Fixing America

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I know how the tax code works; my proposal is that wealthy fraudsters pay for their fraud with $$$, and that they do time.

Ok, but that's not responsive to Trausti's question about how much a person owes

 

[Resume]

\\

Why should the New York Times editorial board have more influence than Trausti, anonymous forum poster?

They shouldn't, especially if they're giving a 40 million bribe to this corrupt president's wife, like, what's his name? Oh yeah.

That doesn't change the silliness of proclaiming that those who already pay the lion share of taxes are failing to pay their "fair" share.

Like the years Trump paid zero? C'mon, you're not this silly, or naive,

Does anyone remember when Rachel Maddow acquired a copy of Trump's past tax return and it showed a rich guy who paid millions in taxes? Good times.

I guess you don't remember those 10 years between 2010 and 2020 he paid zero tax. Yes, you are this naive. Go ahead, carry water for those who wouldn't deign to spit on you, it's pathetic.

 

[Trausti]

\\

They shouldn't, especially if they're giving a 40 million bribe to this corrupt president's wife, like, what's his name? Oh yeah.

Then the world you imagine can't really exist short of the government censoring everyone to simple pleasantries.

Like the years Trump paid zero? C'mon, you're not this silly, or naive,

And? There's no evidence of fraud. As Judge Learned Hand famously wrote:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Only an idiot would pay the government more than is due.

 

[Trausti]

I wonder the Venn diagram of those who criticize Trump for limiting his tax liability and those who take deductions on their own tax returns.

 

[Resume]

Then the world you imagine can't really exist short of the government censoring everyone to simple pleasantries.

40 million dollar pleasantry? What a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ joke of a reply God you're naive. Or just cynical. Or both, I guess.

And?

Paying his fair share, is he?

Only an idiot would pay the government more than is due.

Those with the money makes the rules, which is why the money needs to get out of it. Again, carrying water for these folks is just what they want.

 

[Resume]

I wonder the Venn diagram of those who criticize Trump for limiting his tax liability and those who take deductions on their own tax returns.

I wonder why someone bleats apologetics for the wealthy paying "their fair share" then bleats apologetics for the wealthy not paying a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing at all?

Trust me though, they don't need you carrying their water, the grift is out in the open for all to see.

 

[Trausti]

40 million dollar pleasantry? What a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ joke of a reply God you're naive. Or just cynical. Or both, I guess.

You responded that the New York Times editorial board should have no greater influence on policy than an internet rando. The only why to have it that way is a mass surveillance state shutting everyone up.

Paying his fair share, is he?

Yes. As the phrase "fair share" is entirely subjective nonsense.

Those with the money makes the rules, which is why the money needs to get out of it. Again, carrying water for these folks is just what they want.

You don't take tax deductions? Do you pay more at tax time; give the government a bonus?

 

[Trausti]

I wonder why someone bleats apologetics for the wealthy paying "their fair share" then bleats apologetics for the wealth not paying a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing at all?

Oh, it's okay for you to limit your tax liability but for others no way.

 

[Trausti]

For those with malicious envy, "fair share" is just a cudgel to bring down those who are more successful in life than them. "Fair share" is never defined, other than to mean someone else has more than me and I want the government to take it away from them.

 

[Resume]

You responded that the New York Times editorial board should have no greater influence on policy than an internet rando. The only why to have it that way is a mass surveillance state shutting everyone up.

Nope. That's just stupid. It doesn't take a survelliance state to understand a 40 million dollar bribe to a president's wife is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ corruption.

Yes. As the phrase "fair share" is entirely subjective nonsense.

Most --(save for those inexplicably carrying water for oligarchs who wouldn't spit in their direction-- understand that an alleged billionaire paying zero dollars tax is nonsense, and unfair.

You don't take tax deductions? Do you pay more at tax time; give the government a bonus?

What a stupid comparison. Billionaires paying zero dollars in tax because they've gamed the system, and have a raft of tax accountants versus a middle class mope? What sort of freshman level argumentation is this?

 

[Resume]

For those with malicious envy, "fair share" is just a cudgel to bring down those who are more successful in life than them. "Fair share" is never defined, other than to mean someone else has more than me and I want the government to take it away from them.

No, it isn't. This is juvenile argumentation. I remember this sort of apologetic in high school debate class. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

 

[Resume]

Oh, it's okay for you to limit your tax liability but for others no way.

Sure, because limiting my tax liability doesn't eliminate my liability, the way it does for those who pay for the rules in their favor. Since I began paying taxes more than 50 years ago, I've never had zero tax liability, much less a decade of it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I remember wanting to have enough, not more, just enough. Teen years were fun when I went to school in my older brother's hand-me-downs. We weren't poor, the y-donor was getting even with people long long dead.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it isn't. This is juvenile argumentation. I remember this sort of apologetic in high school debate class. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Have you defined what a fair share is yet?

 

[Resume]

Have you defined what a fair share is yet?

Fair is subjective, but society can come up with reasonable standards and thus make it objective in that way. The problem currently is that too often, those with the money make those rules; a billionaire paying zero tax is a poor outcome. There will always be ways to cheat the system, legally and illegally, but to just accept the fraud with a shrug and say that's just the way it goes is pretty cynical. I have nothing to say to I Got Miners who think all tax is theft.

 

[Tero]

Yes. Nick Shirley exposed a lot of fraud in Minnesota which is now hamstringing the Dem senate nominee.



That doesn't make any sense.

Remember unions? strikes? No Wal Mart worker has any of that. They are paid $14 an hour. many others are paid less. With experience usnkilled labor makes 17.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair is subjective, but society can come up with reasonable standards and thus make it objective in that way.

That's a copout.

The problem currently is that too often, those with the money make those rules; a billionaire paying zero tax is a poor outcome.

There are no billionaires paying zero tax.

There will always be ways to cheat the system, legally and illegally, but to just accept the fraud with a shrug and say that's just the way it goes is pretty cynical.

Fraud is by definition illegal. If it's legal, it's not fraud. Not everything that is legal should be, but if someone is legally paying less than you think they should, the problem is the tax code. But I still have no idea how you want to change the tax code.

I have nothing to say to I Got Miners who think all tax is theft.

I never expressed any such sentiment.

 

[Resume]

That's a copout.

No, it's reality. The concept of fairness is subjective when it comes to this subject. It can become objective with an actual consensus, devoid of undue influence from bad actors. Which is impossible.

There are no billionaires paying zero tax.

Donald Trump paid zero taxes for ten years in the 20 teens and 2020.*

Fraud is by definition illegal. If it's legal, it's not fraud.

It's only illegal if you get caught. I'll bet you know people who push the envelope when it comes to deductions which won't trigger an audit. Business vehicles and home office deductions are often culprits. Side ventures, known as the "Hobby Loss Rule" where you write off losses to offset your W2 income is another one. Legal, as long as you don't consistently press it, right up to the point when you do.

Not everything that is legal should be, but if someone is legally paying less than you think they should, the problem is the tax code.

Yes, the problem is with the tax code because it cannot keep up with those that lack ethics, or worse, find it enjoyable to work the system.

But I still have no idea how you want to change the tax code.

It has to be changed by those that are willing to change it. All my ideas like, say, a graduated flat tax would be a no-go with the current legislature, and likely any in the future with the manner in which we allow virtual unlimited money in the election process.

I never expressed any such sentiment.

I never said you did.


* I am referring only to federal income tax.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's reality. The concept of fairness is subjective when it comes to this subject.

That's not why it's a copout. What's your concept of fairness?

Donald Trump paid zero taxes for ten years in the 20 teens and 2020.*

You may have been referring to federal income tax alone, but I wasn't. Total tax burden seems more important than just federal income tax.

It's only illegal if you get caught.

No. You only get punished if you get caught, but if it's prohibited by law, it's illegal regardless.

It has to be changed by those that are willing to change it. All my ideas like, say, a graduated flat tax would be a no-go with the current legislature

I'm not asking if it would pass Congress, I want to know what your ideal would be. "Graduated flat tax" is a start.

 

[Resume]

That's not why it's a copout. What's your concept of fairness?

For one, a billionaire not paying a dime in income tax, while working families cannot avail themselves of the same sort of relief. A person who considers that fair, isn't interested in fair.

You may have been referring to federal income tax alone, but I wasn't. Total tax burden seems more important than just federal income tax.

A billionaire not paying federal income tax is an extremely important anomaly.

No. You only get punished if you get caught, but if it's prohibited by law, it's illegal regardless.

Yes, you only get punished if caught. Plausible deniability is a thing. Anyone who thinks the wealthy don't work the system, don't push the envelope, they're either naive or cynical.

I'm not asking if it would pass Congress, I want to know what your ideal would be. "Graduated flat tax" is a start.

I'm not your dancing monkey.

I quoted Bezos' whine in post #187 concerning success, saying it depends on what you do with it. If you use to pay a 40 million dollar bribe to the president's wife, I maintain you are not using it ethically. This thread claims to be about Fixing America and one fix would be to restrain oligarchal influence, and interference in politics.