Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Andylusion]

Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.

That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".

Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.

Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.

So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.

That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.

Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.

However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.

Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.

Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.

That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.

The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?

Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.

The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.

Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?

And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.

So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.

Even there the logic is faulty.

In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.

(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).

So I'll say it again....

Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.

Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.

(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)

So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.

You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.

The numbers I gave you, are roughly from a shareholder report from Walmart. So it is a fictional example, but it's based on a real company, with real budgets. I'm a shareholder at Walmart, so I get these reports, but you can find them on their web site I believe.

Of course there is an effect. But you need to remember, an increase in taxes happens to all business.

So when Company A passes on increased prices to consumers, yeah, if A company was the only company doing it, then they would lose consumers.

But all other businesses are facing the same hardship. They also have to pass on cost to consumers as well. Company B is also passing on the costs of taxes onto their customers as well.

Same with employees. Yes, reducing compensation can cause a loss in employees, if A company is the only one paying the taxes, and cutting compensation. Problem is, all other businesses are paying the same tax, and are cutting compensation too. B Company is also cutting compensation to pay the taxes as well.

And again... you say that my examples are mythical... but I've lived them. Multiple times even. I have 20 years in businesses talking with owners, and CEOs of companies, and these are the exact problems they have to deal with.

With advertising, most companies do an analysis of their returns on advertising. They have very clear connections between the amount of spending on advertising, verses the return in increased sales. I've seen such reports myself, where they can state for every dollar spent on advertising, they get X number of dollars in increased sales.

So they know that a cutting in $1 Million in advertising, will cost whatever $X00 Millions in sales.

If you lose hundreds of millions in sales, then you won't have the profits to pay for anything.

As for R&D budgets, again... I've seen that at a lot of places. I was working for a small company, and they had an R&D budget, to design a new type of printer (we made industrial printers). You can't just cut R&D, and end up with a half of a square box, with paper sticking out of it. You have to complete the project. It's not optional.

And I assume you understand that upkeep isn't optional. You can't just have the A/C system in the server room break, and prop the door open, and hope a box fan will keep things cool.

So where do you think the money to pay additional taxes is going to come from? Which area can you cut funding the most, and have the least negative impact? Not, no impact. Of course there is an impact. But which has the least negative impact? Higher prices, and lower compensation, has the least negative impact.

I was working at Wendy's in the 90s, after they raised the minimum wage. They cut portion sizes, and increased prices. They didn't just cut advertising... they didn't cut upkeep on the building... they did not stop coming up with new products, the spicy chicken sandwich came out the following year. Where did the money from from? Consumers.

Someone has to pay the bill.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

 

[Markle]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Excellent example. The Clinton Yacht tax destroyed the luxury boat building industry in our country.

 

[Andylusion]

Being a progressive tax, just makes the elites in government wealthy, because they can sell favors to the rich, to avoid the tax.

Not if we prevent that, they can't. And that is not all it does, as evidenced by the one of the finest economies the world has ever seen.

The growth of the country, and the fastest growth of the standard of living, and the increase in the economy, wealth, and our standing in the world..... happened during the first half of this countries existence, when there was no income tax at all.

By every possible measure, the increase in the wealth and growth of this country has been lower under an income tax, than it was in first 100+ years between 1776 and 1920

 

[Andylusion]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Excellent example. The Clinton Yacht tax destroyed the luxury boat building industry in our country.

Not entirely, but it was a massive and long lasting blow, that set the entire industry back relative to foreign competitors for decades. Literally decades.

Even more ironic, was that none of the rich were harmed by this. It was the poor and middle class people who lost their jobs in the yacht industry that paid the price of that tax.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

 

[Ken Mac]

I see a difference between using tax laws and exploiting them. Exploitation hurts us all.

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

 

[Ken Mac]

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

Nope, the only expenditure the corporations can deduct are wages. They already have a deduction from 21% to 10%. They can pay for upgrading their own systems and equipment to make more profits. Why should you and I?

If the corporation pays 30%, you are not paying anything. If the corporation is paying 2%, you are not paying anything.

I am making it so their rate is lower. That has nothing to do with me.

That was the point I made. It doesn't have anything to do with you, and you won't be harmed either way.

So why not lower their taxes by over 100%.

You want to pay them? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHA

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax. It's the county tax plus the state consumption tax. It equals eight cents on the dollar.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.

Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

 

[Ken Mac]

Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.

That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".

Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.

Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.

So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.

That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.

Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.

However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.

Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.

Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.

That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.

The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?

Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.

The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.

Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?

And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.

So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.

Even there the logic is faulty.

In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.

(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).

So I'll say it again....

Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.

Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.

(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)

So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.

You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.[/QUOTE]


You seem to just blither on and provide no value in the discussion excepting your opinion of everything. You must feel very self-important. Even your writing oozes with contempt for others and your value you place upon the throne you sit.

 

[Andylusion]

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Give me an example.

It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.

Give me an example. I'm open to new information.

 

[Ken Mac]

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.

Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.

 

[colfax_m]

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Give me an example.

It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.

Give me an example. I'm open to new information.

A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.

There’s many others but they’re more technical.

 

[colfax_m]

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.

Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.

How is a mortgage interest rate deduction considered a loophole?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, as the owner of a business, it's up to you ofcourse. But, I'm just saying, even if you as the IRS they'll tell you, it's up to you to use the tax laws to your benefit.

I see a difference between using tax laws and exploiting them. Exploitation hurts us all.

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

It's how the undeserving become wealthy.,
e.g., Barack Obama, Clinton

 

[colfax_m]

I see a difference between using tax laws and exploiting them. Exploitation hurts us all.

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

It's how the undeserving become wealthy.,
e.g., Barack Obama, Clinton

Careful. Trump is likely to sue you for libel if you say he’s only worth $3 billion.

 

[Ken Mac]

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Give me an example.

It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.

Give me an example. I'm open to new information.

A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.

There’s many others but they’re more technical.

It was put in place so that people could find a path to early retirement. It was always intended to be used and was taken into account.

 

[Ken Mac]

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.

Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.

How is a mortgage interest rate deduction considered a loophole?

I said many people which doesn't include me or I would have stated as such.