6 ms·

I assure you that it was NOT accidental. This is nothing more than yet another case of legal treason by congress. In my opinion, ALL loopholes for the super-w

by dm2 13y ago

I assure you that it was NOT accidental. This is nothing more than yet another case of legal treason by congress. In my opinion, ALL loopholes for the super-wealthy and companies (Double Irish) should be closed. Reducing taxes should not be an option. If you make huge amounts of money or want to transfer huge amounts of money in the United States then you should pay tax on it to the United States government. There shouldn't be the option to hire people to find sneaky ways to "legally" (but unethically) reduce that tax without any consequences.

sanswork 13y ago
Allowing the government to change tax laws and demand retroactive payment is extremely dangerous.
- yebyen 13y ago
  Allowing the government to charge businesses that paid into an unemployment trust for the administrative failure of that trust is dangerous. I can't find a link right now but it was on CBS nightly news yesterday. The New York State government is suing thousands of small-business owners because they failed to recognize early that one of the legal, state-sanctioned trusts that was in charge of collecting and paying into the state's unemployment fund was (committing fraud and) failing, went belly up.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
Seconding sanswork. The ability to tax retroactively is the ability to jail anyone and confiscate everything they have for any or no reason. But I guess ignorance of the future is no excuse?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    I guess all I can really say to this is I hope you get burned alive for daring to express such an idea. Better throw your immediate family in there too, to be safe. EDIT: I'm responding to this: ----- I don't expect it to ever happen. Sometimes proposing an unreasonably extreme option will make other options (such as at least being proactive in closing the loopholes) seem tame. I pay my taxes, but people who can afford the best financial planners and accountants get to avoid them, that just rubs me the wrong way. Some of the more dirty tricks such as funneling income through other countries have zero consequences though.
- tomp 13y ago
  > The ability to tax retroactively is the ability to jail anyone and confiscate everything they have for any or no reason. Any arguments why?
  - breischl 13y ago
    1. Decide who you don't like. 2. Create a massive, retroactive tax on something they did. Make sure it's big enough that they can't possibly pay it. 3. Why stop at retroactive taxes? Add in retroactive penalties and fees for late payment. 4. Confiscate whatever they have to pay the tax bill. 5. Charge them with tax avoidance for not paying those taxes, then throw them in jail. It's pretty insane, but if you're going to allow laws to be changed retroactively then you're already into that territory.
    - dm2 13y ago
      Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? All I'm proposing is a discussion on closing loopholes and how to prevent people from actively trying to take advantage of the United States unreasonably complex tax system. If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. The law says that you have to pay X% when passing money to heirs. If my lawyers and accountants discover a way to reduce that amount because of a technicality, then why should that hold up in court? If there was a loophole in the law that allowed me to murder someone if X conditions are met, should I be allowed to go free? I see your point about why retroactive laws would be a slippery slope.
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        Yes. At least in the U.S., where the Constitution contains vague language like No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. and No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,.
      - sanswork 13y ago
        Given that murder specifically refers to an unlawful killing it's kind of an impossible thing to happen. If we change murder to kill however then there are already conditions that allow you to go free when killing someone.
rayiner 13y ago
> I assure you that it was NOT accidental. Based on what? If you read the link I posted, these particular tax shelters are the result of large spreads between the interest rates used in certain IRS calculations, which are at historical lows for reasons unrelated to tax policy, and the actual achievable investment returns.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - hnal943 13y ago
    This is just overblown rhetoric. I don't have as much faith as you do that the IRS is as capable as the most elite financial planners and accountants in the country. Also, why would the IRS lobby congress? Their job is to enforce the laws, not to dictate what the laws should be.
chollida1 13y ago
> In my opinion, ALL loopholes for the super-wealthy and companies (Double Irish) should be closed. This is completely unrealistic. The biggest issue is that you can't compel other countries to follow along. Half the rules in the commercial tax code are geared towards allowing companies to compete in the international world. > I assure you that it was NOT accidental. THis just seems foolish. No one person fully understands the tax code. If it was intended, why did people take so long to exploit it ? The law was passed in 1990, but no GRATS appeared anywhere near then. You are really, really stretching here.

by dm2 13y ago

sanswork 13y ago

Allowing the government to change tax laws and demand retroactive payment is extremely dangerous.

yebyen 13y ago
Allowing the government to charge businesses that paid into an unemployment trust for the administrative failure of that trust is dangerous. I can't find a link right now but it was on CBS nightly news yesterday. The New York State government is suing thousands of small-business owners because they failed to recognize early that one of the legal, state-sanctioned trusts that was in charge of collecting and paying into the state's unemployment fund was (committing fraud and) failing, went belly up.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Seconding sanswork. The ability to tax retroactively is the ability to jail anyone and confiscate everything they have for any or no reason. But I guess ignorance of the future is no excuse?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  I guess all I can really say to this is I hope you get burned alive for daring to express such an idea. Better throw your immediate family in there too, to be safe. EDIT: I'm responding to this: ----- I don't expect it to ever happen. Sometimes proposing an unreasonably extreme option will make other options (such as at least being proactive in closing the loopholes) seem tame. I pay my taxes, but people who can afford the best financial planners and accountants get to avoid them, that just rubs me the wrong way. Some of the more dirty tricks such as funneling income through other countries have zero consequences though.
tomp 13y ago
> The ability to tax retroactively is the ability to jail anyone and confiscate everything they have for any or no reason. Any arguments why?
- breischl 13y ago
  1. Decide who you don't like. 2. Create a massive, retroactive tax on something they did. Make sure it's big enough that they can't possibly pay it. 3. Why stop at retroactive taxes? Add in retroactive penalties and fees for late payment. 4. Confiscate whatever they have to pay the tax bill. 5. Charge them with tax avoidance for not paying those taxes, then throw them in jail. It's pretty insane, but if you're going to allow laws to be changed retroactively then you're already into that territory.
  - dm2 13y ago
    Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? All I'm proposing is a discussion on closing loopholes and how to prevent people from actively trying to take advantage of the United States unreasonably complex tax system. If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. The law says that you have to pay X% when passing money to heirs. If my lawyers and accountants discover a way to reduce that amount because of a technicality, then why should that hold up in court? If there was a loophole in the law that allowed me to murder someone if X conditions are met, should I be allowed to go free? I see your point about why retroactive laws would be a slippery slope.
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      Yes. At least in the U.S., where the Constitution contains vague language like No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. and No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,.
    - sanswork 13y ago
      Given that murder specifically refers to an unlawful killing it's kind of an impossible thing to happen. If we change murder to kill however then there are already conditions that allow you to go free when killing someone.

rayiner 13y ago

> I assure you that it was NOT accidental. Based on what? If you read the link I posted, these particular tax shelters are the result of large spreads between the interest rates used in certain IRS calculations, which are at historical lows for reasons unrelated to tax policy, and the actual achievable investment returns.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- hnal943 13y ago
  This is just overblown rhetoric. I don't have as much faith as you do that the IRS is as capable as the most elite financial planners and accountants in the country. Also, why would the IRS lobby congress? Their job is to enforce the laws, not to dictate what the laws should be.

chollida1 13y ago

> In my opinion, ALL loopholes for the super-wealthy and companies (Double Irish) should be closed. This is completely unrealistic. The biggest issue is that you can't compel other countries to follow along. Half the rules in the commercial tax code are geared towards allowing companies to compete in the international world. > I assure you that it was NOT accidental. THis just seems foolish. No one person fully understands the tax code. If it was intended, why did people take so long to exploit it ? The law was passed in 1990, but no GRATS appeared anywhere near then. You are really, really stretching here.