Getting hit with large tax return bill....

[fencepost]

There was a bunch of talk about this back when it passed, such as this Motley Fool article on 9 of the biggest things going away.

I could easily see the home equity one hitting a lot of people hard if they did something like borrow against their house to help finance college for the kids - once they could deduct that interest, but no more. Starting last year, they might have been better off selling the house, moving, putting down as little as possible on the new place so it's a new purchase mortgage, then using all those proceeds from the previous home for college education... Except I believe those proceeds would all still be highly taxed unless they were rolled into a new house or maybe a 529(?) for education.

Oh, and if you did the above in 2018, the moving expenses aren't deductible any more either.

The "can't deduct job costs" could hit some people and is the biggest reason I'd say anyone freelancing or sole proprietorship should be talking to an accountant for taxes. Professional help on the matter of "can these be deducted as business expenses not as personal expenses" could be important for equipment, conferences, travel, etc.

Downside: you can't deduct the tax prep fees anymore.

 

[carmen617]

[QUOTE=" Also I'm confused how you ever got a refund...were you purposely overpaying your quarterly? .[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of two income families on here who get annual refunds. One partner is a sole proprietor, one has a "normal" job which withholds taxes and provides benefits. I was in that boat for about 10 years, paid quarterly payments, and always got a small refund. You can't generalize here - people all have different income and tax situations.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I understand your argument as:
(Hypothetical numbers).

I see what you're saying too. We just disagree over the annual owed. You say it went up 60%...from 10k to 16k. I say..well, I didn't say, but I'll say it went to, just a mere 10% (although I feel much less but just for the sake of painting numbers on a forum I'll say 10%).

So in my example my owed went from 10k to 9k. And...in my example, what I had withheld...went from 12k, down to 9.1k. (although I'd never had let them take out 12k in my past...I don't like giving too much as a tax free loan to the feds...I would have had withholding at 10,001 if I was to owe 10k...that's the part most people miss...they don't realize they can control what they give...down to the penny!). SO..in the end, I get 100 bucks back instead of 2K back. BUT..my weekly paycheck went up a hair almost 20 bucks..thanks to that 1k annual tax savings. And I only see a 100 dollar tax rebate. But over the year, thanks to that almost 20 bucks extra in each paycheck, I already got back about 950 bucks of it. As it should be...you want what you owe, or what you get back...to be as close to 0 (zero) as possible.

 

[JRDtechnet]

My best friend and his wife usually get a $6000ish tax return and they are now going to be paying $2500 and are already living paycheck to paycheck and might lose their home. His paycheck didn't go up. That's an $8500 difference in taxes YoY, bud. It wasn't because their withholding bracket was incorrect.. they owed more in totality due to the loss of deductions.

See these sort of anecdotes are meaningless without more information. The GOA warned as early as last July for people to update their withholdings. Did your friend actually calculate his total federal income tax he paid for 2017 and compare it to this years total...not what was refunded or owed but actually paid. What deduction besides SALT and personal exemption did we lose? But really for a married couple that should be offset by the doubling of the standard deduction which would be $24k if married. Majority of people now shouldn't even be itemizing as the $24k should pretty much cover things for majority of people making under $150k or so. And no offense meant to your friend but living paycheck to paycheck and were getting a $6k return I have to assume they are making six figures to be able to have that much withheld. So I question how in the world are they living paycheck to paycheck unless they budget their money poorly or bought a house that's way to expensive because $2k shouldn't break you at that income level.

 

[JRDtechnet]

[QUOTE=" Also I'm confused how you ever got a refund...were you purposely overpaying your quarterly? .

There are plenty of two income families on here who get annual refunds. One partner is a sole proprietor, one has a "normal" job which withholds taxes and provides benefits. I was in that boat for about 10 years, paid quarterly payments, and always got a small refund. You can't generalize here - people all have different income and tax situations.[/QUOTE]


That's true, but reading OPs post and qualifier words like 'me' or 'my own' I didn't get the sense that he was calculating the return for two incomes.

 

[kwest]

Paying a cpa is the best thing a small business can do. It is a write off. Professionally prepared tax returns are less likely to get audited. And they will give you ideas and strategy. I used to pay 500 a year to my cpa. He said if I was a s Corp I would have save 15k last year. I am now an s Corp and his fee has increased to 3k. That is one check I am happy to write each year.

It takes money to make money.

 

[katz]

That's true, but reading OPs post and qualifier words like 'me' or 'my own' I didn't get the sense that he was calculating the return for two incomes.

I am married/filing jointly, although she only worked approx. 6 months. Sorry for the confusion. Filing jointly usually gives bigger tax breaks, for us anyway. My deductions are kinda limited to start with, as I don't claim a home office. I don't have a room set apart for business only, so I don't qualify for that. I know each person's tax situation can be very unique. This is something I follow closely, and in several of the FB groups I'm in, people are very upset about it. Many of these folks are small business owners, just like us, and maybe a spouse working a "regular" job.

I simply have a hard time believing they have made such crazy changes to the tax regs. No changes in the last 20 years has had such a drastic effect on my tax situation as this has.

 

[JRDtechnet]

Just for giggles, I went it and adjusted my mileage, doubled it, and I still owed money! Doubling the mileage should bump it at least 1K or 2K in the other direction. Ridiculous

That makes no sense though, as far as I know mileage is $0.58 with no limit on how much you can deduct. Could Fica or AMT be a factor here?

 

[stro]

That makes no sense though, as far as I know mileage is $0.58 with no limit on how much you can deduct. Could Fica or AMT be a factor here?

Mileage is huge as a self employed business expense, as a un-reimbursed employee expense it doesn't do much for you.

 

[stro]

To compare apples to apples you really need to look at the total federal taxes paid year to year, not your refund number. Even better, because incomes changes year to year do the division and figure out what your actual percentage is. You also really cannot accurately compare the numbers if you jump tax brackets.

With this tax plan, sole proprietors, LLCs get to deduct 20% of their small business income. Plus the tax rate in the brackets went down around 3 percent for most people.

Personally I had a taxable income $1000 more than last year after the new $24,000 standard deduction (married) and the "20% Qualified Business income deduction", and the increased child tax credit. I used to itemize and was able to reach around $16,000 each year, but of course the $24,000 standard deduction is more than itemizing. My total federal tax for the year was $5000 less than what I paid in 2017.

Sounds like they didn't do the best job in calculating the new withholding tables. If they would have left it alone people would see what difference the new tax plan really made, even though it is smarter to not let the Gov hold onto your money all year.

Tax planning is important. Combining two incomes, or a second job that are withholding based on one tax bracket that throw you into a high tax bracket can really screw you. Plus self employment taxes are a killer. Many people that are on payroll, working for the man have no clue that their employer is paying half of the FICA for them.

Alot of people complaining about their refund think it is being caused by not being able to itemize or deduct things, not realizing the standard deduction is now more than what they used to itemize.

There are people getting screwed by this, but it is higher income people that can itemize and go over the new standard deduction, and live in a high income tax state. This is because they are now limited to deducting a max of $10,000 of SALT (State and Local Taxes). So if they pay more than that in SALT taxes, they cannot deduct the excess.

I know alot of small business owners over the last few years that were forming S-corps, taking a "reasonable" salary, and taking the rest of their money as a draw. The money taken as a draw doesn't get hit with self-employment tax.

Another thing to remember is the "20% Qualified Business income deduction" expires in 7 years, the corporate tax rate change was permanent. At least until politicians vote to change it again.

And yes the rich are getting bigger dollars with the new tax law, it is just simple math. Lower taxes by 3%, and a guy that makes 100k a year gets way less money than a guy that makes 1 million a year. People that make over 100k a year, representing 16% of returns filed, pay almost 80% of all income taxes. (Source)

 

[sapphirescales]

The purpose of limiting SALT deductions was to stop states from forcing everyone else to subsidize their "free sh*t for everybody" tax policies. If you want to live in a high-tax state, then be my guest. But everyone else shouldn't have to pay for your crazy socialist programs. If you actually have to pay the full price of your socialist policies then maybe you'll think differently. People always like "free" stuff so long as someone else is footing the bill.

You don't like it? Then vote to change it. Or move to a lower tax state. Just don't vote for the same socialist BS in the new state you move to, otherwise you'll just be bringing the "paradise" you tried to escape from with you. This is what people don't understand. The problem with where you currently live is NOT the place - it's the people. Only move from there if you don't think like everyone else around you, otherwise all you're going to do is ruin the place you move to and turn it into the place you just left. This is the MAJOR problem with immigration. I don't care what country (or state) you're coming from, but chances are YOU are part of the problem. All you're going to do is spread the low quality of living you're currently trying to escape from to where you move to like a disease.

This is why immigration needs to be limited. If you import too many foreign people, all you do is turn your country into their country and nobody is happy in the end. If someone wants to have your quality of life, they have to adapt to the culture they're moving to. I'm not talking about unique cultural things like what you wear or what food you eat. You have to adapt to the way of thinking of the place you're moving to. For example, if I moved to Japan I would still keep a lot of my own culture, but I would change the way I think and act to match THEIR culture because that's WHY their country is the way it is. And if I wanted to move to Japan, I would want to maintain the country the way it is because I like their country and want to be a part of it (hence why I would want to move there).

For example, in Japan, rules are paramount. Here in America if you were going to cross the street and you were waiting for the sign to tell you could you cross but there were no cars (let's say it's 3:00am), you'd just go while carefully keeping tabs of your surroundings so you wouldn't be surprised by a car and get hit. A Japanese person would NEVER do this. Even if there was no cars and no one else around to see you, you'd still wait for the sign to change to tell you that you could cross. That's stupid from an American perspective. But you know what? I'd adapt to that way of thinking. It helps to ensure social order. And God forbid someone actually saw me crossing against the sign. They'd be too polite to point it out, but I don't want to be the dumba$$ American that doesn't know (or worse, doesn't care about) the rules. I'd want to fit in as much as possible for a foreigner.

The problem is, too many people don't want to become a part of the country. They just want to escape their current situation. Then once they get to said country, they change it into where they just came from. All that does is inflict the same type of crap onto the poor people that already live there. The immigrants didn't like the way their country was, so why bring the same crap with them? They can't see that the problem is THEM and NOT the place they left. That's why it's important that we don't import too many immigrants. If the number is kept low enough, they (or their children at least) will adapt to the culture. If too many immigrants are imported, they overwhelm the culture of the country they move to. If I wanted to live in Mexico, I'd move to Mexico. I don't want my own country/state to be turned into Mexico.

And it's not just Mexico, it's ANY country. I like the American culture. I don't want my home to turn into France, Italy, Iran, Japan, Russia, etc. And yes, you can say that American "culture" isn't really our own because it's a mix of so many different cultures. That's true, but remember, immigration wasn't so massive in the past. The culture had time to change and adapt GRADUALLY. Each person brought a part of their culture with them, but their culture did NOT overwhelm the culture that currently existed. It added it's own spice to the mix. What's happening now is instead of adding a dash of salt to the soup, we're pouring 500lbs of salt into a cup of soup and expecting to still have a cup of soup in the end. Instead we're going to end up with an cup of salt (and 499.9 pounds of salt on the floor).

 

[Sky-Knight]

Just to add to what Sapphirescales said, and at the risk of going off topic, anyone that thinks we should import more immigrants needs to watch this:

Now, to counter what he said...

The Red states in the middle of our country generally take from the Federal Coffers, the Blue states with all those "socialist" programs are the ones that pump money INTO the Federal Coffers.

So the state tax limitations are actually just a flying finger to the people already paying for most of everything anyway, because CA, NY, and TX are the only three states in the US with economies worth anything.

And I need to point out that TX is worth 2nd, is very conservative over all, and yet it still functions. We have examples of several schools of political thought working, so it's not like anyone can claim some sort of monopoly on success.

Oh, and one more thing. Socialism is an economic system characterized by the government ownership of the means of production. The VA is a socialist program, SNAP is not. If we're going to have a conversation we have to have a nice long discussion on the definitions of words. This McCarthy red scare era stupidity needs to end. Populism is not socialism. Socialism is anti-freedom, and it has many problems, but our industry is destroying the foundation upon which Capitalism stands, full employment. We need to get our collective heads out of our butts and figure out where to go from here, BEFORE we hit those potential 60% unemployment rates the CBO is predicting by 2030. Which incidentally is a HUGE argument against allowing in any more migrants, legal or otherwise.

Funny how liberals want to bleed us dry on social programs, and conservatives want to bleed us dry running the military, it's all bovine excrement. Just a pile of idiots that don't care about our nation wanting to spend all our money on their pet projects.

As for the topic at hand, my appointment with my CPA is on the 28th. I'll find out the damage then. The primary problem with the US tax code is its incomprehensible complexity. Trump's attempt to simplify it was a respectable step in a positive direction, even if it failed to slap the appropriate upper brackets on it and will run up the deficit. We need to iterate on it some more, keep going until it's nice and simple and like most modern nations we can all just punch our numbers into the IRS's website and get a definitive bill to pay, then we can all collectively stop being scared of the jack booted thugs we call the IRS!

 

[phaZed]

You guys do understand that there is a net-negative immigration rate, right? That is, more people are leaving than coming in.

Besides gumball boy up there, who is saying that immigration is supposed to fix world poverty? Seems to me like it's him, knocking down his own straw-man argument.

In fact, gum ball boy has his numbers all wrong and I can't really find his conclusion... and he's biased as he is the founder of NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration outfit.

Here's a good write up on the video:
https://graphpaperdiaries.com/2016/01/21/immigration-poverty-and-gumballs/

Given that “solve world poverty” is not one of the stated goals or arguments of the immigration organizations I could find, why was this so shared?

To start the video, Mr Beck lays out his argument by quantifying the number of desperately poor people in the world. He clarifies that “desperately poor” is defined by the World Bank standard of “making less than two dollars a day”. He begins to name the number of desperately poor people in various regions of the world, and stacks gumballs to represent all of these regions. The number is heartbreakingly high and it worsens as he continues….but when his conclusion came to about half the globe (3 billion people or 8 larger containers of gumballs) living at that level, I was skeptical. I’ve done some reading on extreme poverty, and I didn’t think it was that high. Well, it turns out it isn’t. It’s actually about 12.7% or 890 million. That’s only about 30% of the number he presents….maybe about 3 containers of gumballs instead of 8.

Given that that the video was older (and that extreme world poverty has been declining since the 1980s) I was trying to figure out what happened, so I went to this nifty visualization tool the World Bank provides. You can set the poverty level (less than $1.90/day or less than $3.10/day) and you can filter by country or region. Not one of the numbers given is accurate. They haven’t even been accurate recently, as far as I can tell. For example, in 2010, China had 150 million people living on under $2/day. In the video, he says 480 million, where China was in the year 2000 or so. For India, he uses 890 million, a number I can’t find ever published by the World Bank. The highest number they list for India at all is 430 million. The best I can conclude is that the numbers he shows here are actually those living under the $3.10/day level, which seem closer. Now $3.10/day is not rich by any means, but it’s not what he asserted either. He emphasizes the “less than 2 dollars a day” point multiple times. At that point I figured I wasn’t going to check out the rest of the numbers….if the baseline isn’t accurate, anything he adds to it won’t be either.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...periencing-net-outflow-illegal-undocumented-/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

 

[Sky-Knight]

I'm aware of the net negative flow to Mexico, the US is not net negative over all. And the gumball man was making the case that pulling a handful of the best and the brightest from other places and bringing them here, only serves to make the conditions where they came from worse, meanwhile their population growth puts more people in poverty year over year.

The left in the US has been saying for generations that we need to allow more migrants to help the poor people not be poor. The math doesn't lie, we aren't fixing poverty elsewhere by bringing it here, we're only prolonging it. Meanwhile, we have our own poor to worry about.

Building the wall is stupid, and a waste of money. But that doesn't mean we should do the open borders thing either. And we do gain intrinsic benefit from allowing well qualified people into the country. I'm not saying all that should stop, I'm just saying that perhaps we should be aware of its impact instead of just ignoring things. Because that ignorance is why the 2nd and 3rd world runs to us every time they're given the option. For example If we don't want Honduran refugees in the country, we have to work with Honduras to prevent the reasons for them existing in the first place. Working with Mexico to help her contain them was a good move too, because it's not like all the nations South of Mexico are doing all that hot either. Mostly, because the US is funding drug cartels down there with more money than the governments have, and we wonder why there's so much corruption? Yet, if you end the War on Drugs and grow a brain that prohibition doesn't work, you actually make the problem worse because entire nations South of the US exist on drug money, that's a substantial portion of their economies! Put people out of work and they get hungry, then desperate, then they become the problem you're trying to avoid.

It's not simple... and it's not easy...

 

[sapphirescales]

Building the wall is stupid, and a waste of money.

And what do you propose we do instead? Killer drones? Walls DO work. They work in many other countries. I think it was Poland that reduced illegal immigration by 96% by building a wall...and that wall didn't even go around their whole country! A wall is a deterrent, nothing more. Just like locking your house or your car. Yes, locking your house doesn't prevent ALL burglaries, but it's an effective deterrent. I don't know about you, but I lock my damned door. I also have a security system. If someone really wants to get in they're going to get in. But not locking your door is stupid.

What we really need to do is make people no longer want to come here illegally anymore. Throw employers in jail that employ illegal immigrants, and ALL welfare unless someone has been a citizen for 10+ years, and make it illegal to sell anything to an illegal immigrant. If they can't buy, sell, or get anything if they come here illegally, they'll either stay where they are or go through the proper channels and come here legally.

People don't give a sh*t about laws. That's why penalties exist for breaking said laws. If there are no penalties, people will break the law right and left. Right now the worst that will happen to an illegal immigrant is they'll get to stay in nice government facilities and be fed, clothed, and taken care of on the taxpayer's dime until the government just releases them into the wild to get everything for free and work under the table. Who wouldn't want to come? I wish I wasn't a citizen. I could avoid paying taxes, get everything for free, and not be accountable to anybody. There's always the "threat" of deportation, but I can always just walk across the border again if it comes to that, and my chances of being deported in my lifetime are less than 1%. Illegal immigrants enjoy TRUE freedom, while I'm enslaved by my government so they can steal everything that I work for and give it away to these immigrants. The grass always seems greener on the other side, but I'm having a hard time seeing any downsides to being on the other side of the fence.

 

[fencepost]

Loud Whistle
OK, everyone's made things clear, there's noplace better that this thread is going to go, time to call it a day and discuss this elsewhere if you're so inclined.

 

[RMSTECH]

I just started doing my income tax return... I entered my W2 info from my full-time job & my wife's job first. Saw a healthy federal return of nearly $4K, but then I started entering my business info. Well, my federal return dwindled down to less than $1200.

 

[Sky-Knight]

And what do you propose we do instead?

I should have been more clear, a Great Wall of America as proposed by our current President is a waste of money. The cash allocated to the Border Patrol to repair and expand the barriers where we need them is reasonable. I'd just prefer we spend more cash on mobile assets to detect movement, because we've got a bucket more border to worry about than the relatively short distance we share with Mexico. Especially given the natural barriers that exist along that line, which is why the border is where it is. We only really need walls near populated areas, and much of that is already built. Without enough patrols, they can just dug under, climb over, whatever around any barrier. The barrier doesn't stop them, it just slows them down, we still need the people and technology to catch the migrants.

@fencepost, hey I haven't suggested we enforce our Southern border the same way Mexico enforces hers yet... it's too soon to be upset!

 

[sapphirescales]

I should have been more clear, a Great Wall of America as proposed by our current President is a waste of money. The cash allocated to the Border Patrol to repair and expand the barriers where we need them is reasonable. I'd just prefer we spend more cash on mobile assets to detect movement, because we've got a bucket more border to worry about than the relatively short distance we share with Mexico. Especially given the natural barriers that exist along that line, which is why the border is where it is. We only really need walls near populated areas, and much of that is already built. Without enough patrols, they can just dug under, climb over, whatever around any barrier. The barrier doesn't stop them, it just slows them down, we still need the people and technology to catch the migrants.

@fencepost, hey I haven't suggested we enforce our Southern border the same way Mexico enforces hers yet... it's too soon to be upset!

I don't know. What's the point of having a border at all if we just let them in? You might as well just give each border jumper a huge wad of cash and fire all the border patrol agents. I don't care if they're traveling with children or not. They should not be permitted entry if they're not going through the proper channels. And we certainly shouldn't be taking their children and letting them stay while forcing the parents to go back to Mexico. Build a wall, hire enough people to patrol it, invest in surveillance drones, and develop advanced crowd control techniques to prevent them from coming in without having to either kill them or just let them through. The military has developed a harmless sonic generator that causes SEVERE pain but doesn't cause any damage. It's used in crowd control. Hook up thousands of those suckers to the top of the wall and let 'em rip 24/7. People that it's used on are brought to their knees in pain and earplugs don't help. But they're not actually hurt by it.

 

[phaZed]

I'm aware of the net negative flow to Mexico, the US is not net negative over all. And the gumball man was making the case that pulling a handful of the best and the brightest from other places and bringing them here, only serves to make the conditions where they came from worse, meanwhile their population growth puts more people in poverty year over year.

What population growth?
Mexico's population growth has dropped to less than 1% by some metrics.


The US is at an 80-year low. Brookings Institute



"Democrats for Open Borders" is a republican talking point in response to abolishing ICE... which is a recent thing. In fact, it is the Right's Koch brothers that were for Open borders.. look it up. They (The Right) is basically shifting blame for their own doings.
Take it from whichever news source you want:
Breitbart
Time

As far back as 1984, the conservatives said:

Open borders could have an enormous positive impact on GDP worldwide. Even critics of immigration, such as George Borjas, acknowledge this: “The removal of immigration restrictions would indeed lead to a huge increase in GDP: global wealth would increase by $40tn – almost a 60% rise. Moreover, the gain would accrue each year after the restrictions were removed.” Given the clear economic benefit, the conservative Wall Street Journal ran an editorial in 1984 arguing for a five word amendment to the US constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

The left in the US has been saying for generations that we need to allow more migrants to help the poor people not be poor. The math doesn't lie, we aren't fixing poverty elsewhere by bringing it here, we're only prolonging it. Meanwhile, we have our own poor to worry about.

I hate to defend the Democrats, so let me make that clear.

I would challenge you to find a policy position or organizational statement that says the D's support immigration in the way you have laid out... I honestly believe that if you research it you will come to the same conclusions I am putting here. This is all politically motivated and charged "hot button" issues.. often taken out of context and used to attack the "others" so you don't see what the other hand is doing, so take what you hear 'recently' with big grains of salt..

Immigration was higher with Bush and Trump... it was lower with Obama. Remember that Obama was named "Deporter in Chief" by THE REPUBLICANS as a SMEAR... you don't smear someone with something you agree with, right? Otherwise the smear wouldn't work. So if your theory that Dems support (il)legal immigration, then why did they do the opposite, policy-wise, of your claim? Why do the numbers and statistics say the opposite? Why are there numerous "old" articles that seem to state that the situation is in fact fully reverse of reality?

Net migration for the US has been in decline since 1997 - That was Bill Clinton (I hate the guy).


So when did immigration go up?
Under the administrations of Nixon, Ford (Republicans) it goes up. Under Jimmy Carter (Democrat) it goes down. Under Reagan(R).. it goes up, Bush Sr.(R), it goes up... Under Bill Clinton(D), there is a sharp decline and under Obama(D) there is a decline. Maybe I'm missing something here?

I'm not saying all that should stop, I'm just saying that perhaps we should be aware of its impact instead of just ignoring things. Because that ignorance is why the 2nd and 3rd world runs to us every time they're given the option. For example If we don't want Honduran refugees in the country, we have to work with Honduras to prevent the reasons for them existing in the first place. Working with Mexico to help her contain them was a good move too, because it's not like all the nations South of Mexico are doing all that hot either. Mostly, because the US is funding drug cartels down there with more money than the governments have, and we wonder why there's so much corruption? Yet, if you end the War on Drugs and grow a brain that prohibition doesn't work, you actually make the problem worse because entire nations South of the US exist on drug money, that's a substantial portion of their economies! Put people out of work and they get hungry, then desperate, then they become the problem you're trying to avoid.

Of which I think you and I agree almost implicitly. I think we only differ on the thoughts on how we got here. You tend to blame the Dems while I will tend to blame the R's.

I will contend the only difference is that I can lay out a solid argument as to why you should blame the R's! I'm not saying the Dems can't take some solid heat, too, however. I will contend that now that the political atmosphere is now fully bought and paid for, there is really very little difference between the R's and D's.. they are all corporate tools. That makes them equally despicable and equally at fault.

Honduran refugees are a direct result of US meddling and the CIA led coup(Like most of South America)... we hardly have a right to now blame refugees for our **** ups. But your suggestion is to "help" more? The last thing Honduras wants from us now is "help", and I can't blame them. Now, which side is still trying to do coups? Donald Trump. (Hillary would have tried her own coups, too, if she were president).

I agree mostly about the drugs issue you raise, but again, I disagree that lifting prohibition would make things worse for those countries and the data would suggest that you are incorrect on the outcome of such a move. The problem with the drug trade and the US involvement is this:

The problem was created by the Republicans (Nixon, Bush). The CIA was instrumental in Nicaragua... yet another coup by the US.
The problem in South America isn't that they exist solely on US drug money, it's that the drug cartels don't distribute wealth... therefore it's a losing strategy for their economies. If, in turn, the drug war ends and drug production becomes legal... it would force the cartels to dissolve and normal businesses would be able to actually help their economy. Look at any state that has legalized weed... it's not a detriment, it's the complete opposite. There is much more evidence to suggest that legalization of some form would be the smart economic and political strategy for all parties involved. But they don't want that, it's not in their interests.