4 ms·
The reason wealthy don’t need to pay their fair share of taxes is due to all the tax loopholes. The solution to that is not adding more complexity in our taxes.
by sinatra 7y ago
The reason wealthy don’t need to pay their fair share of taxes is due to all the tax loopholes. The solution to that is not adding more complexity in our taxes. The solution is to remove loopholes and make taxes as simple as possible. For a certain well known income, there should be a certain well known tax rate. And, after a certain minimum, there should be almost no ways to get deductions from that tax rate.
- sfg 7y agoDefine income.
- sinatra 7y agoDefine wealth. However we tax, we’ll have to define terms. The goal should be to remove loopholes in those definitions. Not add loopholes. By adding the concept of wealth, we’ll just encourage behavior like undervaluing assets (like art, private stocks, etc). And we’ll be back to square one.
- sfg 7y agoWhy would I define wealth? I am not proposing anybody does anything with, for, of, or in any way related to wealth. "The goal should be to remove loopholes in those definitions" So, define income, without loopholes. Your plan depends on this.
- sinatra 7y agoMy plan? I’m not defining any plan. I’m suggesting that people who define plans should focus on removing loopholes that wealthy use today. Rather than giving them more chances to find loopholes. Income is something that we already use in taxes. If its definition has loopholes too, then “those people” should try to remove those loopholes in the definition. p.s., There’s a difference in reducing loopholes and having absolutely zero loopholes (something that may be impossible)
- sfg 7y agoYes, your plan, the solution as you called it. If the solution is that those people should try to remove those loopholes from the definition of income and there is nothing beyond that to explain how those people should do that then it is a vacuous solution. p.s, There’s a difference in reducing loopholes and having absolutely zero loopholes (something that may be impossible) Obviosuly.
- sinatra 7y agoIt’s impressive how you’ve taken issue with my simple statement about “don’t add more complexity to taxes; simplify taxes.” You’re basically arguing that I shouldn’t make this statement unless I have specific details about how to simplify taxes? I can’t make a general directional statement if I haven’t taken the time to learn about all the nuances? Do you always learn about all the nuances and define all the terms before starting a discussion?
- sfg 7y agoIt's impressive how you've taken a simple two word response to your start of discussion that aimed to succinctly demonstrate problems with your general directional statement with so much worthless blather. Do you always fail so magnificently to just accept the point when challenged in some pathetic need to 'win' the conversation?
- sinatra 7y agoGood point. We both are being pathetic in trying to win the conversation. Conversation that’s not even that stimulating. Okay, I’ll stop.
- mcphage 7y ago> The solution to that is not adding more complexity in our taxes. The solution is to remove loopholes and make taxes as simple as possible. Simplicity in taxes is where all the loopholes come from. Taxes become more complicated in order to close the loopholes.