 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
FYI -
| Quote: |
SUV tax loophole widens
A 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes. The original intent behind this provision was to encourage investments in pickup trucks, minivans, and other needed service vehicles. A far smaller incentive was provided for cars—less than $7,000 over two years. |
P123 said:
| Quote: | | It is true that congress had to pass the SUV tax loophole, but it was all part of Bush's tax cut package. Make no mistake about it; his administration put it in there. |
His referenced article goes on to say:
| Quote: | The explosion of SUV, pickup, and minivan sales in America’s passenger vehicle fleet has turned this small business benefit into a massive loophole in the tax law.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles. |
So what we have is a '97 provision in the tax code (not a Bush administration frankenstien), and a 2003 proposal by the Bush administration, and the subsequent stupidity of congress...
Doesn't really ring true to P's original statement....
As for the 'lack' of information:
P123 said:
| Quote: |
If you own a small business, you have to pay taxes for it. The loophole is that if you buy an SUV weighing more than 6000 lbs and worth less than $100,000, then you get to subtract the cost of the SUV from the taxes that you have to pay.
If I'm ignorant of some facts, then by all means please point them out. |
A 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes.
and them's the facts folks.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
What we have, just from the article quote you provided, is this:
| Quote: | | In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles. |
So, just to verify that it passed, look at this one:
| Here's an article that wrote: | | The current law allows small business owners to deduct up to $100,000 of the purchase price of trucks weighing at least 6,000 pounds, including more than 38 Sport Utility Vehicles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly Ana. The Bush administration proposed and increase to 75k - proposed.
The lawmakers (congress and senate, not the president or his administration) Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000. Bush doesn't appoint the lawmakers, he doesn't control them, in fact, in our system of government those two branches of the government are independent of each other - they must work together to govern, but they cannot control each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
But we've already covered this.
The Bush admin proposed the suv tax break in the first place; lawmakers (who are president-appointed) upped the limit.
The point, however, was that the tax break was proposed - and passed! - in the first place.
The point isn't simply Bush-bashing, which it seems to me that you think every time P posts that four-letter word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | he Bush admin proposed the suv tax break in the first place; |
Really? Where did you get this bit of information?
The actual portion of tax code was implement prior to 1993, it was amended from $10,000 to $17,500 in 1996, in 2002 Bush proposed an increase to $75,000, which doesn't mean a lot as congress will do as it decides to do regardless of what the president proposes. In this case they decided to make it $100,000
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-VI-179.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry, my bad. Bush Senior (oil man) proposed it, Bush Junior (oil man) upped the limit. 10K -> 75K? At what point does it shift from helping small farming businesses to putting a bunch more gas-guzzling vehicles on the road? How much higher does the limit need to be before we pull off the thin veiled excuse to see the manipulation underneath? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i agree...i find the whole situation sickening... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RevJP, I think you're getting lost in the details here. My point is that Bush seems to be doing his best to destroy the planet, and he's not trying at all to save it. He's making all the wrong moves, and encouraging oil consumption.
| RevJP wrote: | | Exactly Ana. The Bush administration proposed and increase to 75k - proposed. |
What exactly is the point here? He only wanted to destroy the environment a lot, but then the lawmakers decided to destroy it a super lot?
| RevJP wrote: |
The lawmakers (congress and senate, not the president or his administration) Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000. Bush doesn't appoint the lawmakers, he doesn't control them, in fact, in our system of government those two branches of the government are independent of each other - they must work together to govern, but they cannot control each other. |
It seems to me like you're trying to blame the lawmakers here. Fine, they added another disgusting $25,000 to the loophole, so they deserve a lot of blame. But the whole idea of increasing it so that people could write off their ENTIRE gas-guzzling monster cars was definitely Bush's idea.
I ask you this: on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the worst, and 10 being the best, how do you rate Bush's actions to protect the environment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think y'all are missing the significant economic details of this whole thing.
Granted the loophole is an unmitigated debacle. Like with most things the government does, they failed to anticipate those that desire to 'get over' in any way possible.
The tax credit was designed and initiated to drive three very important economic contributors:
1. Purhcases of higher dollar, american made vehicles (more sales of these vehicles directly effect the american economy for the good).
2. Tax incentives to capitolize small businesses and promote growth and jobs. The idea is that small businesses would use the credit to purshase work trucks, vans (delivery vans) and the like. With the incentive to buy necessary equipment the business could gow and jobs would increase.
3. Everyone's favorite - gas consumption. Directly related to #1, but a minor consideration in the initiative. It just happens that the vehicles intended and needed were larger and require more gas, and there was no technology or market for vans and work trucks with ran on alternative fuels or what have you. In fact, there still is not.
| Quote: | | I ask you this: on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the worst, and 10 being the best, how do you rate Bush's actions to protect the environment? |
5
Although I'm not as concerned about the health of the planet as y'all are. I'm fairly convinced that the earth has a way of healing itself. Y'all are concered about us destroying the earth and I'm convinced she will destroy us and heal herself in our absence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jeeper creepers...that is really what we are saying...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | I think y'all are missing the significant economic details of this whole thing.
Granted the loophole is an unmitigated debacle. Like with most things the government does, they failed to anticipate those that desire to 'get over' in any way possible.
The tax credit was designed and initiated to drive three very important economic contributors:
1. Purhcases of higher dollar, american made vehicles (more sales of these vehicles directly effect the american economy for the good).
2. Tax incentives to capitolize small businesses and promote growth and jobs. The idea is that small businesses would use the credit to purshase work trucks, vans (delivery vans) and the like. With the incentive to buy necessary equipment the business could gow and jobs would increase.
3. Everyone's favorite - gas consumption. Directly related to #1, but a minor consideration in the initiative. It just happens that the vehicles intended and needed were larger and require more gas, and there was no technology or market for vans and work trucks with ran on alternative fuels or what have you. In fact, there still is not.
|
So why not give the same tax cuts but for hybrid cars or electric cars???
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | I ask you this: on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the worst, and 10 being the best, how do you rate Bush's actions to protect the environment? |
5
|
I'd give him like a 1, but I suspect that I am aware of many more of Bush's environmental misdeeds than you are...
| RevJP wrote: |
Although I'm not as concerned about the health of the planet as y'all are. I'm fairly convinced that the earth has a way of healing itself. Y'all are concered about us destroying the earth and I'm convinced she will destroy us and heal herself in our absence. |
You really want it to come to that? Doesn't it make more sense to stop global warming BEFORE the ice caps melt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So why not give the same tax cuts but for hybrid cars or electric cars??? |
How would that be a benefit to #2?
If I am a delivery service can I do my job effectively in a hybrid car? What if I were a flooring installer? Can I haul tools and flooring materials in a Toyota hybrid?
| Quote: | | I'd give him like a 1, but I suspect that I am aware of many more of Bush's environmental misdeeds than you are... |
Actually I suspect that you simply care more.
| Quote: | | You really want it to come to that? |
Why not? What is there on this rock that is worth hanging around for?
| Quote: | | Doesn't it make more sense to stop global warming BEFORE the ice caps melt? |
I'm quite sure some other major catastrophe will happen long before they melt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP, I know a couple who started their own business. They often have to travel all around the province to work on-site for projects, and they have a LOT of equipment to carry around. So, they got a Toyota Highlander hybrid (which is an SUV). They save a lot on fuel, and they can carry all their stuff around. It's a great work vehicle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree Ana, and it is unfortunate that when this tax law was proposed and instituted no such vehicles existed, and now, as is the things of goverment and taxes, what is there stays long after it serves it's purpose.
However, I would like to see someone put a couple rolls of carpet and pad in one of those, or a dozen or two sheets of plywood, or a pallet of cinderblock... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | What is there on this rock that is worth hanging around for? |
What an awful attitude 
***(Insert song about flowers, trees, birds, bees, families, friends, turkey dinners, chocolate fondue, etc)***
I used to have a theory, by the way, that if everybody managed to do everything God wanted, then heaven would be right here on Earth - that his intention was to have his kingdom here. Isn't that worth sticking around for? Isn't that worth caring - just a smidge - about maintaining this rock? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
