This was decades ago during my union / management / labor relations career, so perhaps things have changed. [I don’t pretend to know]
A delegation of high level US union leaders met with their European counterparts at a large mfg. facility. Returning from lunch, one European union leader pointed to the expensive cars in the executive parking lot and said, “I want to bring those $#*(!@ 's down, so they have to drive cars like the rest of us!”
The US union leader pointed to the run down cars in the employee’s lot and said, “No, I want to bring those people up so they can afford those nicer cars.”
In those days, it was the classic difference between US and European unions.
I heard it from Scott Shellady on Varney. He seemed to say it was an actual conversation between him and his friend. But, maybe he was just telling a story that confirmed how he felt differently than his friend. Who knows, but it still reflects the sentiments that so many have in this country. If someone is successful, he cheated. If I’m not successful someone else caused me to be. It is sad, bc it erodes the productive spirit of this country and makes us an easy takeover target when people start believing the lie!
But, 50% pay no income taxes and it’s bc the high income earners pay so much. I understand the envy, but the truth is without those wealthy that 50%, and more, may be dirt poor. People do not understand where money comes from and it’s the productive people that actually create the wealth for the rest of us. It’s not the tax laws that make them wealthy.
It’s not a binary equation, and consider the possibility that you may be projecting your feelings about what other people understand or do not understand about how our economy works. It may not be a question of envy, but one of fairness.
My point is that that once the most effective wealth creators establish a dominant position they use that economic margin to further their monetary interests. Part of that effort is to establish loopholes in the tax code so that that they, and not people of lesser means, can take advantage of that advantage to increase the wealth disparity even more.
It’s why we have laws regulating business. Left alone in a purely capitalistic environment without third-party restrictions imposed the system would be dominated by a single entity. And the next step would be for that dominating entity to take over the government.
They are not coming after you. They are coming after the tax cheaters.
I will happily disagree with your comments. First, I’m not projecting my feeling, as they are and as you are. If the so-called “loophole” was intended as you say, then it’s not a loophole at all. If the consequence of the law was something unintended, then it may be considered a loophole, but if after it’s discovered and no action is subsequently taken to close it, then it was intended and is no longer a Loophole. No one seems to want to point out what the “Loophole” is and why it’s not available to everyone. And, as to the word “Fair”, please define it for me. It only means what the user thinks is fair, it has no firm definition. I may think that fair means everyone pays the same tax rate since everyone gets pretty much the same benefit from government services. You would probably disagree, but that would be your opinion, not a fact. Those that you fear who are taking over the world, and they may in places not named The USA, pay nearly 70% of the taxes, the top 1-3% pay around 30%. Now, tell me how that is fair. Up until the word fair was replaced with “Equity,” fair meant Equal. There is nothing equal about >50% of working people not paying any income taxes. I’m actually being objective and looking at the law, the way laws are made, and how they are applied. I don’t look at it as unfair that some people are producers and create wealth that others share in, as with Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. Are we better without them and their money? Tax laws are made for specific reasons. I may feel that since I rent, and you own, taking a mortgage deduction is a Loophole. We both know it isn’t bc it was designed to encourage citizens to buy and own houses. Does that get taken advantage of? It probably does at times, so should we scrap it in the name of fairness? The Warren Buffet comments are disingenuous bc he pays Capital Gains tax rate on most of his money. Do you want to get rid of Capital gains taxes, some do, but ask an objective economist what that will do to the growth and investment in the US. So, in your objective mind, tell me what you think is fair, but without applying your opinion. And, while you are at it explain objectively how it would work. Oh, and you are wrong again about the IRS not being after us, why then are there 87k new Armed IRS agents being hired? The rich and wealthy are already covered and there is no need for guns auditing Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos. They are after the small businesses and the common people, kinda like in that scenario you painted bc of the wealthly. That’s not my feeling, that is a fact! That’s the world we live in today. One where the Executive Branch teams up with the Judicial Branch to control the country. That’s where Democracy is dying!
It would appear that you responded to my OP without reading referenced article. So here’s an explanation for you:
As you undoubtedly know, there is an estate tax limitation which covers amounts under $14,197,333 per person or $28,394,666 for a married couple. To put that in context, that’s way up in the top half of the 1% of the country’s wealthiest folks.
There’s a thing called a “GRAT,” aka Grantor Retained Annuity Trust. It’s a tool that the ultra-rich folks use to pass on assets tax-free to their heirs which exceed the estate tax exemptions of $14.2M and $23.4M I noted in the paragraph above.
The way a GRAT works is that the grantor creates the trust and deposits money-earning assets in it. The money earned, by the assets is held in the GRAT and at a pre-determined date the original investment plus a bit of interest is returned to the grantor. The grantor is then again the owner of those assets as before and the money created by those assets remains in the GRAT until the grantor dies and then they are passed tax-free to the named beneficiaries of the GRAT.
It’s a no-risk way to pass on un-earned cash tax-free to heirs and circumvent the estate tax.
Now, do you still feel it’s a tax advantage available to everyone?
I’ve read tax laws before, but that doesn’t explain your calling them “Loopholes.” And, you, like so many others with some kind of ax to grind with the wealthy, productive citizens in our country don’t bother answering other’s questions. You just say, look at the graph it proves everything, while it proves nothing at all. It may represent what you want it to say, but that’s not an answer, just an opinion. It represents some facts about how the laws work, but it doesn’t prove it is a loophole nor does it say anything about the intentions of the law itself. Research why our elected lawmakers even made these laws. Sometimes that will surprise you. I think you may be pointing a finger at a particular party, but watch out, when you point at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. My father was an accountant by trade, and they have a saying, “Figures lie and Liars Figure.” One can prove many different conclusions with the same numbers. The government and the news media do it all of the time. I’m not a supporter of loopholes, but I surely don’t want to change laws to punish people for being productive. And, just as a side note, these wealthy and rich are way smarter than the government, they will find a way around it or just leave. One of the reasons many foreign nationals choose to bring their money here bc other places make it more difficult to make and earn money. So, what do you propose? Eliminate the ability to pass on wealth to their heirs? Cap their earnings. As President Obama once famously said, “At some point, you’ve earned enough money.” But, he failed to say how much that was or to whom he was speaking, because it surely wasn’t himself, bc shortly after saying that he magically became worth $25 million. And, yo know what, he’s never said he should pay HIS fair share, he just used the laws in effect same as you or I would. Is $25m enough? I don’t care one bit about how much Barak Obama has made, as long as it was legal, but what I do care about is laws enacted to curb productive people from making money and wealth. When you start down that path, you are heading toward Marxism and then Communism, and nowhere on this planet and in our history has that worked.
So what if we eliminate the so-called loopholes and we institute a sales tax.
Our country seems to work the same way companys handle rebates. Get the money up front, then give some back. Why not just give them less to begin with?
We change the Social Security system to allow people (with some oversight) to invest part of the money into bonds and certain approved stock/mutual funds of their choice, those being regulated. That way we are investing in our countrys future and the money left in the SS fund is used for Medicare/Medicaid.
Yes, I understand that eliminates MOST of the IRS (The IRS budget was $13.7 billion in 2021) and puts many tax lawyers and accountants out of work but could be phased in.
I am not an accountant and I know people will bash this idea. If so then what is YOUR idea?
Not sure exactly who this is directed at…but I will give it a shot.
I could get behind a national sales tax, but there is too much money in creating a complicated tax code with enormous compliance costs.
The problem in the current Social Security system is two-fold: Funding and Growth
Thats a rounding error in terms of the compliance cost of our tax code:
The reality is that our current political system does not encourage the drastic changes needed in our country, so all we get is minor tweaks and band-aids.
Maybe, just maybe if you were to focus on one or two points rather than creating a 500-word essay when you respond to others, you might find us more responsive to your queries. It’s a tenant of basic communication to use white space to separate thoughts and effectively communicate with your fellow humans. Please try to focus.
Here’s what your last two messages you wrote look like to me, they contain over 900 words without a single paragraph break point:
If a tax advantage in the law can only be used effectively by the ultra-rich and cannot effectively be used by the other 99.9% of US taxpayers, is fair taxation?
And if our tax laws are to be fair to all taxpayers, is that the case in this instance?
And if it provides an unfair advantage to a select few, is it not a loophole?
Hey, big guy, I know what I wrote and I wasn’t aware that would be a complication to you to process the comments. So I gather that’s why my questions aren’t answered and I get more nonsense from readers. The short versions don’t get proper responses and answers, so I thought I’d try the long version for those struggling to understand, but I see that didn’t work either. I responded to the questions and asked some to get a further understanding of what they were searching for, but only got more of the same. My apologies for trying to make a point.
Ya missed answering the one about the GRATs… do you think they treat everyone fairly and equally?
Here’s why I ask that question:
1.1.1.2(07-29-2019)
IRS Mission
The IRS mission:
Provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.
I cant really help with your envy issues…but tax breaks are only applicable to people that actually pay a decent amount of taxes. The fairness aspect depends on whether you think the money of a private individual belongs to the government…
With few exceptions I think the IRS does a pretty good job the way it is currently organized. The problem is not the IRS it’s the legislative branch passing laws for big-money interests and spending more money than it takes in.
The IRS spends just 35 cents for every $100 it takes in.
