

How to Pay No Taxes - AlexC04
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm?chan=magazine+channel_11_16+-+how+to+pay+no+taxes_top+stories

======
Dilpil
This is what happens when your approach to system design revolves around
whacking out the latest bugs with quick fixes rather than creating something
logical and consistent. How many of these loopholes were created in order to
stimulate a particular activity, or to close another specific loophole? At no
point have lawmakers ever sat down to completely plan out the tax code,
carefully considering the consequences of various interactions between laws,
and this is the result.

------
gaius
The elephant in the corner of this argument is the fact that the greediest,
most rapacious investment banker still pays for more roads, schools and
hospitals in a year than the most earnest hippie will in their whole working
lives.

~~~
kgrin
(S)he also benefits vastly more (in an "absolute" sense) from the roads,
police protection, defense expenditures, government's role in financial
stability, and many other significant government expenditures. Look at it this
way: the "bottom 10%" don't particularly care if Canada invades and forcibly
takes all of Donald Trump's real estate (nor, not to put too fine a point on
it, do the "bottom 10%" care when there's a revolution elsewhere in the world
and American-corporation-owned property gets appropriated).

~~~
gaius
I don't think that's necessarily true - if it were not for government
services, Jo(e) Billionaire could hire a private security force - but most
people rely on the police. JB could travel by helicopter - most people rely on
roads. Etc etc.

~~~
Glide
If there wasn't mandated education there would be far less efficient workers
for the rich for their businesses. Which would mean their output would suffer.

Not having good public transportation infrastructure would mean there would be
a higher cost of freight within a country thus cutting into profits or driving
prices up.

In my eyes, the rich benefit far more from a society's systems than the poor
do and thus should be paying more into making it better.

~~~
bmelton
Since you don't specify whether you mean 'more' in an absolute or relative
since, I'm assuming you mean that people who earn more should be taxed more
aggressively.

As has already been pointed out, a flat percentage tax does a good job of
'taxing the rich more', but many seem to prefer a progressive taxation, which
is to say, almost the opposite of what we have now.

As it stands, income taxes inflate as your income rises, which seems to be
progressive taxation. For the life of me, I don't understand how this seems
fair to its advocates, but so be it.

That the top 1% benefit from greater tax loopholes makes sense (doesn't
necessarily mean fair) in a lot of ways, but aside from the fact that they've
bought a lot of legislation, the nation depends on the top 1% as much as they
depend on it.

~~~
Glide
Sorry about not responding earlier to your comment back. I meant 'more' in the
relative sense. And practically that does mean progressive taxation.

Taxation is a complex subject. I just wonder where on the laffer curve
economists think the USA is on regards to the wealthiest.

