The argument between paying taxes and "it is smart if you can avoid paying taxes"

[titaniumsalute]

This argument always creeps up when something is revealed that tRUMP didn't pay any taxes. While yes there are certain ways wealthy people can skirt the system and write off business losses...does that make it right? No way. It is probably about the most unamerican, immoral thing you can do. Why? BECAUSE the person is still using the benefits of the tax system for their own person, family, or business. They are essentially stealing from the US Treasury.

Think about the idiot Trump before he was President. He woke up every day and ate a breakfast of food that was approved and inspected by the FDA. He brushed his teeth with toothpaste that isn't poisoned. He got a glass of water or made coffee with water that isn't poisoned or polluted. He drove to the airport on roads, tunnels, highways, and bridges all paid for by taxes. Once at the airport he used Federal employees (FAA/ATC) to make sure other planes don't collide with his in the air or on the ground. He trusted overnight that the US military would keep him and his family safe. He popped pills for blood pressure, cholesterol, and other shit that was approved and not poisoned. We could continue for paragraphs.

He used those services and said FUCK YOU I'm not paying for any of them. I consider him a fucking theif and anyone else who is in the same boat.

[cilla4progress]

1. He stole from US military women and

men - putting them at greater risk!

[Captain Stern]

2. Agreed. But is far too significant a portion of our population just doesn't think that way.

To them, the rich guy that can find tax loopholes and pay zero, and still enjoy all the benefits that our taxes pay for is "smart". After all, he's just playing by the rules, and is just really clever.

But, of course, the poor person that might take advantage of a loophole to get a few extra dollars in food stamps is an ungrateful bum that is leaching off of the rest of us.

[titaniumsalute]

4. That is why I always point out to those people...

Well YOU are paying for them to fuck off. Is that fair? I don't find too many people that say yes to that. Or I reverse them and ask "do you pay taxes?" If (and they always do) they say YES I ask "Does that mean you're not smart?"

Pretty simple argument really.

[Captain Stern]

5. I agree that your agrument is simple, and should win people over.

I'm right there with you.

I think your argument should win a lot of people over.

But I'm betting your argument really doesn't win all that many people over. I think if it did, you would have said it did. But, you didn't say that.

Instead you just said what your argument was.

It's sad, but it is what it is. When a 'rich' person games the system they're clever, and they should be admired. When a poor person does the same thing they are (usually, not always) labeled as a lazy person that is trying to game the system to get something for nothing.....which is exactly what is happening when somebody that makes a ton of money manages to legally avoid paying income taxes is doing.

[titaniumsalute]

6. Well who knows really

Most people I know intimately think along the same lines or close to me. When I discuss something like this with someone I don't typically know well who knows. What I tend to see often when debating something like this is to deliver it softly and in sort of a question? "Don't you think it is unfair that someone who use the police/fire/Air Traffic Controllers/Roads as me and you get those same services but try skirt paying for them? You don't find that to be bullshit?" I've never had anyone say no to that. Now who knows what they said or thought after we parted ways.

[Faux pas]

3. Kickin' for the truth!

[Mosby]

7. if a business didn't make a profit in a given year

What do they pay taxes on exactly?

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. It's the carry over of business lossses

that I have a problem with, where they avoid taxes in future years because of past losses.

[titaniumsalute]

11. If a business legit doesn't make a profit then yes they don't have to pay taxes necessarily

But think of a few things.

1. There are hundreds of ways to hide profit, declare business losses, etc. Especially big businesses with weird offshore or foriegn accounts.

2. If I bring in revenue (my income) and I spend more than I should I still pay taxes right? Should a company be required to pay gross revenue taxes of some sort? They are still using the tax revenue via the government in many ways no?

[fescuerescue]

9. I don't think that is a good narrative

When I was poor, I sure as hell didn't pay Federal taxes (other than sales taxes etc), and I used roads, tunnels, highways, bridges and even an airport once. The military protected me and the FDA insured my medicines were safe.

I am not a thief, nor did I steal from the US Treasury.

The solution isn't to villify those who legally pay little or no taxes.

The solution is to fix the tax system that so that the wealthy always pay.

[ElboRuumRedux]

10. Unfortunately, I think you're kind of getting this backwards.

The problem isn't that "it is smart if you can avoid paying taxes."

Consider your own taxes. Where possible, you take deductions as permitted by the law, correct? If you are really "smart" and you have a business, you hire a tax professional whose job it is to chew through the obscenely intricate tax law looking for all applicable deductions, arcane or otherwise, to make sure you pay the least amount possible in taxes. If you are really "smart" you have these same tax professionals offer advice on how to position your assets to minimize your tax liability.

To me, this doesn't represent a moral problem for the taxpayer, whose participation in the taxation system is obligated by law. Therefore, I see tax payment as nothing more than a math problem to be applied in such a way to minimize one's own liability.

If there is a moral problem, then I lay that firmly at the feet of the Congress of the United States and the legislative bodies of the 50 states and commonwealths which, through both hook and crook, created the loopholes and lobbied legislative graft that makes our tax code one such that the wealthier you are, the more tools you have at your disposal to hide your assets from taxation.

He's no more a thief in this regard than either you or I who are doing the SAME THING, only on a much smaller scale and in a much more limited manner.

What is really required is a major overhaul of the tax code which eliminates a majority of these tax sheltering schemes and limits deductions to only those activities which actually reduce the financial burden of the state.

Short answer, the only reason Trump can say "FUCK YOU" is because over the course of many decades, we collectively engineered a system where it was possible for him to do so.

[titaniumsalute]

12. The problem is without a tax return(s) we have no idea if it is even legit

Yes Congress needs to tighten up the tax laws and loopholes. But companies also need to stop using off-shore tax havens and shady business practices to screw the system. I used to own a business. Our first accountant openly asked if he could "hide" Certain profits in a way that most likely wouldn't trigger an audit. I said NO WAY!

Morality isn't just about laws. It is also about the right thing to do. A company can choose to treat employees well or lousy. Either way is technically legal. But what is the right thing to do?

And you have no idea of he is a thief or not. Let's see the tax returns and maybe we can determine that pretty quickly.

[ElboRuumRedux]

13. Well, that's one way of looking at it.

At the minimum, we are at least agreed that action by Congress is the only real solution to this problem. If the game is set up to reward the "creative accountant", then the results will inevitably be what you see, everyone "gaming" a system with built-in "flaws". Again, companies only use off-shore tax havens and shady business practices because the system ITSELF allows them to be used.

For what it's worth, I think it shows great strength of character on your part to tell your accountant that his particular brand of "creativity" wasn't welcome in your business. But I stop short of calling it a moral question. Taxation is an amoral act bred of a necessary means to an end. It's purpose is to fund the government in the execution of its responsibilities. It is with those that are put in a position of adjudicating the fairness of tax collection and passing law that morality is the question of import.

The moral question here isn't about whether the tax law allowed Donald Trump to hide his assets from taxation. If there is any fault as to how Trump could hide his assets from taxation, it lies in the kowtowing to both the corporations and the rich and their lobbyists that Congress has engaged in for a good 40+ years. It took a great amount of graft to get them to write tax law that rewards those who bought this support with nice little hidey-holes for their fortunes. No, the moral question is, does Trump have the stones to release his tax returns to a hostile Congress? Probably not. I have great confidence that what his tax returns will likely show at least some curious or odd issues, generating suspicion even if not pointing to wholesale malfeasance.

You are right, I have no idea if he is a thief or not. The funny thing is, I don't NEED to know if he is or not. The fact that he makes me consider the QUESTION is good enough to disqualify him as a legitimate President in my mind. If I have to ask, he is already too untrustworthy to hold the mantle of responsibility that the office requires.

Plus, I believe in the philosophical poignancy of the duck test here. The amount Trump doesn't want us to know about his affairs is generally seen to be in this great quantity only for those who stand to lose much by their revelation. Quacks like a duck if you ask me.