mortgage interest deduction, your debt must be secured by a
qualified home. This means your main home or your second home. A home includes a
house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, house trailer, boat, or similar
property that has sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.

snippage

Main home. You can have only one main home at any one time. This is the home where
you ordinarily live most of the time.

Second home. A second home is a home that you choose to treat as your second home.

Second home not rented out. If you have a second home that you do not hold out for
rent or resale to others at any time during the year, you can treat it as a qualified
home. You do not have to use the home during the year."

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:36:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a galley,
and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per year.



NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?


I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as
the number of nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it
to qualify for the same deduction.

DSK

No you don't, unless you are renting out the second home also.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:36:37 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a
galley, and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per
year.



NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?


I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as the number of
nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it to qualify for the same
deduction.


There are no occupancy requirements whatsoever to qualify for the interest
deduction on a second home (boat) if the home or boat is used purely for
personal use. The only time an occupancy requirement plays into the mix is
if the second home is rented for part of the year or the boat is chartered
out for part of the year.


Ah, someone has read the rules!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

JohnH wrote:
The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year."

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It
may be that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I
doubt it was mixing requirements for rental property since
we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet
without verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.

DSK

Boat deductions
 

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It may be
that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I doubt it was mixing
requirements for rental property since we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet without
verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.


Harry Krause wrote:
That's pretty much true of almost any advice one "finds" on usenet.

That depends *very* much on the source, doesn't it?

DSK

Boat deductions
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:02:16 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:
The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year."

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It
may be that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I
doubt it was mixing requirements for rental property since
we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet
without verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.

DSK

Having been involved with rental property for quite a while, I can say that these
particular paragraphs haven't changed much for many years. It could well be that your
accountant was confusing rental property with the second home requirements, as both
are mentioned in the same paragraph, to wit:

"Second home rented out. If you have a second home and rent it out part of the
year, you also must use it as a home during the year for it to be a qualified home.
You must use this home more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days
during the year that the home is rented at a fair rental, whichever is longer. If you
do not use the home long enough, it is considered rental property and not a second
home. For information on residential rental property, see Publication 527."

Yes, I agree with your last comment!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes