is it legitimate if they own a mercedes dealership?

If they own it--yes. If they work there and it's a perk, that's taxable.

I may not know much about economics, but I did love my class in law school on federal taxation. You are actually supposed to pay taxes on those free items you get at the bank when you open an account, you know. But I digress.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

how about if you own a business dealing with clients who might expect you to drive a mercedes?

Would that be if you work with someone who owns a Mercedes dealership?

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

i don't know what you mean. i'm just thinking that there are many instances where driving a nice car might be related to your business.

Not what I am saying at all, but there are times when people will stop trying to move up because by doing so they will essentially lose money because they move into a higher tax bracket. Sales people experience this all the time. They will stop selling or will hold back sales so as not to change tax brackets.

__________________
Steve Johnston
==========

Do you like the forums? Have a topic of specific interest? Ask about becoming a moderator!

Email me at Steve@phillyblog.com for more info.

knowing the tax law, and knowing how it affects capital are two separate things and probably why economists and lawyers shoudl never like each other. accountants and lawyers make more money when the laws are ridiclous. how many tax lawyers and accountants would be looking for work if we had a flat tax? in contrast, their would be a vast savings that could go into reinvestment that produces something of value to end users. "forcing" people to follow bad tax law can have disastrous effects. there is no way to control capital. the government manages the economy but it cannot control it. when you increase taxes you increase use of shelters. that wil always happen. if you close the loopholes, money shifts to offshore accounts. if you push too hard, you may lose the business too. and don't give me poop about how we can't afford a tax cut b/c we don;t demand fiscal discipline. I do but no one lsitens, so I think i deserve a tax break. why do I have to pay for rendell's meals? look at him, he doesn't even write it off, he gets his whole tab paid for. fumo too. and you are complaining about someone writing off a hummer? at least they earned the freaking money! perzel spent millions of other people's money on ads for personal projects and favors. this stuff goes on everyday! why should they (the gov'ts) get more money for perks while I have to tighten my belt?

It's idiotic if they are. Sure, if you earn only that which bumps you over, but that applies to such a small percentage of people...to me, sounds like more of an excuse for laziness. Why not try to sell way more to make it way into the bracket? It's like a poor person not wanting to earn more than the maximum for food stamps. It's okay when a rich person does it but not understandable when a poor person does it?

Gbh--I am in a profession where clients expect us to drive nice cars. Would I drive a Dodge Neon if my client didn't expect me to? Not likely. If you have to use it for work, that's different. But I don't think it's fair it's a Mercedes. A mid-range car, sure! If you're rich and you want to pay the payments of a luxury car and the higher premiums in insurance, that's your deal. If you want the government to pay part of that ride because you can say it's business-related, that is a bunch of crap.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

So what's your solution? Give your money back? Where is the money going to come from?

I agree with you that this stuff is crappy--however, no one seems to understand a solution. Bush was NOT in the position to offer a tax cut because he DIDN'T reduce spending. Instead he increased spending in a witch hunt against terrorism because it was the popular thing to do at that point and he chanced gaining some credibility as a leader in a time when the chance was handed to him on a platter. Therefore, under his policies, he should have NEVER offered a reduction in taxes unless he was able to balance the budget. But that of course is harder to win popularity on, it seems.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

Bush WAS in a position to reduce taxes, he CHOSE to increase spending as well. He could have turned around and vetoed some bills but he didn't. that doesn't eman he shoudl raise taxes and further saddle a strained economy.
what is my solution? cut spending in line with tax revenue to start. operate like a state. that balanced budget amendment would have been huge because people would be forced to choose between tax hikes and spending. since there is no balanced budget, we can live on borrowed money. it would be akin to forcing people to live withing their means by not using credit cards unless they could afford to pay them off in full. one of my pet peeves is when people advocate higher taxes and complain about jobs leaving for overseas. one of the other please.