Some foreign countries can even count as "donations"! Canada, Virgin Island, other US possessions. Let's say your going to take a vacation to the Virgin Islands. How about making a "donation" over time or a large donation at once to a specific group that has "enough pull" to get you excellent accomodations? Or special access that may promote your business? There are many reasons well beyond just "tax bracket" or even "write off's" to consider when it comes to "donations". Because of that I personally would not put a lot of faith in this particular "study" as it relates to who gives more.

Yes, I see Ernie. It's just like when Bill Clinton charges a half million to go give a speech to some group. So he goes to the Boy Scouts and does a freebie, all expenses paid. BAAM! WHAM! A cooooolll... one half million write off, smooth.....

I get it.

Country Club membership? Dinner out on the town with friends? Structure it right (as in HARD right :) ) it could qualify as either a business expense or a charitable donation!

See you tax man for further information.

Wouldn't surprise me that someone like Bill C. could pull that off! And it would only take a few Clintons to "skew" the numbers in this kind of study.

Well, I've read the 1040 instructions, and other IRS publications regarding expenses and donations, did my own taxes for awhile, and even taught my old accountants a thing or two about tax laws after spending some time analyzing the laws, but anyways, the main conclusion that I came to is that no matter what expense or donation is written off, you end up taking less money home.

You deduct your expenses off of your gross, and with food/entertainment/etc., only a part of the expenses can be deducted from your gross, with the remainder be taxable. With regarding donations and other itemized deductions, in the higher tax brackets, again you can only deduct a portion off of the gross , portion inversely proportional to gross income.

So, if you donate $100,000 , maybe only 60,000 is allowable to deducted meaning that you still have to pay taxes on the other 40,000 that you did in fact donate away. A system designed to discourage people from donating, and Obama wants to make it even worse I hear.

Regarding food/entertainment, yeah, I can take people out to dinner, boat, etc., but again, I can only deduct 50% of the expenses off of the gross, so if my entertainment costs are $50,000, I can only deduct $25,000 off the gross, meaning again, that I still have to pay taxes on the $25,000 that I spent on "business expenses". There is no advantage in having any business expenses just for a tax write-off, because you'll always take home less no matter what. The benefit is that if you were going to spend it anyways, you could at least write some of it off.

The moral is that any money spent in donating or business expenses will always reduce take-home money to even a greater degree.

And we shouldn't forget about the AMT....which helps ensure that tax deductions are not too high.:eek:

Well there it is! Nicely put.

Man that dang AMT is really starting to impact the lower middle class, that was NOT the original intent. It's gonna be hard to change it now though. Once the greedy Gov get's their hands on something their like a Pitt Bull and won't let go. :)

Sounds about right, I also had to get a LLP to put "assets" into to lease back to my main corp. (something the CPA set up, all I know is it reduces the tax liabilities some how)

Ernie, I know this will shock you but as a business owner I actually pay income tax on almost twice my take home salary. It's not quite enough to warrent going full C-corp boning, but I'm close. (This is the main reason you see businesses leasing everything short of the pencils)

I understand! I ran a business for a few years before I left Hawaii. I calculated that about 50% of my income went to taxes. Hawaii has an "excise tax" on all business' that is just a killer. You cannot make it there and stay small, you HAVE to go big or die.

Why try to diminish the giving of the rich? I'm missing the point. Should they give less? Would that make them better people?

Who cares what the motivation is. The point is, the rich give, and that's a good thing.

It is a good thing, I'm glad they do! Why make it look like the Republican rich give more than the Democrat rich if that MAY not be the case?

All I'm doing is questioning the data points used to arrive at the conclusion of this study. It's typically what I do with ANY study or poll I see here in the Lounge! We see a LOT of "poll numbers" and various "studies" here in the Lounge. To often the data is flawed. Numbers alone are meaningless unless you know HOW the data was collected and understand the conclusion.

It is fairly easy to come up with "numbers" to support your cause on just about point. Recently I cited a WHO (World Health) study and it was immediatly trashed as bad data. Well in fact, that particular WHO study had at least TWO OTHER studies that reached the same conclusion using different data points! Before I cited the WHO study I studied the study to determine if it was at least reasonably accurate. :)

Ernie I think your mixing up write-offs with charitable donations.:eek:

Ernie ran his business into the ground.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused:

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/pict...d=2416&thumb=1


So, after the Ice Cream failure. He tried a new strategy. But again things just did not work well. He couldn't even give his product away.



http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/pict...d=2417&thumb=1