神马作文网请问tax credit 确切的意思是什么
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：神马作文网作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/09/20 20:24:20
请问tax credit 确切的意思是什么
developer who win tax credits finance their projects by selling the credits to investors,who often pay a premium on the credits,allowing the developer to turn $1 million in credits into $ 10 million in equity.In exchange for getting the valuable credits,developers agree to lease a number of the apartments at reduced prices to people who earn less than 60 per cent of area's median gross incom.
developer who win tax credits finance their projects by selling the credits to investors,who often pay a premium on the credits,allowing the developer to turn $1 million in credits into $ 10 million in equity.In exchange for getting the valuable credits,developers agree to lease a number of the apartments at reduced prices to people who earn less than 60 per cent of area's median gross incom.
Community Involvement,not Forcible Taxation
Tax money is as addictive as any drug.You don’t really have a choice about paying it—in addition to your income tax and sales tax,businesses and landlords also pass on the taxes they pay,in the price of the goods and services you consume.
Since you don’t have a choice,politicians don’t have any incentive to really save money in the budget.But what if you could pick what programs to fund?
Dollar-for-dollar tax credits
What if you could spend part or all of your tax liability on programs that were important to you?Say you owed $1,000 in state income tax.You could give $100 to your local school,$100 to a local homeless shelter,$50 to an arts program,and $750 to the state.
Democratic allocation
This would have three major effects,immediately.First,unpopular programs would have difficulty getting funded.If no one wants to give towards the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation,lawmakers will have to decide whether to cut it or some other frivolous program.Meanwhile,important programs will get the funding they need because people care.Special interests will have much less influence,since the people will have more control over spending,and legislators less.
Community involvement
Secondly,people will become more involved in their communities.Americans are already the most charitable people in the world (as a percentage of take-home pay given to charity).But when faced with many social ills,we expect the government to do something about it.We may see a homeless panhandler and say,“Well,I pay taxes for shelters.” Or faced with pollution,we may say,“I pay the government to take care of the environment.” We need to stop abdicating responsibility and get involved directly.Having the power to direct part of our taxes will raise the level of involvement.
More efficient spending
Finally,directed dollars will go farther.When you pay taxes to the state,they get filtered back through a bureaucracy to your region—if you’re lucky.(If you’re not,you fund a transit program in southern California or subsidize farmers in the Central Valley.) Every step of the bureaucracy takes a cut along the way,and by the time the money reaches your local school,police department,or soup kitchen,half of it may be gone.Direct,local spending routes around the bureaucrats.And with nothing to do,the state may be able to eliminate their jobs,saving even more money (while they find more productive work elsewhere).
Don’t I have this already?
Currently,when you give to an approved charity,you can deduct your contribution from your income.Giving $100 may save you $33 on your federal income tax and another $9 on your state income tax.I propose that giving $100 would save you $100 on your state income tax—essentially allowing you to pay your tax directly to recipient programs.
Nuts and bolts
I have confidence that Americans—and Californians in particular—are generous and intelligent.I believe that we could move immediately to 100% credits,and that the world would not end (except for a few career bureaucrats).However,I recognize that not everyone shares this confidence.Therefore,I propose a phased-in program.For the first two years,taxpayers would be able to direct 10% of their state income tax liability.That would rise by 5% per year for the next three years,up to 25% in the fifth year.At that point,I believe that the program will be successful enough that there will be support for legislation extending the program to 50% and even 100% in subsequent years.
I also believe that when people are fully engaged with their communities,rolling back or eliminating taxes will be more feasible.Right now,tax proponents claim that the poor would starve and that children would be illiterate if there were no taxes.With increased community involvement,we can prove them wrong,and show that free,engaged,and caring Californians can support each other voluntarily.
纳税义务
Tax money is as addictive as any drug.You don’t really have a choice about paying it—in addition to your income tax and sales tax,businesses and landlords also pass on the taxes they pay,in the price of the goods and services you consume.
Since you don’t have a choice,politicians don’t have any incentive to really save money in the budget.But what if you could pick what programs to fund?
Dollar-for-dollar tax credits
What if you could spend part or all of your tax liability on programs that were important to you?Say you owed $1,000 in state income tax.You could give $100 to your local school,$100 to a local homeless shelter,$50 to an arts program,and $750 to the state.
Democratic allocation
This would have three major effects,immediately.First,unpopular programs would have difficulty getting funded.If no one wants to give towards the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation,lawmakers will have to decide whether to cut it or some other frivolous program.Meanwhile,important programs will get the funding they need because people care.Special interests will have much less influence,since the people will have more control over spending,and legislators less.
Community involvement
Secondly,people will become more involved in their communities.Americans are already the most charitable people in the world (as a percentage of take-home pay given to charity).But when faced with many social ills,we expect the government to do something about it.We may see a homeless panhandler and say,“Well,I pay taxes for shelters.” Or faced with pollution,we may say,“I pay the government to take care of the environment.” We need to stop abdicating responsibility and get involved directly.Having the power to direct part of our taxes will raise the level of involvement.
More efficient spending
Finally,directed dollars will go farther.When you pay taxes to the state,they get filtered back through a bureaucracy to your region—if you’re lucky.(If you’re not,you fund a transit program in southern California or subsidize farmers in the Central Valley.) Every step of the bureaucracy takes a cut along the way,and by the time the money reaches your local school,police department,or soup kitchen,half of it may be gone.Direct,local spending routes around the bureaucrats.And with nothing to do,the state may be able to eliminate their jobs,saving even more money (while they find more productive work elsewhere).
Don’t I have this already?
Currently,when you give to an approved charity,you can deduct your contribution from your income.Giving $100 may save you $33 on your federal income tax and another $9 on your state income tax.I propose that giving $100 would save you $100 on your state income tax—essentially allowing you to pay your tax directly to recipient programs.
Nuts and bolts
I have confidence that Americans—and Californians in particular—are generous and intelligent.I believe that we could move immediately to 100% credits,and that the world would not end (except for a few career bureaucrats).However,I recognize that not everyone shares this confidence.Therefore,I propose a phased-in program.For the first two years,taxpayers would be able to direct 10% of their state income tax liability.That would rise by 5% per year for the next three years,up to 25% in the fifth year.At that point,I believe that the program will be successful enough that there will be support for legislation extending the program to 50% and even 100% in subsequent years.
I also believe that when people are fully engaged with their communities,rolling back or eliminating taxes will be more feasible.Right now,tax proponents claim that the poor would starve and that children would be illiterate if there were no taxes.With increased community involvement,we can prove them wrong,and show that free,engaged,and caring Californians can support each other voluntarily.
纳税义务