And yet they tax individuals on our revenues and not our profits …
As an example in Canada one newly recognized tax exemption for 2020 was a 400$ flat tax deduction for remote working.
You can argue that more tax burden should be shifted initially to corporations but I think that expenses and taxes have aligned in a way that makes a predominantly revenue based individual tax fair - corporations could also easily carry revenue based taxes, some low margin business would become infeasible but every economic policy shifts that line in some manner.
Either way seems a long way from business which gets to remove 100% of the cost of rent, maintenence, and pretty much anything else. If I employ a gardener to mow a lawn because my time is more valuable spent inventing a cure for cancer, I can’t deduct that. It makes far more sense from a personal perspective to work less and do a given job myself (lowering GDP and productivity, a lose/lose situation). Won’t say 35% marginal tax, I’d have to do $1000 overtime to pay $650 to put in a new shower, and the builder would only keep $422. It might take him 2 hours and me 6 hours, but if it takes me 10 hours to earn that $1000 extra it’s worth doing it myself and denying the world the cure for cancer I could have developed in that time.
A business on the other hand will just take the extra $1k revenue and offset the cost of the plumber against the revenue before paying tax.
But you’re not wrong to be upset about this. It really doesn’t seem fair. And I’m not sure the government could get away with it so easily if they weren’t able to deputize employers to withhold taxes from your paycheck.
Btw, IMO this is also part of the reason for targeting 1099 status of the gig economy – collection rates are much lower for contractors (who must pay their own taxes, and may not have the funds available to do so) than for employees (who have their taxes withheld from their paycheck so they don’t need to pay tax on their salary).
I’m of the firm belief that the first $100k in individual income should be taxed exactly $0. Taxing unsophisticated, frequently barely profitable contractors – and penalizing them for failure to maintain savings or meet filing deadlines - is counterproductive to a successful economy.
The IRS collects 80% (or more) of its revenue from Americans with more than $100k income. On the other hand, Americans with 1099 status and under $100k income almost certainly feel a greater relative psychological and financial burden of tax compliance than anyone making over $100k.
Many of them need to choose between paying bills or paying the IRS – whereas for higher income earners, tax compliance is much less stressful as there is never any doubt whether they’ll have enough money to both pay their taxes (on time) and survive.
In this sense, the tax system feels disproportionately unfair to a large segment of the population that contributes to a comparatively small percentage of tax revenue.
Eg. someone making $100k is better off than someone else making $100001, but also maybe $120k (depending on the tax rates). Basically, at $100k, there is no incentive to earn more because your net, take-home figure will be lower if you do, until you jump significantly over the hoop.
The proposal to start taxing only amounts above $100k is not fundamentally different from the standard deduction or personal allowance that already exists (YMMV by jurisdiction). My proposal is simply to increase this floor by 10-20x.
Thanks for the clarification though: this makes more sense indeed.
[0] This loophole started being closed in the late 90s/early 00s and continues to be closed in the remaining countries that haven't yet addressed it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR35
[2] https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Personal-services-income/
The purpose of IR35 is to stop people from avoiding national insurance contributions.
If you’re an individual and need to pay for a car to go to the office or supermarket, that’s post tax.
Heating a home is post tax. Heating an office is pre tax.
Say I create a business that receives $2000/m in contracting revenue instead of personal 1099 income. What if this business then acquires a property with a $2000/m mortgage and in turn rents that property to me for $1/mo. As all revenue is consumed by expenses would the business not be taxed? It seems like there has to be a reason why this strategy can not be used to avoid tax on all personal expenses?
> To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business. An expense does not have to be indispensable to be considered necessary.
Your particular example with free or below-market rent would almost certainly be considered tax evasion -- in fact, I believe this is one of the things that Allen Weisselberg is charged with [2].
[1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-02/trump-per...
You can only (legally) deduct business expenses, not just all expenditure.
For example (where I work) you can deduct a cost for a uniform if it’s required for work. But you can’t deduct the cost of a new suit.
I sell my labor on the market for as much money as I can get for that labor. I do this for the same reason a business is formed to provide for myself, my family, and to enjoy my life
This is the entire purpose of the "Standard Deduction" as that is viewed by the IRS as the "cost of living", and in their view it would be to complicated and allow for too much tax evasion if they allowed you to itemize every cost of living you had. Personally I think that is excused just to over tax people.
One should be able to deduct on an itemized schedule every grocery bill, every utility, even housing from their income taxes. Paying only taxes on that income they earned above and beyond the "Needs" of a person.