My wife sent me this:
Quote:
I just read this in CNN money:
Chesty Morgan, an enterprising stripper from Detroit, sought to claim her breast implants as a medical expense. A tax court judge busted Chesty on that one, but he did her a bigger favor by allowing her to write off the operation as an un-reimbursed business expense. (As a medical deduction, Chesty would have only been allowed to write off the operation if her costs exceeded a whopping 7.5 percent of her income. Business write-offs can be claimed if they top just 2 percent of her pay, so they're more valuable.) Can you believe that! A stripper gets to deduct her tit operation as a business expense... what is the world coming to?
|
Personally, I think it's fair - and a victory for both men and women.
And not just because there will be more fake gravity-defying breasts in the world. We're talking calf implants and pec implants for male actors, nose jobs - just think of the money Michael Jackson has probably saved already using this deduction. Oh, and in Nevada, it would mean brothels can claim condoms - as it’s a legitimate business activity there.
Note the 7.5% of income "floor" for medical expenses - your medical costs must exceed that much of your pay. Oh, and you of course can't claim anything your insurance pays. In one theory, this will keep the use of this deduction to those who are poor, i.e. earn less money per year and have a smaller number for 7.5%. In another theory, this scheme is *for* the rich for two reasons: (1) it's an itemized deduction, and the poor don't itemize; (2) it really only benefits those who can afford to gamble by going without medical insurance - and if you're rich enough you don't bother wasting money on expensive insurance policies.
Too much tax theory? Just tossing it out there for those nay-sayers who think Congress doesn't try to influence behavior or benefit its constituents with the tax code.
