4 ms·

I am not even sure what is the point you are trying to make. "Loopholes" is just reddit-speak for paying taxes. Do you take deductions on your own taxes? Do you

I am not even sure what is the point you are trying to make. "Loopholes" is just reddit-speak for paying taxes. Do you take deductions on your own taxes? Do you challenge assessments on your property? Have any pre-tax deductions from your pay (FSA, 401K etc?) Congrats, you are using the loopholes to pay less taxes.

eesmith 3y ago
You seem to be hung up with something I did not say. I am fully aware that tax avoidance is legal. My Dad taught me the key part of Gregory v. Helvering when I was about 12 - "the legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." 1) I described "loopholes" in this context as a completely legal way to reduce the amount of taxes paid, so of course it can mean to pay taxes. The term as I described it is quite common. Wikipedia uses it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance in "Other multinationals, such as Apple for example, also exploit fiscal loopholes, diverting profits from high tax countries into others with lower corporate tax rates." -- Apple exercised their right to use a loophole to pay lower taxes. Not illegal, and yes, the still paid taxes. This isn't reddit, I am not a redditor, I don't know reddit vocabulary, so don't use your reddit blinders when you read what I wrote. 2) I said that larger organizations have greater ability to use said completely legal and economically justified loopholes (I gave two such examples). 3) As a result, when measured by tax revenue per acre instead of tax revenue per entity like you suggest, big box stores bring in less than other forms of retail -- and sometimes even negative tax revenue if infrastructure costs are fully included. (I provided sources). 4) Thus, if tax revenue guides where local government should direct tax money, they should give less support to big box stores than, for example, downtown retail shopping.
- pandaman 3y ago
  Taxes are not fees for service, local governments though should be aware that if they suppress their major tax payers they should expect their tax revenue to decrease. It's counterproductive for them and the community to chase away large taxpayers. Not to mention it's illegal: one is still entitled to the protection of law even when not paying any taxes, see the Constitution, 14th Amendment.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Please read https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-development-can-raise-tax-base https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-de... again. The emphasis should not be "major tax payers" because that puts the thumb on the balance in favor of big box stores. It should be on tax revenue per acre, which for Carmel resulted in a 10x improvement over big box stores on greenfield sites, for reasons given in that link. Your "major tax payers" needs further qualifiers. If the major tax payer is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, that's far different than if it's a big box store. Why? The evidence is that Walmart "absorb retail sales from nearby stores without significantly expanding the market." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891242412457985 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08912424124579... Lose a Walmart and other stores will make up for it, because the demand is there. > Not to mention it's illegal: one is still entitled to the protection of law even when not paying any taxes, Well that's a non sequitur. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Can you point to a relevant court case?

eesmith 3y ago

You seem to be hung up with something I did not say. I am fully aware that tax avoidance is legal. My Dad taught me the key part of Gregory v. Helvering when I was about 12 - "the legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." 1) I described "loopholes" in this context as a completely legal way to reduce the amount of taxes paid, so of course it can mean to pay taxes. The term as I described it is quite common. Wikipedia uses it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance in "Other multinationals, such as Apple for example, also exploit fiscal loopholes, diverting profits from high tax countries into others with lower corporate tax rates." -- Apple exercised their right to use a loophole to pay lower taxes. Not illegal, and yes, the still paid taxes. This isn't reddit, I am not a redditor, I don't know reddit vocabulary, so don't use your reddit blinders when you read what I wrote. 2) I said that larger organizations have greater ability to use said completely legal and economically justified loopholes (I gave two such examples). 3) As a result, when measured by tax revenue per acre instead of tax revenue per entity like you suggest, big box stores bring in less than other forms of retail -- and sometimes even negative tax revenue if infrastructure costs are fully included. (I provided sources). 4) Thus, if tax revenue guides where local government should direct tax money, they should give less support to big box stores than, for example, downtown retail shopping.

pandaman 3y ago
Taxes are not fees for service, local governments though should be aware that if they suppress their major tax payers they should expect their tax revenue to decrease. It's counterproductive for them and the community to chase away large taxpayers. Not to mention it's illegal: one is still entitled to the protection of law even when not paying any taxes, see the Constitution, 14th Amendment.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Please read https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-development-can-raise-tax-base https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-de... again. The emphasis should not be "major tax payers" because that puts the thumb on the balance in favor of big box stores. It should be on tax revenue per acre, which for Carmel resulted in a 10x improvement over big box stores on greenfield sites, for reasons given in that link. Your "major tax payers" needs further qualifiers. If the major tax payer is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, that's far different than if it's a big box store. Why? The evidence is that Walmart "absorb retail sales from nearby stores without significantly expanding the market." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891242412457985 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08912424124579... Lose a Walmart and other stores will make up for it, because the demand is there. > Not to mention it's illegal: one is still entitled to the protection of law even when not paying any taxes, Well that's a non sequitur. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Can you point to a relevant court case?