4 ms·
Not a crime != not an absolutely shitty thing to do
by wwright 6y ago
Not a crime != not an absolutely shitty thing to do
- austhrow743 6y agoSure but we're talking about tax avoidance here.
- wwright 6y agoYeah, which IMO is a shitty thing to do at this scale
- CamperBob2 6y agoTo play devil's advocate, at what scale should I instruct my CPA not to take every deduction I'm entitled to?
- wwright 6y agoIn my opinion: when you could be paying tens of thousands or more to support others, instead you are paying $0, and you know other people who barely make half the median household income are paying 20–30% of their total income. Do these rules exist for other people? Yes! Is he possibly only taking advantage of what others allow him to do? Sure! Is it still selfish and trivially anti-social? Yes. If they made it legal for billionaires to steal cars off the street, it would still be shitty for them to steal cars.
- dathanb82 6y agoIf you make half the median national household income, you’re making about $30K, and your effective federal tax rate is barely over 14%. Your 20%-30% scenario doesn’t seem to add up.
- acdha 6y agoWhen you’re portraying yourself as a billionaire you can afford to pay for your own hair stylist.
- digitaltrees 6y agoThe evidence indicates that Trump is literally inventing fake deductions.
- chongli 6y agoNo person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code. If you have a problem with people avoiding taxes, you can endeavour to change the tax code and plug those loopholes. Otherwise, you’re really trying to solve a legal problem by social means. You’re perfectly in your right to do so, but plenty of people will disagree with you.
- jayd16 6y agoWe're talking about a public servant. It just highlights a cutthroat selfishness in past actions and current politics. >No person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code. But let me ask you something. Do you believe there is zero moral obligation or simply that the current tax code is at the absolute pinnacle of moral balance?
- apta 6y agoDoes that mean that every government employee should not be allowed to avoid taxes?
- colejohnson66 6y agoI’m of the opinion that no one should avoid taxes, so if you’re asking just about government employees, then the answer is still yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to.
- chongli 6y agoWhat does that mean though? If the government introduces a new tax credit for home renovations that increase the energy efficiency of the home, are you saying no one should take advantage of that? The problem I have with the word “tax avoidance” is that it carries negative connotations (which of course the media leap on in order to attack their preferred bogeyman). In reality, all that’s happening is that people are following the law and taking advantage of loopholes and tax credits to reduce their tax obligation. If you think these loopholes and tax credits are unfair, then focus on fixing that. If you think the tax code is so enormous that it’s hopeless to fix it, then say that and offer an alternative. Otherwise you’re not really offering people an objective measure to live by.