7 ms·

No offense to you but that is absolute and utter bullshit. The tax process being exploited has nothing to do with it being inefficient and burdensome. It is in

• noobermin 10y ago
  How do we fix that? Damned if I know. Public funding of elections[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections
  • blastrat 10y ago
    wait, you are proposing government control of election funding so you can change the government?... hahahahahahahahaha there are plenty of rich people on all parts of the political spectrum always trying to unseat the current government. That's probably a good thing. The idea that taking away private citizen's influence in order to swing the pendulum in any direction except more deeply entrenching the political incumbents is naive at best.
    • zanny 10y ago
      The only real lasting solution is the decentralization of power. If all it takes to buy the violence of the state is owning a handful of senators, that is a bargain few can resist. If it took thousands of individuals to be under your influence, it gets harder. Make it millions and even the richest oligarchs cannot command absolute loyalty with their measly fortunes. Of course, they have to be accountable millions, which means you want to try to respect Dunbar's Number in relation to how many individuals any one representative actually represents.
    • devin 10y ago
      > "There are plenty of rich people on all parts of the political spectrum always trying to unseat the current government." This is wildly reductive. Your post in general seems to suggest that "rich people" (ill-advised usage, IMO) have equal sway in every corner of politics that could possibly matter to large swaths of voting US citizens. To sit there and defend "private citizen's influence" while shouting down the idea of public funding is _truly_ naive. Even a fool's review of The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) effect on elections and public policy show that there is disproportionate private influence that needs tending to. I'd suggest you give http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corporations-are-people-they-should-act-like-it/385034/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corpo... a read.
    • noobermin 10y ago
      Let's just trust the rich people you say, be the grass under which the elephants that fight. Yes, it's difficult, but the hope is that if we make it so the government we elect is closer to the will of the people, then at least when the government is corrupt, we can vote them out. Sorry, but as far as I can tell, I don't see "plenty of rich people" trying to unseat anyone other than installing their cronies which will do their bidding.
      • blastrat 10y ago
        You don't need to explain your goals, I get it, it's obvious. What I'm saying is, you won't achieve them by giving politicians more control over elections, they already have too much control over elections. "public financing" is snake oil that a particular group of people are selling because it suits them. It will not lead to more democracy.
• ianai 10y ago
  I'm a write in vote for changing the voting system. One person, one vote, and winner take all got us two parties very fast.
• rayiner 10y ago
  What "loopholes" would you get rid of if you were President and had no donors to contend with?
• bko 10y ago
  Avoiding taxes through complicated tax schemes has a cost (actual cost and moral cost). The higher the tax burden, in both absolute terms and complexity, the more appealing the alternative. You can't just pretend that an illegal alternative is not an alternative. It's never going to go away completely, but making taxes less burdensome will certainly bring down the appeal of a tax avoidance scheme.
  • flamedoge 10y ago
    > moral cost do you honestly think, not even big corporations but your mom and pop businesses, will put morality over profit if they know they can squeeze more profit?
  • blubb-fish 10y ago
    > moral cost Trump just shed a tear ...
• godzillabrennus 10y ago
  Pitchforks.
• um_ya 10y ago
  You don't need to be a millionaire to use these tax loopholes. I calculated that it would take $2600 a year to maintain an offshore structure. That includes an offshore LLC and trust in Belize (the best jurisdiction). The Belize trust owns membership position in your Belize LLC, and your Belize LLC has control over the trust. Then you just appoint yourself as manager of the LLC. Once that's done, you can simply open bank accounts or brokerage accounts in the LLC name.
  • rando444 10y ago
    Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  • Pyxl101 10y ago
    What tax advantage does this provide? I'm curious to learn more. Are we talking about tax avoidance, or tax evasion?
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • charlesdm 10y ago
    You can set up the structure, but you won't be able to defend it in court without bankrupting yourself when the IRS comes knocking. And that's exactly where the problem lies.
    • danieltillett 10y ago
      Exactly. It does not matter how clever your structure is if the IRS thinks it is fishy you are going to be in for a world of pain.
      • rbcgerard 10y ago
        Which makes it particularly painful if you're innocent
• smsm42 10y ago
  It has actually a lot to do with it. For two main reasons: 1. All tax complications, special exceptions, special deductions, etc. usually meant to benefit some behaviors and/or punish some other behaviors. One can't wonder then that some people use these regulations to reduce their tax load - that's exactly how they are supposed to work! If you put into the law, say, deduction for making a movie, because you want more movies to be made, and then somebody makes a movie with the purpose of lowering the taxes, you got exactly what you wanted. It may be a crappy movie because its sole purpose was to avoid taxes, but that's still how it supposed to work. More you have special regulations, more you have ways to play them to reduce your taxes. 2. Tax scheming is not free. It takes a lot of inconveniences, highly paid specialists and paperwork to achieve. If the cost of compliance is high, it makes sense to scheme, but if compliance is very cheap but scheming is expensive, not a lot of people would bother with scheming. Some, of course, still will, but there is still a reverse proportion between cost of compliance and incentive to scheme. > The problem is not simple but the root is; while the wealthy can influence the process of how much they pay in taxes, the system will continue to be in their favor. How is it in their favor exactly? Top quintile has about half of total income in US and pays about 2/3 of overall taxes. That's some unusual definition of favorable treatment.
  • eevilspock 10y ago
    > How is it in their favor exactly? Top quintile has about half of total income in US and pays about 2/3 of overall taxes. That's some unusual definition of favorable treatment. Not really. Some, perhaps you, will say 1/2 of overall taxes is more fair, while others will say 3/4 is more fair. It all depends on a combination of one's value system (what's fair) and one's interpretation of how the economic system does or doesn't work. [EDIT: It's funny getting down-votes for saying something logically valid and consistent. I didn't even take a side.]
• wdr1 10y ago
  The challenge is "loophole" is in the eye of the beholder. Is the backdoor Roth IRA contribution a loophole? The mortgage deduction? Tax-loss harvesting that carries for 20+ years?
  • protomyth 10y ago
    Actually, yes, they are all loopholes. They just are for general consumption and trying to encourage behavior.
    • vonmoltke 10y ago
      You are abusing the meaning of the term "loophole" then. Something explicitly and purposefully added is not a loophole. A loophole is an error or missed corner case that allows someone to legally bypass some portion of the law.
• fit2rule 10y ago
  >How do we fix that? Its really quite simple: Stop taxing income. Start taxing spending. Income Tax is a heinous enslavement mechanism. Spending-Tax is far, far more fair and just.
  • rusabd 10y ago
    Spending tax affects mostly poor as they spend all their income. Rich spend more in absolute terms but still very little compare to overall income.
    • fit2rule 10y ago
      The point is, if you tax spending and not income, people will do more with less. If you tax income, and not spending, people just do less. Income tax is how poor people are made, and kept poor. Spending tax encourages the poor to become more wealthy by saving - Income tax encourages people to be (and stay poor) by removing the incentive to work.
      • pjc50 10y ago
        Income tax is how poor people are made, and kept poor. Spending tax encourages the poor to become more wealthy by saving - Income tax encourages people to be (and stay poor) by removing the incentive to work People very rarely negotiate down their amount of work in exchange for more leisure. Especially in America, land of 2-weeks-a-year holidays. Very few people have the realistic option of working more for more income but are put off by the tax system. Saving isn't really the route to wealth in a land of near-zero interest rates, either. It's just deferred consumption. Leveraged property speculation is the great route to wealth. The one exception is the decision of whether one parent should stay at home or the labour of childcare should be outsourced, which is quite dependent on the tax levels involved.
        • fit2rule 10y ago
          >People very rarely negotiate down their amount of work in exchange for more leisure. Yes, they do. Oh, wait: >Especially in America Right, this is a strictly American discussion. This is not the case in Europe! People do quite frequently negotiate for less work hours, so that they don't enter that 'sour spot' where their monthly income is too high, and they end up working more for less reward, so they scale back. 20-30 hr/weeks are quite common - because the value of working longer isn't as high (40-hour work weeks means you're working half the time for the state..)