6 ms·

The government is not a charity. If they have deemed something to be non-taxable, it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want

by imgabe 4y ago

The government is not a charity. If they have deemed something to be non-taxable, it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity, in this case investing in economically depressed areas. If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Moralizing about how people shouldn't engage in the behavior that the government is encouraging them to by offering tax incentives is beyond useless.

klyrs 4y ago
> The government is not a charity. Not unless you're extremely rich or extremely poor, that is.
Layke1123 4y ago
Or...the government is corrupt and used by the wealthy to write loop holes that allow them to escape paying taxes.
- imgabe 4y ago
  If you think it's corrupt for the government to offer incentives for people to invest in underserved areas where they otherwise wouldn't, by all means, write your representatives, or run for office yourself to end this corrupt practice.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    Speaking out about it is also a valid action, you know. In fact if you want to be a single issue candidate and actually get elected, it’s probably a requirement.
- jhugo 4y ago
  Seems to me that "the wealthy" could come up with simpler loopholes without the pesky requirement to actually invest money in depressed areas.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    It's not like the actions proposed by this article amount to any investment at in those depressed areas, it's just registering your company there but not actually doing anything which would benefit that neighborhood.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      That's not correct. The article glosses over this, but if you read it carefully: > At least 90% of [the QOF's] assets must be “qualified opportunity zone property” which can be any combination of (1) stock in a QOZB corporation, (2) partnership interest in a QOZB structured as an LLC or other pass-through partnership entity, and/or (3) qualified opportunity zone business property. However, this requirement doesn’t take effect immediately which means the QOF has time to find qualifying investments without rushing. Additionally, the 90% rule temporarily loosens if you deposit more cash into the QOF. So you have to invest the assets either in (qualified) property in the depressed area, or in a company (QOZB) in the depressed area, which then has to meet these requirements among others: > At least 50% of [the QOZB's] total gross income is derived from the conduct of a business in a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 40% of [the QOZB's] intangible property (e.g. patents, trademarks, etc) must be actively used inside a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 70% of [the QOZB's] tangible property owned or leased by the business must be qualified opportunity zone business property. If this is some giant conspiracy by "the wealthy" to get some tax benefits, it's odd that they have put so much effort into making sure there is actual economic benefit for the depressed areas.
nebulous_two 4y ago
Do you also give all your information to a random caller that offers you a free cruise? I think you forgot that politicians are legally bribed to behave against the wishes and/or needs of the people. You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?
- imgabe 4y ago
  I assume when you file your taxes, you refuse all deductions and tax credits that you're eligible for, because obviously the most moral thing is to give as much of your money to the government as possible, right?
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    Yes.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Most of us don’t lobby the government to write laws that carve out near-zero tax burdens. Which, with the growing wealth inequality, explains that why the tax burden on the middle income keeps stable or grows; while services and benefits keep shrinking.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      Tax returns with AGI over $200k represent 5.7% of returns filed and account for 61.7% of taxes paid. [1] What ratio would you consider fair? [1] Data is from 2019, the latest available from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-stat...
      - truckerbill 4y ago
        The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.
travisjungroth 4y ago
The author suggests operating in areas near colleges because they're developed but the students artificially depress the wages (there's a big difference between a median income of $10k for a neighborhood of families vs college students). Selling these tax laws as the will of the people is a bit of a stretch.
- gleenn 4y ago
  Afaik the local governments choose the opportunity zones. They probably put those zones next to colleges because they met the requirements AND someone locally thought it would be a good idea to develop there. I definitely still think it's the will of the people deciding how to allocate some money that would otherwise sit in a stock much longer instead.
spliunder54 4y ago
This is why people should stop complaining about religions. Of course it's done for the tax break. You don't cede power when the government allows you to grab it. If you want your special interest group to thrive in the US, get with the program and exploit the tax loopholes before they're gone.
- Layke1123 4y ago
  I can't imagine what it's like to live in your head. It's like you can't even grasp how what you said is wrong on so many levels.
grapeskin 4y ago
> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. But then these corrupt, America-hating billionaires will spend millions digging up dirt on you, funding your opponents, and claiming you’re sending jobs to China.
thereare5lights 4y ago
> (and by extension, the people it represents) This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places. Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. > the government can simply remove the tax break. If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Oh wait!
- imgabe 4y ago
  > Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. Seems like the problem is the voters then. > If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
  - thereare5lights 4y ago
    > Seems like the problem is the voters then. Yes. That means that your claim > it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity particularly the > (and by extension, the people it represents) is false. ---- > Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win. False. The vast majority of people want their team to win. Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal. These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      It's not false. You're confusing stated preferences vs. revealed preferences. People might say they want to enshrine their legal right to abortion or that they don't want people to get tax breaks for investing in depressed areas, but they don't do anything that would actually make those preferences a reality (i.e. elect candidates based on those issue who will enact the policies people say they want). So when it comes down to it, people do not actually want those things enough to take the actions necessary to make them happen.
moistly 4y ago
> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Yes, as we’ve seen, it is very easy to get the government to repeal a loophole that enables a billion-dollar company to dodge a tax. Why, it is virtually child’s play! The poors just need to hire a lobbyist, outspend the tax-dodging lobbyists, and Bob’s yer uncle! The government, as you say, will simply remove the tax break.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> investing in economically depressed areas. Except the wealthy play games like extending Harlem through central park to midtown so that they can fund building their own luxury apartments as economic development in a "depressed" area.
brnt 4y ago
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I do business, he is cheating, they are corrupt.
Retric 4y ago
The US government is the worlds largest charity, it also does a lot of other things. However it accepts donations and supports the poor, arts and sciences etc. There are even plenty of things people might want to donate too that only governments do, the Red Cross etc are hardly building space telescopes or US highways.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Taxes are not donations. You don’t go to jail if you refuse to give a donation.
  - lukas099 4y ago
    > it also does a lot of other things.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Never said they where, but you can donate money to the US government: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-southwest-region-7/donations-program https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-...
- trasz 4y ago
  I'm not sure if the positive contribution by US exceeds its negative contribution, such as destruction of Middle East and large parts of South America.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s difficult to compare. Seatbelts alone have saved significantly more lives than every middle eastern intervention cost but it’s hard to say how long before someone else came up with them. What would have happened without an open GPS? Without TCP/IP or all that medical research etc etc. Now try to figure out what WWII would have looked like without lend lease etcand I just have no idea. PS: I doubt most charities are a net positive impact, but again it’s complicated.

by imgabe 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

> The government is not a charity. Not unless you're extremely rich or extremely poor, that is.

Layke1123 4y ago

Or...the government is corrupt and used by the wealthy to write loop holes that allow them to escape paying taxes.

imgabe 4y ago
If you think it's corrupt for the government to offer incentives for people to invest in underserved areas where they otherwise wouldn't, by all means, write your representatives, or run for office yourself to end this corrupt practice.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hamburglar 4y ago
  Speaking out about it is also a valid action, you know. In fact if you want to be a single issue candidate and actually get elected, it’s probably a requirement.
jhugo 4y ago
Seems to me that "the wealthy" could come up with simpler loopholes without the pesky requirement to actually invest money in depressed areas.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  It's not like the actions proposed by this article amount to any investment at in those depressed areas, it's just registering your company there but not actually doing anything which would benefit that neighborhood.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    That's not correct. The article glosses over this, but if you read it carefully: > At least 90% of [the QOF's] assets must be “qualified opportunity zone property” which can be any combination of (1) stock in a QOZB corporation, (2) partnership interest in a QOZB structured as an LLC or other pass-through partnership entity, and/or (3) qualified opportunity zone business property. However, this requirement doesn’t take effect immediately which means the QOF has time to find qualifying investments without rushing. Additionally, the 90% rule temporarily loosens if you deposit more cash into the QOF. So you have to invest the assets either in (qualified) property in the depressed area, or in a company (QOZB) in the depressed area, which then has to meet these requirements among others: > At least 50% of [the QOZB's] total gross income is derived from the conduct of a business in a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 40% of [the QOZB's] intangible property (e.g. patents, trademarks, etc) must be actively used inside a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 70% of [the QOZB's] tangible property owned or leased by the business must be qualified opportunity zone business property. If this is some giant conspiracy by "the wealthy" to get some tax benefits, it's odd that they have put so much effort into making sure there is actual economic benefit for the depressed areas.

nebulous_two 4y ago

Do you also give all your information to a random caller that offers you a free cruise? I think you forgot that politicians are legally bribed to behave against the wishes and/or needs of the people. You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?

imgabe 4y ago
I assume when you file your taxes, you refuse all deductions and tax credits that you're eligible for, because obviously the most moral thing is to give as much of your money to the government as possible, right?
- grapeskin 4y ago
  Yes.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Most of us don’t lobby the government to write laws that carve out near-zero tax burdens. Which, with the growing wealth inequality, explains that why the tax burden on the middle income keeps stable or grows; while services and benefits keep shrinking.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    Tax returns with AGI over $200k represent 5.7% of returns filed and account for 61.7% of taxes paid. [1] What ratio would you consider fair? [1] Data is from 2019, the latest available from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-stat...
    - truckerbill 4y ago
      The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.

travisjungroth 4y ago

The author suggests operating in areas near colleges because they're developed but the students artificially depress the wages (there's a big difference between a median income of $10k for a neighborhood of families vs college students). Selling these tax laws as the will of the people is a bit of a stretch.

gleenn 4y ago
Afaik the local governments choose the opportunity zones. They probably put those zones next to colleges because they met the requirements AND someone locally thought it would be a good idea to develop there. I definitely still think it's the will of the people deciding how to allocate some money that would otherwise sit in a stock much longer instead.

spliunder54 4y ago

This is why people should stop complaining about religions. Of course it's done for the tax break. You don't cede power when the government allows you to grab it. If you want your special interest group to thrive in the US, get with the program and exploit the tax loopholes before they're gone.

Layke1123 4y ago
I can't imagine what it's like to live in your head. It's like you can't even grasp how what you said is wrong on so many levels.

grapeskin 4y ago

> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. But then these corrupt, America-hating billionaires will spend millions digging up dirt on you, funding your opponents, and claiming you’re sending jobs to China.

thereare5lights 4y ago

> (and by extension, the people it represents) This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places. Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. > the government can simply remove the tax break. If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Oh wait!

imgabe 4y ago
> Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. Seems like the problem is the voters then. > If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  > Seems like the problem is the voters then. Yes. That means that your claim > it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity particularly the > (and by extension, the people it represents) is false. ---- > Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win. False. The vast majority of people want their team to win. Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal. These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    It's not false. You're confusing stated preferences vs. revealed preferences. People might say they want to enshrine their legal right to abortion or that they don't want people to get tax breaks for investing in depressed areas, but they don't do anything that would actually make those preferences a reality (i.e. elect candidates based on those issue who will enact the policies people say they want). So when it comes down to it, people do not actually want those things enough to take the actions necessary to make them happen.

moistly 4y ago

> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Yes, as we’ve seen, it is very easy to get the government to repeal a loophole that enables a billion-dollar company to dodge a tax. Why, it is virtually child’s play! The poors just need to hire a lobbyist, outspend the tax-dodging lobbyists, and Bob’s yer uncle! The government, as you say, will simply remove the tax break.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

> investing in economically depressed areas. Except the wealthy play games like extending Harlem through central park to midtown so that they can fund building their own luxury apartments as economic development in a "depressed" area.

brnt 4y ago

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I do business, he is cheating, they are corrupt.

Retric 4y ago

The US government is the worlds largest charity, it also does a lot of other things. However it accepts donations and supports the poor, arts and sciences etc. There are even plenty of things people might want to donate too that only governments do, the Red Cross etc are hardly building space telescopes or US highways.

imgabe 4y ago
Taxes are not donations. You don’t go to jail if you refuse to give a donation.
- lukas099 4y ago
  > it also does a lot of other things.
- Retric 4y ago
  Never said they where, but you can donate money to the US government: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-southwest-region-7/donations-program https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-...
trasz 4y ago
I'm not sure if the positive contribution by US exceeds its negative contribution, such as destruction of Middle East and large parts of South America.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s difficult to compare. Seatbelts alone have saved significantly more lives than every middle eastern intervention cost but it’s hard to say how long before someone else came up with them. What would have happened without an open GPS? Without TCP/IP or all that medical research etc etc. Now try to figure out what WWII would have looked like without lend lease etcand I just have no idea. PS: I doubt most charities are a net positive impact, but again it’s complicated.