Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sorry if I come across as mean. Bleeding heart leftists just make me . . . well kind of sick.

What makes you think that i'm a "bleeding heart leftist"?

I'm sorry, but seriously?

No i'm being serious. My basic point in this thread topic is ultimately taking better care of your employees if you are a multimillionaire or billionaire business owner or CEO. I'm not calling for government intrusion or redistribution of wealth. Just calling for leaders to consider a smaller gap between your lowest level employee and the top employee in the organizational chart.

What don't you understand about the fact that you are paid what you are worth.

Hey, I made a GREAT tasting cake, do you think I can charge $1000 a piece while the other guy is charging $5 a piece for the same cake? Hey the other cake might not be as great tasting, but it is definitely worth the $5 rather than $1000 per slice.

Businesses have expenses and sometimes it takes YEARS before they even see a profit. Businesses have limitations on what they can pay, and they are going to pay based on the worth and value of the employee. If you are an employee that can be easily replaced and you demand too much, then you will be replaced and have NO job. This is the way of the world and this way encourages people to be more innovative and more fair in the long run.

I understand all of that. I’m just thinking of how can the process be made to be better or more equitable.

Simple, you acquire the education or skill to make better money. Don't worry about what somebody else is making. Worry about what you need to make. If you're not making enough, it's up to you (not a CEO) to make yourself worth more. That's all.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm sorry if I come across as mean. Bleeding heart leftists just make me . . . well kind of sick.

What makes you think that i'm a "bleeding heart leftist"?

I'm sorry, but seriously?

No i'm being serious. My basic point in this thread topic is ultimately taking better care of your employees if you are a multimillionaire or billionaire business owner or CEO. I'm not calling for government intrusion or redistribution of wealth. Just calling for leaders to consider a smaller gap between your lowest level employee and the top employee in the organizational chart.

What don't you understand about the fact that you are paid what you are worth.

Hey, I made a GREAT tasting cake, do you think I can charge $1000 a piece while the other guy is charging $5 a piece for the same cake? Hey the other cake might not be as great tasting, but it is definitely worth the $5 rather than $1000 per slice.

Businesses have expenses and sometimes it takes YEARS before they even see a profit. Businesses have limitations on what they can pay, and they are going to pay based on the worth and value of the employee. If you are an employee that can be easily replaced and you demand too much, then you will be replaced and have NO job. This is the way of the world and this way encourages people to be more innovative and more fair in the long run.

I understand all of that. I’m just thinking of how can the process be made to be better or more equitable.

Do you mean equitable or equal. Equitable means fair, and since everyone's salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, the present system is perfectly equitable, fair.

 

[okfine]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

Does the money numbers game make them happy? I am around the wealthy often, and I can say the more moderate the happier they seem to be.

"What I found out in my research is that money itself doesn't change much about your ability to be happy — it just magnifies your personality. Happy people become happier and unhappy people become miserable when they get wealthy."

I spent six years interviewing 21 billionaires. I found that the 1% are happier than the average person — and it's not just because they're rich.

 

[Redfish]

Look at any hospital's balance sheet, you will see that I am correct. None of them shows a profit for tax purposes. Now, you are correct that they actually make a profit, but they pay no corporate taxes because of the way they account for costs and revenue.

Look at any hospital's balance sheet, you will see that I am correct

A balance sheet shows assets and liabilities. Not cash flow or income.

None of them shows a profit for tax purposes.

Most are non-profit. But if your tax claim was true, it would still have nothing to do with imaginary prices.

but they pay no corporate taxes because of the way they account for costs and revenue.

Again, nothing to do with accepting an $80,000 payment for a $60,000 expense originally billed at $250,000.

not sure what you are arguing about. we are in agreement that medical facilities overcharge. That is a different topic from how they avoid federal taxes.

not sure what you are arguing about.

Accounting.

Saying I'm going to charge you $1000 to mow your lawn and then writing down my bill to $20 does not give me a tax loss of $980 as far as the IRS is concerned.

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet and you have a tax loss. That is exactly what hospitals do today.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass. accounting 101

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet

$980 versus $1000?
Still $20 in revenue.

and you have a tax loss.

You should try putting that into a tax software program, just for fun.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20.

What income do I declare? $1000, $20 or -$980?

If your boss promised you a $2000 bonus and only paid you $1000, do you report income of $2000, $1000, $0 or a $1000 deduction?

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c, i.e. an offset against income

I have done taxes for over 40 years, I know how the tax programs work

your last sentence has nothing to do with this question. in that example your boss lied to you, you would have income of 1000 and should seek an honest employer. the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing, there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass, if you "wrote it down" to 20 that changed the contract. you are mixing apples and oranges.

 

[ChrisL]

I have no desire to be a billionaire or to take a billionaire's money from him/her. I just want to be able to pay my bills and be comfortable, and accomplishing my own personal goals. I would rather make less and do a job that I enjoy too, but that's just me.

 

[Redfish]

Look at any hospital's balance sheet, you will see that I am correct. None of them shows a profit for tax purposes. Now, you are correct that they actually make a profit, but they pay no corporate taxes because of the way they account for costs and revenue.

Look at any hospital's balance sheet, you will see that I am correct

A balance sheet shows assets and liabilities. Not cash flow or income.

None of them shows a profit for tax purposes.

Most are non-profit. But if your tax claim was true, it would still have nothing to do with imaginary prices.

but they pay no corporate taxes because of the way they account for costs and revenue.

Again, nothing to do with accepting an $80,000 payment for a $60,000 expense originally billed at $250,000.

not sure what you are arguing about. we are in agreement that medical facilities overcharge. That is a different topic from how they avoid federal taxes.

not sure what you are arguing about.

Accounting.

Saying I'm going to charge you $1000 to mow your lawn and then writing down my bill to $20 does not give me a tax loss of $980 as far as the IRS is concerned.

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet and you have a tax loss. That is exactly what hospitals do today.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass. accounting 101

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet

$980 versus $1000?
Still $20 in revenue.

and you have a tax loss.

You should try putting that into a tax software program, just for fun.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20.

What income do I declare? $1000, $20 or -$980?

If your boss promised you a $2000 bonus and only paid you $1000, do you report income of $2000, $1000, $0 or a $1000 deduction?

when I said balance sheet, I should have said P& L, schedule C. my mistake

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at any hospital's balance sheet, you will see that I am correct

A balance sheet shows assets and liabilities. Not cash flow or income.

None of them shows a profit for tax purposes.

Most are non-profit. But if your tax claim was true, it would still have nothing to do with imaginary prices.

but they pay no corporate taxes because of the way they account for costs and revenue.

Again, nothing to do with accepting an $80,000 payment for a $60,000 expense originally billed at $250,000.

not sure what you are arguing about. we are in agreement that medical facilities overcharge. That is a different topic from how they avoid federal taxes.

not sure what you are arguing about.

Accounting.

Saying I'm going to charge you $1000 to mow your lawn and then writing down my bill to $20 does not give me a tax loss of $980 as far as the IRS is concerned.

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet and you have a tax loss. That is exactly what hospitals do today.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass. accounting 101

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet

$980 versus $1000?
Still $20 in revenue.

and you have a tax loss.

You should try putting that into a tax software program, just for fun.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20.

What income do I declare? $1000, $20 or -$980?

If your boss promised you a $2000 bonus and only paid you $1000, do you report income of $2000, $1000, $0 or a $1000 deduction?

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c, i.e. an offset against income

I have done taxes for over 40 years, I know how the tax programs work

your last sentence has nothing to do with this question. in that example your boss lied to you, you would have income of 1000 and should seek an honest employer. the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing, there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass, if you "wrote it down" to 20 that changed the contract. you are mixing apples and oranges.

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c

You're still mistaken.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass.
$15 in expenses, $20 in revenue, $5 in gross profit.
Declaring $980 in imaginary losses will get you in trouble.

the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing,

Much like your imaginary medical bill meant nothing.

there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass,

Contracts aren't revenue, only revenue is revenue.

you are mixing apples and oranges.

I'm only pointing out your error.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Ha ha...One of my old friends is a PROG. She doesn't talk to me anymore. She wanted to tell me what a lowlife I was for supporting Trump. She tried the subtle approach best she could, but still obvious. She said Trump is only rich because he's a trust fund baby. I said and now he's POTUS, there's always the flip side, which is the Clintons and Obama's are only rich because they were POTUS.

She hasn't spoke to me since.

Imagine if I had the nerve to say Trump has lost money over PROG-think. Can't use Trump services because it's not PC and they project.

 

[ChrisL]

Ha ha...One of my old friends is a PROG. She doesn't talk to me anymore. She wanted to tell me what a lowlife I was for supporting Trump. She tried the subtle approach best she could, but still obvious. She said Trump is only rich because he's a trust fund baby. I said and now he's POTUS, there's always the flip side, which is the Clintons and Obama's are only rich because they were POTUS.

She hasn't spoke to me since.

Imagine if I had the nerve to say Trump has lost money over PROG-think. Can't use Trump services because it's not PC and they project.

A raging TDS sufferer, no doubt!

 

[FA_Q2]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

Hording your own money does not make you a thief. Greedy? Perhaps, but not a thief.

Even if the government took ALL of this wealth, you aren't going to see any of it. Lol. You will still be paying government taxes also.

I don't know what you people think would happen? That the government is going to support your arses with the wealth they take from someone else? Not going to happen.

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

Theft is the action of taking anothers property against their will, or leaving them with no reasonable alternative but to surrender it. So who are these thieves taking belongings from?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Yes they are because another employer will pay more if they are worth more. It is not just the employee competing against other employees for a job - it is employers competing against other employers for employees as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

Citizens united.

Yeah, that was outrageous!!!

No one should ever be able to produce a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

It's not like we have the 1st Amendment, eh comrade?

It has certainly increased corruption.

Yeah, the 1st Amendment is awful!!!

Letting people talk and stuff.....it ought to be illegal.

If you think buying politicians is good.

If you think buying politicians is good.

The video criticizing Hillary was buying a politician?

Obviously, we need to limit free speech, because corruption.

The problem is that almost no one seems to have any clue whatsoever what Citizens United actually was litigating. All you hear is the tag line corporations were made citizens, not that the FEC was trying to block a movie from being sold. It was a straight out book banning court case. The court correctly ruled you cant just ban something because it has a political message for a specific candidate.

 

[FA_Q2]

The buyers are our politicians. The sellers have no say if the buyers aren't buying. Lol.

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Cut off the supply. The problem is that Congress has too much power to interfere in our economic decisions.

You would do that how?

Remove the ability for congress to create carve outs in tax law for anyone or anything.

That in and of itself would do more to curb corruption than any campaign finance reform ever could.

 

[FA_Q2]

Billionaires wield a lot of economic power. Congress wants that power. Should we give it to them?

Sure, as long as we have and enforce regulations to curtail profiteering and greed. Billionaires can't be trusted, I should know.

Impossible. The more you put in place regulations that hold back profits, the more value there is in getting an exception.

Again, as long as government is handing out money, there will be those willing to spend massive amounts of money to influence those handouts.

The more government you have, the more people will want to influence it.



It's a historic, and current day fact.

The video makes a solid argument and many logical claims but I don't see the data reflect those claims. For instance:

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

So, why does the data look as though it does not match the claims?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Ha ha...One of my old friends is a PROG. She doesn't talk to me anymore. She wanted to tell me what a lowlife I was for supporting Trump. She tried the subtle approach best she could, but still obvious. She said Trump is only rich because he's a trust fund baby. I said and now he's POTUS, there's always the flip side, which is the Clintons and Obama's are only rich because they were POTUS.

She hasn't spoke to me since.

Imagine if I had the nerve to say Trump has lost money over PROG-think. Can't use Trump services because it's not PC and they project.

A raging TDS sufferer, no doubt!

Comes with the territory, she's fond of the victim role. Her live-in boyfriend is ULTRA-PROG, in his 60s. Old musician who thinks he's good (yikes). She looked me up cuz she's looking for a replacement. She wouldn't even admit to living with a guy, and when she finally did she declared he beats her. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not exactly honest either.

 

[ChrisL]

Ha ha...One of my old friends is a PROG. She doesn't talk to me anymore. She wanted to tell me what a lowlife I was for supporting Trump. She tried the subtle approach best she could, but still obvious. She said Trump is only rich because he's a trust fund baby. I said and now he's POTUS, there's always the flip side, which is the Clintons and Obama's are only rich because they were POTUS.

She hasn't spoke to me since.

Imagine if I had the nerve to say Trump has lost money over PROG-think. Can't use Trump services because it's not PC and they project.

A raging TDS sufferer, no doubt!

Comes with the territory, she's fond of the victim role. Her live-in boyfriend is ULTRA-PROG, in his 60s. Old musician who thinks he's good (yikes). She looked me up cuz she's looking for a replacement. She wouldn't even admit to living with a guy, and when she finally did she declared he beats her. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not exactly honest either.

I would stay as far away from that type of person as humanly possible. Lol!

 

[Redfish]

not sure what you are arguing about. we are in agreement that medical facilities overcharge. That is a different topic from how they avoid federal taxes.

not sure what you are arguing about.

Accounting.

Saying I'm going to charge you $1000 to mow your lawn and then writing down my bill to $20 does not give me a tax loss of $980 as far as the IRS is concerned.

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet and you have a tax loss. That is exactly what hospitals do today.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass. accounting 101

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet

$980 versus $1000?
Still $20 in revenue.

and you have a tax loss.

You should try putting that into a tax software program, just for fun.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20.

What income do I declare? $1000, $20 or -$980?

If your boss promised you a $2000 bonus and only paid you $1000, do you report income of $2000, $1000, $0 or a $1000 deduction?

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c, i.e. an offset against income

I have done taxes for over 40 years, I know how the tax programs work

your last sentence has nothing to do with this question. in that example your boss lied to you, you would have income of 1000 and should seek an honest employer. the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing, there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass, if you "wrote it down" to 20 that changed the contract. you are mixing apples and oranges.

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c

You're still mistaken.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass.
$15 in expenses, $20 in revenue, $5 in gross profit.
Declaring $980 in imaginary losses will get you in trouble.

the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing,

Much like your imaginary medical bill meant nothing.

there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass,

Contracts aren't revenue, only revenue is revenue.

you are mixing apples and oranges.

I'm only pointing out your error.

you have this wrong, I suggest a trip to your local library for an accounting 101 textbook.

When you breach a contract you create a tax loss for the other party to the contract.

but none of this is relevant to our original discussion regarding how hospitals manipulate their charges to create a favorable tax situation. When they send you a bill for 250K that goes on their books as an accounts receivable for 250K, then when the insurance company or medicare pays them 80K the 170K is booked as a bad debt (loss). Not a real loss of course because they only spent 60K providing your treatment, but a tax loss on their schedule C or P&L statement.

I am done with this, its been fun, but becoming boring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

not sure what you are arguing about.

Accounting.

Saying I'm going to charge you $1000 to mow your lawn and then writing down my bill to $20 does not give me a tax loss of $980 as far as the IRS is concerned.

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet and you have a tax loss. That is exactly what hospitals do today.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass. accounting 101

actually it does. all you have to do is put the $980 in the bad debt column of your P&L sheet

$980 versus $1000?
Still $20 in revenue.

and you have a tax loss.

You should try putting that into a tax software program, just for fun.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20.

What income do I declare? $1000, $20 or -$980?

If your boss promised you a $2000 bonus and only paid you $1000, do you report income of $2000, $1000, $0 or a $1000 deduction?

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c, i.e. an offset against income

I have done taxes for over 40 years, I know how the tax programs work

your last sentence has nothing to do with this question. in that example your boss lied to you, you would have income of 1000 and should seek an honest employer. the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing, there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass, if you "wrote it down" to 20 that changed the contract. you are mixing apples and oranges.

you would have 20 in income and 980 in bad debts. bad debts are a deduction on your schedule c

You're still mistaken.

to the IRS I owed you 1000 but only paid 20. It doesn't matter that it only cost you 15 to mow my grass.
$15 in expenses, $20 in revenue, $5 in gross profit.
Declaring $980 in imaginary losses will get you in trouble.

the 1000 would be taxable income, what he promised means nothing,

Much like your imaginary medical bill meant nothing.

there was never a contract fo that amount whereas there was a contract between us on the 1000 for mowing my grass,

Contracts aren't revenue, only revenue is revenue.

you are mixing apples and oranges.

I'm only pointing out your error.

you have this wrong, I suggest a trip to your local library for an accounting 101 textbook.

When you breach a contract you create a tax loss for the other party to the contract.

but none of this is relevant to our original discussion regarding how hospitals manipulate their charges to create a favorable tax situation. When they send you a bill for 250K that goes on their books as an accounts receivable for 250K, then when the insurance company or medicare pays them 80K the 170K is booked as a bad debt (loss). Not a real loss of course because they only spent 60K providing your treatment, but a tax loss on their schedule C or P&L statement.

I am done with this, its been fun, but becoming boring.

When they send you a bill for 250K that goes on their books as an accounts receivable for 250K, then when the insurance company or medicare pays them 80K the 170K is booked as a bad debt (loss).

Tell you what, use cash accounting and calculate the gross profit in this scenario.
Now use accrual accounting and do the same.

Show how either one gives you a net tax loss.

Not a real loss of course because they only spent 60K providing your treatment

Any way you look at it, they have a gross profit, not a loss, on their tax return.

 

[dblack]

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Cut off the supply. The problem is that Congress has too much power to interfere in our economic decisions.

You would do that how?

Remove the ability for congress to create carve outs in tax law for anyone or anything.

That in and of itself would do more to curb corruption than any campaign finance reform ever could.

Exactly. But, try to find someone willing to give up the home mortgage interest deduction (for example). The problem with eliminating the tax incentive game is that most people have convinced themselves that they're coming out ahead, and are loathe to give up their perceived advantage.

 

[dblack]

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Cut off the supply. The problem is that Congress has too much power to interfere in our economic decisions.

You would do that how?

Remove the ability for congress to create carve outs in tax law for anyone or anything.

That in and of itself would do more to curb corruption than any campaign finance reform ever could.

Not to mention that every campaign finance "reform" scheme I've heard of actually creates more opportunity for corruption.

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't necessarily believe that being a billionaire should be illegal but I personally would not be comfortable having that much money and I also personally believe that simple living is more in line with my own moral, ethical, and religious beliefs than having all the money in the world.

It is not HAVING the money. It is the EARNING that is fun. If one is the type able to do it in the first place.

Yes, people who end up being millionaires and billionaires have a different mindset that's for sure.

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

The government creates jobs.

The government creates nothing. It produces nothing and creates nothing. It expands and spends more money thereby needing to fill more seats as it get more and more bloated with more and more programs.

The government is a tax on our Products and Services (GDP) the private sector produces.

The government is blood sucking overhead and the larger it gets, the less competitive we are in the global market.

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.