Trump and federal taxes, NYT

[Rogar]

I agree that a VAT or flat tax would be appealing and eliminate some of the convolutions of our complicated tax code. Tax code revision seems to come up every election, but I think that degree of simplification is just too big a change for people to handle and too many special interests among the law makers.

I also agree that the term loophole may depend on the user of the word, but I just did a simple search and these are what at least one source considers "tax loopholes" that are available to the wealthy. Probably the one that comes up most often is the capital gains tax, which allows people like Warren Buffet be in a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that truly the intent of a progressive tax structure, or is it the best way to stimulate investment growth that benefits everyone?
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...it-rich-1.aspx

[bae]

...I just did a simple search and these are what at least one source considers "tax loopholes" that are available to the wealthy. Probably the one that comes up most often is the capital gains tax, which allows people like Warren Buffet be in a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that truly the intent of a progressive tax structure, or is it the best way to stimulate investment growth that benefits everyone?

I'd hardly call capital gains treatment a "loophole". You might want to look into *why* capital gains is treated differently than "regular" income. And what has to change to "fairly" treat the two types of income "the same".

Playing the "Warren Buffet tax rate" card is sloppy thinking.

[jp1]

One of the sillier aspects of this kerfuffle is that despite the lugubrious tears shed for those "tens of millions of working families" neither Mrs. Clinton nor the Times have demurred from tax avoidance strategies when it served their interests.

http://spectator.org/hypocrisy-alert...voiding-taxes/

Except that she only wrote off $3000 of capital loss. Not quite the same thing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10...p-taxes/213487

[sweetana3]

I do not consider myself wealthy but capital gains relief is available to me. There is also an exclusion for much of the gain on the sale of a personal home. How is one different from the other under the definition of "loophole"? Do you think your charitable contributions are different from someone with more income? Sure it saves them some more tax but it is because of a higher tax bracket. And, if you don't itemize your deductions, some % is built into the standard deduction.

Worked for the IRS for 31 years. In the 70s, I could recomputed a return using a pencil and paper and maybe 15 minutes. No % relationships, fancy combinations, multiple definitions, etc. It is crazy now. Even the definition of child can take pages and "depends".

I truly believe that taxes are messed up due to a lot of the globalization and movement of income as well as manufacturing to different countries to make use of their more liberal laws and lower taxes. Ireland is a master of this.

[LDAHL]

Except that she only wrote off $3000 of capital loss. Not quite the same thing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10...p-taxes/213487

Not in quantity, but certainly in quality. She's carrying forward a 2008 loss.

[Alan]

Ireland is a master of this.

My company bought a division of an Irish corporation and before you knew it we were an Irish plc, our corporate headquarters were in a castle, every other new employee was named Declan and we had a 13% effective tax rate.

[LDAHL]

I do not consider myself wealthy but capital gains relief is available to me. There is also an exclusion for much of the gain on the sale of a personal home. How is one different from the other under the definition of "loophole"? Do you think your charitable contributions are different from someone with more income? Sure it saves them some more tax but it is because of a higher tax bracket. And, if you don't itemize your deductions, some % is built into the standard deduction.

Worked for the IRS for 31 years. In the 70s, I could recomputed a return using a pencil and paper and maybe 15 minutes. No % relationships, fancy combinations, multiple definitions, etc. It is crazy now. Even the definition of child can take pages and "depends".

I truly believe that taxes are messed up due to a lot of the globalization and movement of income as well as manufacturing to different countries to make use of their more liberal laws and lower taxes. Ireland is a master of this.

I was in grad school in the eighties, and remember being really ticked off that I took my tax courses right before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 made things (relatively) a lot simpler. You only had to put the codifications of the before and after IRCs next to each other to see the difference. Of course, a lot of new barnacles have accumulated since then, but at the time it was considered a great accomplishment.

It now seems like it was easier to outlive the USSR than the urge to tinker with taxes.

[Rogar]

I'd hardly call capital gains treatment a "loophole". You might want to look into *why* capital gains is treated differently than "regular" income. And what has to change to "fairly" treat the two types of income "the same".

Playing the "Warren Buffet tax rate" card is sloppy thinking.

Buffet is a little cliche. Maybe they should have used the Mitt Romney example.

[jp1]

Not in quantity, but certainly in quality. She's carrying forward a 2008 loss.

And in a few hundred thousand years she will have written off the same amount as him. She still paid over $3 million in taxes last year. But yes, if she hadn't been so 'devious' she would have paid perhaps an extra $1140.

[LDAHL]

My company bought a division of an Irish corporation and before you knew it we were an Irish plc, our corporate headquarters were in a castle, every other new employee was named Declan and we had a 13% effective tax rate.

I see the EU is demanding the Irish collect back taxes from Apple. They can't dictate member countries' tax policy, but the "Commissioner of Competition" believes Apple's preference for deploying capital where it is taxed more lightly is "unfair".