6 ms·
The Billionaire and Rising GOP Mega-Donor Gaming the Tax System (2022)
- chiefalchemist 4y agoHas the (tax) law been broken? It's not clear that's the case. Again. These people (e.g., Trump) don't write the laws. We know who do. Let's focus on the root problem, not yet another symptom.
- anony23 4y agoThese people influence the ones who write the laws.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rcme 4y agoThe problem is that political donors are influencing the law. How can you change the law when the ones that need to lose the most influence are currently the ones with the most influence? These people are the problem.
- bcrosby95 4y agoYep, this is why discussing this issue can be a hilarious exercise in circular frustration. The counter argument boils down to "don't hate the player, hate the game", except these players are lobbying to keep the game alive, so don't tell me I can't hate those players.
- Zigurd 4y agoThere is no contradiction in hating both, protesting both, or by other means frustrating what these people want to get away with. Don't let them.
- newsclues 4y agoAre the people using their power and money to influence the law the problem? Or are the people elected to office who then are swayed by the influence of money and power to shift the laws in favour of the rich and powerful? Is asking for corruption the root of the problem, or is the root of the problem the people in power who use corruption to enrich themselves?
- ceejayoz 4y agoWhat if it’s possible for both to be problems?
- anonym29 4y agonewsclues seems to be seeking the root of the problem. I'm no US history expert, but I don't figure there were PACs and SuperPACs influencing electoral politics when this country was founded. The congresspeople seem to have been here before the corrupt lobbying industry arrived, which would suggest corruption within the members of congress themselves arose first. Please feel free to correct me if wrong.
- ceejayoz 4y agoI assure you, lobbyists existed from the beginning. The rich - heavily represented in the Founding Fathers - have always had friends and "friends" looking to use their influence. Go outside the US and you'll see the same phenomenon; Viking chiefs will have had their buddies, the French kings had their courtiers, etc. PACs and SuperPACs exist because the rich willed them into existence.
- anonym29 4y agoI believe you, but do you know of any books or resources where I can learn more about this?
- twoodfin 4y agoThere has been money and corrupt back-room dealing in politics as long as money, politics, and back rooms have been around.
- twoodfin 4y agoThere’s really no significant nexus documented here between Yass’ political giving and the legality of his tax avoidance strategy. He’s a free-market libertarian who hates paying taxes. He donates to groups and candidates that agree with his philosophy. Maybe in 2025 a GOP trifecta that had help winning from Yass (and many, many others) will zero out all capital gains taxes or something, but that’s not corrupt, it’s just the long term policy see-saw tilting a different way.
- hotpotamus 4y agoJoe Biden could offer a pardon for anyone who manages to assassinate a a conservative within a federal jurisdiction and it would be completely legal within our system, however I suspect some would still find it problematic.
- camgunz 4y agoIt's literally corruption. Your constituency is not your donors; it's your voters. The fact that this raises no concerns to the majority of Americans speaks to how cynical we all are.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoNo. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. These "OMG Mr X..." and "OMG Ms Y..." and "OMG Company Z" - and the accused nearly always GOP'ers (which certainly doesn't reflect reality, odd huh) - is a waste of time. How do I know it's a waste of time? Because we get one or so per month and...nothing is discussed. Nothing changes. In fact, the drone of stating the obvious just switches people off. How convenient. The truth is, these distractions are another spin job manufacturered by The Politics Industrial Complex. So perhaps we start the discussion there then as that the foundation on which all other nonsense is build? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ Finally, Trump said it best, via Chappelle on SNL. It's at the end of the monologue if you haven't seen it already. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk
- rcme 4y ago> No. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. They donate money to the people who do take the oath to serve and make the laws. If you hire a hitman, you’re still guilty of murder. If you pay to get bad politicians elected, you’re still responsible for the outcome.
- rqtwteye 4y agoActually most laws are written by lobbyists.
- Proven 4y ago[dead]
- alephnerd 4y agoI used to work on the Hill. This is bullshit. Lobbyist input is taken into account, but "writing an entire law" is more of an exception to the rule. What's with the conspiratorial cynicism of the American political system on this board? @Dang - most of the commentators are also new to HN. I feel like I've brought up this issue before. edit: removing unconstructive snark from post
- ceejayoz 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act > Many American special interest groups draft model acts which they lobby lawmakers to pass. In particular, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has successfully gotten hundreds of model acts passed since 2010.
- alephnerd 4y agoModel Acts exist, but they are an exception to the rule, also they are aimed at State Legislatures, not Federal. In addition, they serve a valid purpose to harmonize laws. For example, the CDC's state level emergency acts are all Model Acts, as well as a lot of other Federal-Local legislation.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe practice absolutely occurs federally. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/24397...
- jetsnoc 4y agoDonald Trump was very much the head of the executive branch in the United States for four years. He may not have written laws but he certainly signed many into law. But, it was broken before he came in and I honestly don't know much about the bills he signed into law. I would agree with the greater point that might be getting made here is that it's all of Washington, DC gaming the laws and using their democratically elected "for the people" powers for personal inurement. I will never judge private citizens for using any law to their advantage. After all, a private citizen is just leveraging what everyone else can. Unfortunately, we know who writes the laws but the voters in states rarely replace their senators and representatives. I wish this was less of a "team sport" where my guy who is "conservative" or "liberal" has to win and people would be willing to fire a senator or a representative for just one term so our elected officials are reminded who they work for and that we may vote them out at any time. We don't have term limits for these seats but through voting we effectively /could/ replace them every cycle if we wanted. I have a friend who owns businesses. His business is part of a larger non-profit association and this association lobbies capital hill every year. He personally goes up there and has conversations with them once a year for our state. He like to share a story where he was waiting to meet with a member of the house. The representative came out of his office, his assistant was helping him put on his jacket and he asked his assistant "What is this vote for?" .. He gets his answer and then he asks -- "How are we voting?" ... presumably asking how his party is voting or how his majority whip wants him to vote. I like this verbiage from a specific website (pragmaticvoters.com): A pragmatic voter understands that a politician who is afraid of losing their position is a politician that is willing to govern for the better interest of the people. Politicians should always fear losing their jobs. Through voting, we remind them who they work for.
- analog31 4y agoUnfortunately a willingness to fire a senator or rep for one term, can be capitalized on by candidates or entire parties that are incapable of governing, but exist to attack and disrupt. And even those candidates are still plugged into the same money network. It can work the other way around too. Voters can be influenced by fear of electing the wrong person. The predictable outcome of electing someone who promises to "disrupt the establishment" is a lesson that a society needs to re-learn once in a while.
- d23 4y agoThe Trump organization committed tax fraud, and as this article lays out, Yass’s techniques were / are also illegal.
- specialist 4y agoThe ruling in Citizen's United v FEC and subsequent decisions (wrt independent expenditures, disclosure) has played out exactly as the critics had warned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Dissent
- jmclnx 4y agoI do not know why you were down-voted. No surprise here, a billionaire donates to the GOP and is a tax scammer, who would have thought. If anyone is keeping up with current US politics, the new Congress has voted to defund the IRS, why ? It is very expensive for the IRS to audit the very rich, by defunding it, the IRS will be unable to prevent tax the fraud by rich and large corporations. Over the past 20 years, the funding for the IRS has been cut in almost every budget by the GOP majority.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kolbe 4y agoJeff Yass is amazing at staying out of the news in general. I'm surprised to find him on the front page of HN. But while Ken Griffin is top of mind to every gambling Redditer, with them following his jets and calling for his imprisonment at every opportunity, Jeff Yass does the same things Ken does, and they don't have any clue who he is.
- ourmandave 4y agoWe could make up stupid conspiracies and say he's the dark money behind it, like Fox does to Soros. Although, reading the article, it appears Yass actually does it in real life.
- kolbe 4y agoHe owns a substantial amount of TikTok. He very well may have influence over what happens on Reddit.
- api 4y agoTikTok investor makes me wonder about CCP influence. Everyone has been all “Russia Russia” with people like this but the CCP has far more money and is much more sophisticated.
- refurb 4y agoOK, I read the article and I still don't get how this works. If you look at the graph near the bottom, he's offsetting short-term gains with loss. But it's a loss, he's losing money. And looking at the two, many years have bigger losses than gains. They even state in the article "Of course, if you consider the trade as a whole, it makes no money."
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe answer is in the sentences surrounding it. > One strategy, in simplified form, works like this: Make two bets that should move in opposite directions. Think of, say, both betting on and against Coca-Cola’s stock. Towards the end of the year, one bet will be up, and one will be down. At 365 days, the last day a trade is considered short-term, sell the one that’s down. A day later, sell the one that’s up. > Of course, if you consider the trade as a whole, it makes no money. But that isn’t the point. You’ve found a risk-free way to generate two valuable commodities: short-term losses and long-term gains. They're picking which gain/loss to realize - in both directions, on the same stock - in a way that means they always win.
- SilasX 4y ago>>You’ve found a risk-free way to generate two valuable commodities: short-term losses and long-term gains. A loss is not valuable. Edit: see my follow-up comment before you make another post re-explaining the scheme. The point is it's bad explanation because the merits have nothing to with "losses" being generally "valuable commodities". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34390221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34390221
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt is when it's offset by an identical gain, at a different tax rate.
- SilasX 4y agoI got that part. But look at the quote: The article is attempting to explain the benefit of the tax scheme by saying that it reduces into components that are valuable in themselves -- "valuable commodities". The scheme works as a whole, but the dynamics of it have nothing to do with losses being valuable commodities. It's just an over-clever writer trying to jazz up the explanation without realizing they're saying nonsense in the process and introducing a bad model.
- monero-xmr 4y agoIf you think the Democrats have no rich people “gaming the tax system” and donating “mega” amounts of dollars to politicians and their related groups, you have absolutely no idea how the system works. This is a team sport.
- europeanguy 4y agoThe Democrats are funding the IRS and the Republicans are defunding it. It was literally the first thing they did when they won the house. They're all dishonest, but obviously not to the same degree.
- monero-xmr 4y agoThere is no pot of gold by going after rich tax cheats. You get some headlines, but even if you seized all the wealth of Bill Gates and Elon Musk you’d fund the government (at best) for a few months. You need to increase taxes broadly on the vast middle and lower classes to truly make a difference. It’s usually done in backhanded ways at this scale, like increasing the retirement age or the payroll tax. Direct income taxes are extremely unpopular for the people they impact, so broadly doing this is a non starter, it only works as a class warfare move (“no one under 400k income is impacted!”). So the republicans are posturing that they will decrease funding but it won’t happen. If the IRS starts mass auditing it will be the lower and middle classes. The EITC is rife with fraud as is small business and eBay / Etsy hustlers. You audit someone and garnish their wages and they will be a lifelong hater of the IRS and all associated with them. It’s a long game.
- xracy 4y agoWhen 1% (~4M) of the country owns 32% of the wealth, you can either target them for taxes. OR you can go after the 160M people in the Middle/Upper 40% to get the 26% of the wealth... Last option, as a compromise you can go over the top 10% (40M) for 72% of the wealth. Now, I'm a simple IRS person, but I want to maximize taxes garnered for time spent. This is such a stupidly easy equation. Pretending that taxing the rich for all they've got is less effective than taxing the upper/middle class, is just absolute BS, and is easily proved false.
- smitty1e 4y agoDon't hate the playuhs--hate the game. If one finds fault with how some operate the system, it may be time to consider reform.
- pmdulaney 4y agoPlease, fellow conservatives, please don't engage in "flagged" foolishness like the lefties.