3 ms·

It means they're not exercising loopholes and legal sleight of hand to pay less.

by kristopolous 1y ago

loloquwowndueo 1y ago
*sleight
tekla 1y ago
Damn, people who pay into their 401Ks are fucking evil.
- kristopolous 1y ago
  https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/ https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-t... Some examples: > Food conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland enjoyed $438 million of U.S. pretax income last year and received a federal tax rebate of $164 million. > The delivery giant FedEx zeroed out its federal income tax on $1.2 billion of U.S. pretax income in 2020 and received a rebate of $230 million. > The shoe manufacturer Nike didn’t pay a dime of federal income tax on almost $2.9 billion of U.S. pretax income last year, instead enjoying a $109 million tax rebate. If you think this is the same as someone putting $7k into a 401k then you are acting in bad faith and we have nothing productive to discuss.
  - tekla 1y ago
    How is it a loophole when it was literally legally allowed, not even as a slight of hand.
    - robinson7d 1y ago
      Loopholes are by definition legally allowed.
    - shermantanktop 1y ago
      Some loopholes are an accident. Some are intentionally put in place by parties interested in traveling through the loophole, benefiting from doing that, and then claiming they would be stupid not to do so. Those cases are different, even though the legal status of them may be the same.
gruez 1y ago
What counts as a loophole though? IRA, almost by design is a way to shelter your investments from taxes. Is it a loophole to put your investments in an IRA to avoid taxes? What about when Peter Thiel puts his paypal stock in an IRA, and paid no taxes on his paypal exit?
- kristopolous 1y ago
  Can you honestly say when the people were drafting how IRAs would work they were thinking this as an intended use-case?
  - sneak 1y ago
    The rule of law, and the democratic lawmaking process is based on text, not mind reading.
    - kristopolous 1y ago
      Well I can pull up exactly what proponents of The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which introduced the Roth IRA, stated their intentions were since this is very easy to find and widely documented but I strongly suspect you don't actually give a fuck about reality. So my time spent on this ends now.
      - sneak 1y ago
        The intentions of lawmakers when making laws do not matter; the thing that is voted on and passed is the text of the law, not their intentions.
  - gruez 1y ago
    "intended use-case" is just more fuzzy language. They probably thought everyone would buy mutual funds, rather than 3X leveraged Nvidia ETFs. Does that mean buying such ETFs (and making bank) mean you're not paying "your fair share"? Or for something more down to earth, what about meme stocks and bitcoin treasury companies, both of which are technically companies, but are definitely not what the authors of the bill had in mind.

It means they're not exercising loopholes and legal sleight of hand to pay less.

loloquwowndueo 1y ago

*sleight

tekla 1y ago

Damn, people who pay into their 401Ks are fucking evil.

kristopolous 1y ago
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/ https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-t... Some examples: > Food conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland enjoyed $438 million of U.S. pretax income last year and received a federal tax rebate of $164 million. > The delivery giant FedEx zeroed out its federal income tax on $1.2 billion of U.S. pretax income in 2020 and received a rebate of $230 million. > The shoe manufacturer Nike didn’t pay a dime of federal income tax on almost $2.9 billion of U.S. pretax income last year, instead enjoying a $109 million tax rebate. If you think this is the same as someone putting $7k into a 401k then you are acting in bad faith and we have nothing productive to discuss.
- tekla 1y ago
  How is it a loophole when it was literally legally allowed, not even as a slight of hand.
  - robinson7d 1y ago
    Loopholes are by definition legally allowed.
  - shermantanktop 1y ago
    Some loopholes are an accident. Some are intentionally put in place by parties interested in traveling through the loophole, benefiting from doing that, and then claiming they would be stupid not to do so. Those cases are different, even though the legal status of them may be the same.

gruez 1y ago

What counts as a loophole though? IRA, almost by design is a way to shelter your investments from taxes. Is it a loophole to put your investments in an IRA to avoid taxes? What about when Peter Thiel puts his paypal stock in an IRA, and paid no taxes on his paypal exit?

kristopolous 1y ago
Can you honestly say when the people were drafting how IRAs would work they were thinking this as an intended use-case?
- sneak 1y ago
  The rule of law, and the democratic lawmaking process is based on text, not mind reading.
  - kristopolous 1y ago
    Well I can pull up exactly what proponents of The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which introduced the Roth IRA, stated their intentions were since this is very easy to find and widely documented but I strongly suspect you don't actually give a fuck about reality. So my time spent on this ends now.
    - sneak 1y ago
      The intentions of lawmakers when making laws do not matter; the thing that is voted on and passed is the text of the law, not their intentions.
- gruez 1y ago
  "intended use-case" is just more fuzzy language. They probably thought everyone would buy mutual funds, rather than 3X leveraged Nvidia ETFs. Does that mean buying such ETFs (and making bank) mean you're not paying "your fair share"? Or for something more down to earth, what about meme stocks and bitcoin treasury companies, both of which are technically companies, but are definitely not what the authors of the bill had in mind.