4 ms·
because the focus of the article is the social/societal context and impact of these rules not a technical description of how the wealthy use them. That is why n
by avs733 5y ago
because the focus of the article is the social/societal context and impact of these rules not a technical description of how the wealthy use them. That is why negative semantic words are used as opposed to words that indicate a crime was committed. The point is specifically that these aren't a crime.
- apercu 5y agoThey are not a crime because the representatives of the elite wrote the tax code in the USA. Let's be honest here.
- throwaway210222 5y agoHuh? The depreciation of assets is a rich-unfriendly feature of the tax code. It explicitly prevents the rich (those buying big assets) from writing of the expense in a single tax year and therefore reducing their profit and so their tax. Unlike, say salary expenses, it forces them to defer most of the expense to future years, earning the tax collector more money earlier. So if you don't depreciation, are you arguing for no expensing of capital assets, ever? (Which makes no sense). Perhaps could you be precise how some mythical non-elite person would write this aspect of the tax code?
- apercu 5y agoThe conversation evolved in to "tax loopholes" generally.
- criddell 5y agoIs it even an abuse or unintended consequence of some rule?
- avs733 5y agoI don't think that matters to the point of the article and I don't really see those as different. Abuse would, in this case, seem to be best defined as leveraging unintended consequences for personal gain?