You're viewing a single thread.
I'm sure this is going to be a level headed rational discussion about taxes by all the knowledgeable skilled tax professionals in lemmy.
I glossed over the tax implications and went straight to the indoctrination of the masses into the ideals of capitalism
I mean on one hand I agree with you. But on the other I don't think you need to be a "tax professional" to have a valid opinion on taxes.
Like I'm sure you express opinions you are not a leafing expert on right?
Actually I try to go out of my way to not have opinions on complicated technical subjects I know nothing about. Tend to defer to whatever the experts' consensus is. It's shocking to me how few people do that.
Edit - lol at the downvotes, thanks for proving my point.
so you don't vote presumably? since every issue you could decide your vote on is obviously highly technical once you drill down into it
Tend to defer to whatever the experts’ consensus is.
And both sides have their own experts on every single topic. What's your point?
There's consensus on climate change which I'm not an expert in so I defer to the opinion of the global scientific community. And there's consensus among doctors and scientists worldwide on vaccines masks etc. That instantly makes it a lot easier to determine which individual or party to vote for.
Tax is really complicated and technical and most people (including the ~90% of accountants who don't work in tax) don't understand it at all. It would be cool if people would be more quiet about their opinions on it since they don't understand the first thing about it.
Sidebar: imagine arguing with a doctor about medicine, a biologist about evolution, a lawyer about law. Never ceases to amaze me how many people have the hubris and audacity to argue with an SME about a technical subject in their own field 🙄
There are experts on both sides of climate change. And the ones on the "it's a hoax" side would obviously beat you in a debate about it. Those ones are likely bought and paid for, but seeing as how you have literally no way of confirming that, by deferring to one side over the other you're making a personal evaluation of the information presented to you as a non-expert. You know, like ordinary people do when they have opinions on things.
You don't need to understand the entire US tax code to have an opinion on tax incentives. Much like you don't have to be an airline pilot to know that a plane crashing isn't a good thing.
No need for debate with the .1% if there's consensus among the other 99.9%. I've never been in space or measured the earth or anything and I'm not Eratosthenes so I can't really prove the earth is a sphere. I defer to the experts who know such things. I bet a sufficiently skilled flat earth debater would "win" a debate with me. Doesn't matter though because I would just walk away saying they're a fucking moron.
Most tax threads are like flat earthers arguing cosmologists.
So if somebody asks you if you'd like to be hit in the head by a brick, you'd presumably answer "I don't know". Unless you happen to have read a study performed by experts on the exact impact to cranial integrity of various sizes of brick?
Or are you a normal person who can synthesise opinions based on existing (but not exhaustive) data?
Does 2 and 2 make 4, or can we not be sure until I first cite some leading light in the pure mathematics space who can back my assertion up? Do I also have to provide the proportion (and on a side note, I'm not really sure how you decide which proportion is "correct", since this problem is entirely recursive) of other mathematicians who agree with them so that you can make a rational judgement on whether to ignore them or not? What's the threshold where you just throw your hands up in the air and proudly claim ignorance?
Similarly, people usually don't have to understand every line of the 2023 US Tax Code to understand that giving people tax deductions for doing a thing incentivizes that thing.
I think you're the one who got hit on the head with a brick if you think that's a good analogy!
This Reddit thread is a great recent example among countless: https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/16aoen5/calls_to_tax_the_superrich_grow_as_economic/
I agree in principle but all the comments in there demonstrate lack of fundamental understanding of all things business/accounting/tax related. We cross post comments from these threads over to r/accounting and tax all the time to laugh at morons who don't know what they're talking about.
It's a good idea to not go around vehemently talking shit expressing strong opinions about technical subjects you know nothing about. I don't know why this is a controversial subject but here we are.
I HaVe oPiNioNs on tHAt!....
But seriously, I think while admirable, this would be the death of traditional leadership, where there's a heavy reliance on abstraction of deep concepts to make informed decisions for larger entities (government, corporations, non profits, etc.). Make of that what you will.
I'm surprised you think it's the tax deductions that are the issue here.
I don't think they're an issue at all.
You don't think corporations having a hand in what children/teenagers/adults learn because of lobbying and donations is a bad thing?
Nope, I'm a proud grad of Joint Carls Jr and Pizza Hut high and corporations should write the regulations because they know all the ins and outs burgers.
You joke, but Carnegie built thousands of libraries across the country in the early 1900s, many of which are still in use today. Over 100 years later, the government never bothered building their own library.
Let that sink in.
The Library of Congress?
Political contributions are textbook examples of nondeductible expenses. Charity contributions are deductible for all taxpayers to an extent. Private schools can be for-profit businesses and have been for quite some time and sometimes they teach controversial subjects. Not sure what relevance that is though. Seems like you should be angry about education policy, not tax policy.
That thing we've been talking about, you're doing it here.
Do you not understand that giving charitable donations in order to sway public opinion to your side is lobbying?
So again: you don't have any problem with corporate influence over what children learn in schools?
Generally speaking I don't find charity contributions a controversial subject, no. I do have a problem with you putting words in my mouth. You're clearly pissed off about a bunch of things and there's plenty to be pissed off about. But your ire is misdirected here, as badly as this comic is mistitled.
Seems like you're just lashing out because you've read a bunch of malarkey saying rich people don't pay taxes and now you've formed a political ideology around that misunderstanding.
Words in your mouth? Oh dear.
🎵 Sounds like somebody doesn't understand the logical consequences of the positions they hold 🎵
- We've established that tax cuts incentivize a behavior.
- We've established that corporate charitable donations can be and are used for lobbying.
- Lobbying can be and is used in the educational space.
- You don't see any issue with tax deductions in this exact circumstance
- Therefore, you don't see any issue with incentivizing lobbying in the educational space.
Seems like you’re just lashing out because you’ve read a bunch of malarkey saying rich people don’t pay taxes and now you’ve formed a political ideology around that misunderstanding.
Of all the Redditors who've tried to armchair psycho-analyze me, I think your attempt actually might be the worst.
What do you propose? Codify your position.
Hold your horses, buckaroo. We're still apparently yet to decide if incentivizing lobbying in the educational space is a good thing or not.
Or does this mean that you're retracting the assertion that there aren't any problems whatsoever with allowing tax deductions on corporate charity?
One of the first things to do with complex and nuanced topics is to express them in comics.