Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/busines...4.column</a> "To everyone who claims that our wealthiest citizens pay more than their fair share of income taxes and we should cut them a break because they're the ones who, you know, create jobs in our economy, I have four words for you: Frank and Jamie McCourt." "...the McCourts employed two mechanisms to live tax-free. One was to claim enormous tax losses from their business, which was mostly commercial real estate before they bought the Dodgers. These could be carried forward, offsetting income year after year until they were finally netted out. Jamie's documents say that in 2008 the net loss carry-forward from previous years was $109 million -- in other words, the McCourts could have earned that much without paying a penny of income tax." We need MORE regulations, not less.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Excuse, so you are saying we should have to pay tax on ALL profit, but when we have a loss, we are to IGNORE it... Sorry, but when you invest, sometimes you make a profit, and sometimes you have a loss, and the system is designed to allow for the offset of the two items, with limitations on taxation on the amount of loss you can claim in any year. If you can't claim the entire loss (meaning you pay MORE Taxes that year), you are allowed to carry it forward to the next year, and once again, look at profit and losses (with consideration for the unclaimed losses in the past years). The current system is fair. Heck, maybe we should allow the full loss in the original year, and give the family the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Welfare benefits, since they had a major loss that specific year....
Originally Posted By SuperDry At the very least, the $3000 annual limitation of claiming net capital losses against earned income should be raised. It was set at the current level something like 30 years ago and is not indexed to inflation or otherwise adjusted.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Darkbeer, they've realized no loss. In English for you, they really haven't misplaced $109M, it's all on paper. But they HAVE REALLY made a lot of money, and because of these fake losses, they pay no taxes.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Huh, you invest say $1 Billion in Real Estate, but by the time you sell it, they only get $891 Million... That is NOT a loss???? Ok, they maybe have a LOT of Money, but they invested it, and took a loss. Not just on Paper, but their net worth is LESS, aka Loss.... Yes, they made money on other projects, but in certain years, they LOSS more than they made, and the current tax code says you CAN'T claim those losses in the year occured, but instead are forced to apply them to future profits. Which is EXACTLY what was done.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^ Darkbeer does have a point. You can't claim unrealized losses. That said, I'm sure the McCourts availed themselves to every loophole that exists, most of which are not available to middle class wage earners.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Darkbeer, they've realized no loss. In English for you, they really haven't misplaced $109M, it's all on paper. > <Huh, you invest say $1 Billion in Real Estate, but by the time you sell it, they only get $891 Million... > Well, that's a question, isn't it? Did they sell at a loss, or was it all paper loss or assessed value? It wasn't clear to me from the article - probably because it sounds like the machinations are pretty complicated. Certainly more complicated that DB's example of buying something for 1B and selling for 891M. From the article: "Did the McCourts really lose $135 million in the years before 2009? Probably not in the sense that you or I suffer a loss when a dollar bill slips through a hole in our jeans, or even when we sell that stock our brother-in-law described as "a slam dunk" for less than we paid for it. "They're tax losses. I don't mean real losses," Jamie's lawyer, Bert Fields, told me." (And that's Jamie McCourt's lawyer!) "Another McCourt maneuver involves financing and refinancing their assets. The tax rules allow real estate owners to refinance properties with rising values and take out cash tax-free. (Many homeowners engaged in similar "cash out" refis during the housing boom). Land developers can transfer tax credits from property to property, like an NFL team booting a fumbled ball toward the goal line, until time runs out or the market crashes. The McCourts have also borrowed against future business income -- in 2007 they took out a $140-million loan against future Dodger ticket sales, of which $20 million went to fund their lifestyles, tax-free. Of course, when the loan comes due, the piper will have to be paid, but interest on the loan will be tax-deductible for the Dodgers, Jamie's lawyers say. It's proper to acknowledge that tax breaks like these can have a legitimate purpose. The idea is that they encourage certain investments, such as real estate development, that may energize the economy and create jobs. Is that what's happening here? The tax benefits reaped by the McCourts helped turbocharge their lifestyle. There are eight houses, including four in Holmby Hills and Malibu. The McCourts treated their family and business checkbooks as "largely one and the same," according to an e-mail from a McCourt executive Jamie filed in court. (Oddly, the e-mail ascribes to her the philosophy of "why have a family business but to support the family lifestyle.") This paid for meals in the best restaurants, floral arrangements for home and office from the finest florists, country club dues, personal travel on the Dodgers plane, Jamie's makeup "for Dodger events" ($386 a month). The point is not to begrudge the McCourts these luxuries. The point is to question why we as taxpayers should subsidize them. " Amen.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Darkbeer, are you happy paying for the McCourts' lifestyle? Because you are, you know.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Darkbeer, are you happy paying for the McCourts' lifestyle? Because you are, you know. << They've earned the right to rip the rest of us off. It would be un-American to deprive them of that right.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And since you're still posting at this time, answer the question- Darkbeer, are you happy paying for the McCourts' lifestyle? Because you are, you know.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***At the very least, the $3000 annual limitation of claiming net capital losses against earned income should be raised. It was set at the current level something like 30 years ago and is not indexed to inflation or otherwise adjusted.*** That does seem to be a bizarrely low figure. In essence, if you lose more than roughly $250,000 you can not expect to recoup your losses in your lifetime. That doesn't seem particularly fair.
Originally Posted By Mr X ^---as far as the topic at hand, it doesn't sound to me as though that $3,000 rule applies to these tax freeloaders though. I guess only the little people have to suffer. Lose a million bucks on your small business venture? Tough. Lose a hundred million? Set for life. Why do people like Darkbeer so vehemently stand up for and try to protect people like this?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Why do people like Darkbeer so vehemently stand up for and try to protect people like this?>> See gadzuux's post #30 in "The discrimination of gays in Virginia" topic.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And since you're still posting at this time, answer the question- Darkbeer, are you happy paying for the McCourts' lifestyle? Because you are, you know.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm now stalking him in other threads. His chickenbleep post and run style deserves it.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I REFUSE to make this personal, and PLEASE do NOT place words in my mouth! Talk about what YOU believe... that is fine, but once you start claiming to "read my mind"... Conversation is OVER!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So you are chickenbleep. It wasn't personal, David. it was a simple question, questions you ALWAYS avoid. Are you happy you're paying for McCourts' lifestyle? Cut and run, well, that speaks for itself.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf We are subsidizing the McCourt's lifestyle as much as we are subsidizing every mortgage in America. Remember, mortgage interest is tax deductible. Therefore, for anyone who took out their equity to buy a Hummer or a speedboat, those lifestyle enhancements are subsidized by you and me as well. It seems that everyone is (or at least was) taking advantage of it to fund their own lifestyle. I don't see the difference with the McCourts other than they have a lot more money on the line. Or am I missing something?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy The gap between rich and poor is the largest now than any period in the United States since the Great Depression. The middle class is shrinking. If you think that's good for America, I suspect you are not part of the middle class.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If you think that's good for America, I suspect you are not part of the middle class.<< That's just the crazy thing, though - they are part of the middle class. The Republican party has managed to convince people to vote against their own self interests. We live in the United States of Bizzaroland.
