this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
776 points (98.0% liked)
Political Memes
11928 readers
2805 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
/uj
The "money spent on survival" is the standard deduction and deductions in general. Deductions are viewed as if you never made that money in the first place. Whether standard deduction should be larger is another question.
Corporations can tell the government what their deduction is, the government tells normal humans what their deduction is.
The government tells you what the standard deduction is. You don't have to claim that standard deduction. You can specifically itemize the deductions you wish the claim instead. You can claim considerably more than the standard, if you so choose.
Whether we should be able to claim more and whether the standard deduction is large enough are different questions.
Overall, the general shape of the system makes sense.
Everybody receives services provided by the government, so everybody should help pay for that government. The FDA tests to make sure food and drugs are safe. The NHTSA makes sure cars and highways are safe. And, of course, the big one, the military protecting the country from invasion. The standard deduction exists so that people only have to start paying taxes once they get their basic needs met.
Of course, I know that in the real world it's much more complicated than that. The US military might actually make Americans less safe by getting involved in all kinds of conflicts overseas. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th would probably never have attacked if the US had a defence-only military. The FDA is being corrupted by an antivax nutjob, and so-on. But, the theory of everybody contributing taxes to pay for things provided for the common good makes sense. The real standard deduction is absurdly low and almost nobody can actually fully meet their needs with that minimal amount.
It also makes sense in the abstract that corporations don't pay taxes on money that doesn't get distributed to the owners. If a Mom and Pop grocery store is doing really well and Mom and Pop pay themselves huge salaries, they pay personal income tax on those salaries. If they arrange to do it through corporate dividends or something, then it's the corporation that pays taxes. On the other hand, if the store is doing really well and they want to expand, it makes sense that the government not tax them based on their revenues if they're re-investing those revenues into the business. If they're investing the money into making a bigger, better store to serve their community rather than simply taking the money out as profits into Mom's purse and Pop's wallet that's good for the community. Also, if Mom and Pop made $400k in revenue but spent $390k on expenses, and that includes the wages of some cashiers, it's probably unreasonable to tax the revenue before the employees are even paid.
The problem is really in the various loopholes and ways corporations claim to be re-investing the money. We wouldn't want Mom and Pop's grocery store to be unable to expand because they're taxed before they can even invest. On the other hand if Pop buys a Porsche SUV under the store's name and claims it's a grocery delivery van, that's not fair. Other people have to buy their SUVs with after-tax money. In theory, if Pop is caught claiming that SUV as a business expense but using it for purely personal purposes, the IRS will go after him. But, of course, the reality is that companies get away with that kind of thing all the time.
I think part of the complaint here is based in the reality that corporations get away with lots of things, and that taxes are a real burden on the poor and middle class. On the other hand, I think there's also a lot of financial illiteracy where people really have no idea how the taxation system works. They just see ragebait on social media and get angry because something about it seems unfair.
You can say that you would like to claim more, but the government sure as hell isn't going to let you claim survival expenses like that. Go ahead and try to claim your rent. Unless you are using part of your rental for business purposes (not just living) they'll just tell you to get fucked and pay the taxes anyway.
So yes, you can put it on the paperwork. But actually claim it? Almost certainly not.
It certainly depends on what you're actually paying, yes. It's very unlikely that your deductible expenses will be greater than the standard deduction. But, it is certainly possible under certain (rare) conditions.
Rent alone here is higher than the basic personal amount, let alone any other necessities. And I'm in one of the cheapest cities in Canada for rental housing.
Which is to say, almost every single tax paying person in the entire country would be getting more than the basic personal amount (Canada's version of the standard deduction in the US) if we were allowed to claim basic necessities.
All you are telling me is that "rent" isn't a deductible expense.
None of that changes the fact that if you have more deductible expenses than the standard deduction, you can claim greater than the standard deduction.
The standard deduction is ~$16,000 for a single person. Medical expenses are deductible. If they spend $32,000 in a hospital stay, they would be better off itemizing the whole deduction rather than taking only the standard deduction.
You are missing the point that for a business everything is a deduction and for an individual almost nothing counts as an itemized deduction.
It is a lie to say "you could itemize" when the IRS specifically does not allow W2 employees to itemize rent, transportation, food, and entertainment.
Yeah, because $16k is enough to survive.
OP even acknowledged this and this shit is still top reply. Dumb fucks everywhere.
A diet of nothing but rice and beans, living in a rented room in a garage, and dumpster diving for all the remaining necessities and you can almost live in California!
I'm on a fixed income and cannot live in California. I do thanks to parents giving me some intergenerational wealth early by paying my $2k-ish rent for me. (They're in their eighties and still alive.)
You're right, of course. But I also think it would open up a giant loophole for the wealthy. A car is essential for survival! A three million dollar car? ... A 15,000sqft house?
Of course, they could set reasonable limits. But when was the last time congress was reasonable?
Person: $16k for food is part of standard deduction. No deduction for car or rent if you are an employee.
Corporation (which is legally treated as a person): $150k for food for one party. $150k for CEO's Mercedes. $500k for condo for ceo to use when visiting.
Pretty sure that's the point
I'm pretty sure you are correct.
That’s the thing. Corporations report their own deductions, but individuals have to follow existing law, when there’s a high variance among necessary spending
You can also report your own deductions if you itemize. If your income is low, the standard deduction is probably just significantly bigger than your itemized deductions.
Legal deductions are extremely limited if you are an employee. You can't deduct your car, your rent, or the big screen TV you bought.
For employers, anything that didn't end up in the bank at the end of the year is a deduction.
You definitely want to be operating some sort of home business on the side, even if you are employed. You don't get to count employment-related expenses, but you do get to count expenses attributable to that separate business.
Also, not true. You can deduct any expense needed for work. Uniform, supplies, food if you're required to eat on the clock, car payments if you're a delivery driver, all deductible. You can deduct a haircut if your employer has a grooming policy.
It's just not worth it for most people. You need to save receipts and be able to prove it was a job-related expense, and if you do something wrong, you could be charged with tax fraud.
Commuting to and from the job is an expense needed for work. You can claim that part of your non-reimbursed travel expenses to temporary work sites that exceed your normal commute, but you can't claim your normal commute.
You cannot deduct your commuting expenses. Not gas. Not bus fare. Not parking.
Uniform items are deductible only of you don't get a uniform allowance.
If they give you a $50/yr boot allowance, you don't get to claim your $300 Red Wings. If you buy your own tools but your employer provides a (shitty, shared) set, you don't get to deduct your tools.
But, this is all about W2 employment. In practice, the overwhelming majority of expenses you incur in the process of W2 employment are not actually deductible, because your employer is already taking the deduction.
But, if you are running your own home business, your usual workplace is your home, and you can claim transportation expenses anywhere you need to go for that business. You can deduct the use of a part of your home. You can deduct part of your utilities, your wardrobe, your tools. Even if your home business is one of the 30% that are operated at a loss, you can deduct the expenses incurred while doing business, and offset a part of your W2 income.
People can report their own deductions, too. It's just not worth it for most people.
The problem is that the IRS doesn't have the resources to audit corporations and millionaires. They basically only audit small business owners.
Even that though, you can only deduct part of your living expenses. There is no food deduction afaik, there is no deduction for insurance as far as I know.
Most of us also pay a much higher proportion of our income in sales taxes. Businesses are exempt from such taxes; they are only paid by the end user.
That's absolutely not true. Businesses pay sales taxes, too. Nonprofits/churches/etc are exempt, but otherwise, every transaction is taxed.
No, that's incorrect. I am very well aware of this. Businesses only have to pay sales taxes on purchases for which they are the end user. They'll pay sales taxes on their office supplies and services provided to the business. But manufacturers do not have to pay sales taxes on the raw materials they purchase. Retailers do not pay sales taxes on wholesale purchases they make for resale. Only the end-user pays the sales tax on a purchase.
I work with a couple vendors that do not collect sales tax at all. They only sell B2B, and they only sell to businesses who provide them with a sales tax exemption certificate.
What you are describing is more akin to Europe's VAT system. Still, under VAT, everyone in the chain pays VAT, and each vendor remits the collected VAT to the tax authority. But, the business-buyer reclaims that VAT from the tax authority if they are not the end-user of the purchased product. Everyone but the end user can reclaim their VAT payment.
Which is ass backwards. Audit those with the highest amounts and they made way more money. It's proven it worked that way until they cut funding for it
I'm pretty sure I read that auditing the wealthy is a huge profit center for the IRS, because they find people who aren't paying what's owed. Naturally conservatives (of any party) hate this and gut it whenever possible
Auditing in general is profitable, but it's mostly due to it being automated for people that aren't making 7 figures. Auditing the not absurdly wealthy is also generally a positive revenue. Auditing the extremely wealthy tends to not be a great net benefit as the costs of lawyers and court time outweighs the settlement check at the end. There's an argument to be made it's worth the cost to ensure the ultra wealthy do actually pay though.
It's billions of dollars of tax "avoidance", cheating, and simply not paying. Unfortunately, the wealthy who are calling the shots don't really want to pay millions for IRS lawyers