On Feb 7, 8:48�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.

It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. �That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:48�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. �That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


A one million dollar boat loan?

A couple grossing $200,000 a year should look at a boat under $500,000?

Yeah, well under.

Hehehehe.

Fools and their money...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.

It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on a
luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.

Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on a
luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.



Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or
dumped...it says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a
toilet and suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay
if you borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break
on a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.


Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you
borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


Harry,
Do you find it very frustrating to have all of these ideas you want to
implement, and no one will take you serious?

"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on
a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.

Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you borrow
money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.
Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on
a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.
Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you borrow
money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.




Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying, and,
of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one proposal
Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax, with
exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up to a
certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes and
deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it
certainly is a starting point.

Finally, something I can agree with from Harry.


"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two
mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere
under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will
qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.
Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the
money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes
during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about
half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k
per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax
break on a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national
debt.
Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or
dumped...it says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a
toilet and suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you
pay if you borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require
that boats or any other "second homes" financed under such
"deductible" conditions have a certificate stating at least 75%
manufacture in the United States. I see no need to provide the very
wealthy with additional ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying,
and, of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one
proposal Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax,
with exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up
to a certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes
and deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it
certainly is a starting point.

"HK" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying, and,
of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one proposal
Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax, with exemptions
for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up to a certain
level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes and deductions. As
presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it certainly is a starting
point.



Every election cycle one or more candidates proposes "sweeping reforms" to
the IRS tax structure, ranging from it's elimination and replacement with a
national sales tax or an across the board fixed percent of income plan.

Nothing ever comes of these proposals.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying,
and, of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one
proposal Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax,
with exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes
up to a certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income
taxes and deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable,
but it certainly is a starting point.



Every election cycle one or more candidates proposes "sweeping
reforms" to the IRS tax structure, ranging from it's elimination and
replacement with a national sales tax or an across the board fixed
percent of income plan.

Nothing ever comes of these proposals.

Eisboch


You are right. Too many people earn big incomes form the present code.
It's the full employment for accountants and tax attorneys act.