Useless USPS|Page 2|General Discussions & Questions|Forum|Winchester Collector

Jeremy P said
Same here. I use TaxAct for the last 25 years and one year paid a CPA to do them to see what I was missing out on…nothing, same result. Back to my 15.95 or whatever annual filing fee!
  

Yes, I paid a COA once about 10 years ago to see what I could save.  Nothing. Called him at the end of the year to see what I could do to lower my (excessive) tax burden.  Nothing.  When he sent me a $60 bill for that phone call, that’s when he got forever fired.

It’s still a great country we live in, but I object to my tax burden when you consider that when the income tax was instituted in 1913, it was created to go after folks like John D Rockefeller, who became the world’s first billionaire that very year.  In order to even have a Federal tax burden, you would have to earn at least $25,000 in 1913.  That’s the equivalent of almost $834,000 in 2026.  Needless to say, I would hazard to guess most of us on this forum earn nowhere near that much annually.

I don’t mind having some tax burden, but it’s gotten to be the middle class/upper middle class is responsible for a disproportionate portion of the tax burden based on income levels because the poor don’t have the income to pay much more than a rudimentary amount and the rich have the means to avoid their fair share.

And I can relate this conversation to firearms.  By my rationale, what I pay in taxes annually and what I think that should be that is a fair & reasonable amount amounts to one really, really nice Winchester 1886 rifle annually, which means that I have “underfunded” my collection by about 40 quality Winchester rifles over the years.😄

Now, how do you deduct that really nice Winchester on your taxes, especially with the now relatively high standard deduction?

Zebulon said
That is a fine example of why we must avoid the politics of envy — he has more than I do so tax him and not me.  History is replete with tax legislation enacted because it “will only affect the rich, who need to pay their ‘fair share’.”  
There are two uncomfortable truths about the “rich” and taxes.  
First, legislation allegedly enacted to tax only the “rich” inevitably is broadened to tax the semi-rich, then the almost-rich, then the would-be rich, and finally all but the truly poor. Historical fact, not opinion. 
Second, the “rich” — high income earners – already pay the vast majority of ALL taxes in the United States. As California, New York, and New Jersey are finding out and as Washington State will discover if its Supreme Court has the chutzpah to redefine income as property (to avoid the Evergreen State’s Constitutional prohibition of an income tax.)
The ever-creative California legislature is contemplating a “Hotel California Exit Tax” whereby the ungrateful wr
etches who flee California will STILL be liable for a tax on their income no matter where earned for ten (10) years, to compensate the State for having cradled them in Sunshine and other amenities. You can check out any time you like but your wallet stays behind. I don’t know what Cali’s legal fees amount to as a percentage of State revenues but I’d hazard a guess the number is not small. The Granola Bowl indeed. 
Moral: Don’t fall for the bait-and-switch. 
  

Absolutely!  The super rich, by far, pay the most in taxes dollar wise, but not percentage wise.

These states that are groveling for tax dollars when the wealthy leave due to legislation are doing it to themselves.  These states also tend to be the most anti 2 A states out there.

mrcvs said

Zebulon said
That is a fine example of why we must avoid the politics of envy — he has more than I do so tax him and not me.  History is replete with tax legislation enacted because it “will only affect the rich, who need to pay their ‘fair share’.”  
There are two uncomfortable truths about the “rich” and taxes.  
First, legislation allegedly enacted to tax only the “rich” inevitably is broadened to tax the semi-rich, then the almost-rich, then the would-be rich, and finally all but the truly poor. Historical fact, not opinion. 
Second, the “rich” — high income earners – already pay the vast majority of ALL taxes in the United States. As California, New York, and New Jersey are finding out and as Washington State will discover if its Supreme Court has the chutzpah to redefine income as property (to avoid the Evergreen State’s Constitutional prohibition of an income tax.)
The ever-creative California legislature is contemplating a “Hotel California Exit Tax” whereby the ungrateful wr
etches who flee California will STILL be liable for a tax on their income no matter where earned for ten (10) years, to compensate the State for having cradled them in Sunshine and other amenities. You can check out any time you like but your wallet stays behind. I don’t know what Cali’s legal fees amount to as a percentage of State revenues but I’d hazard a guess the number is not small. The Granola Bowl indeed. 
Moral: Don’t fall for the bait-and-switch. 
  

Absolutely!  The super rich, by far, pay the most in taxes dollar wise, but not percentage wise.
These states that are groveling for tax dollars when the wealthy leave due to legislation are doing it to themselves.  These states also tend to be the most anti 2 A states out there.
  

Ian,  i’m not sure how you define “Super Rich” but those in the larger group of taxpayers who pay most of all taxes assessed by all American taxing jurisdictions, include highly compensated professionals and businessmen who pay taxes at effective — not nominal — rates close to fifty percent of AGI. Earned income, as opposed to investment income, is heavily taxed and impossible to safely defer. 

I own and operate a very small “retirement business” and quite honestly I wouldn’t have a clue how to file a proper tax return. My accountant is on the long list of folks who made a profit off my business over the last several years…. I’m NOT on that list. 

Mike