What is going on with the Big Beautiful Bill?

[McDad]

I have to get some rest, gotta work in the morning will come back to debate another time. I hope everyone has a good, safe night!

Take care, bro.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Sure, the rich do pay the largest share in total federal income taxes because they make the most money. The top 1% earn around 20% of all income and own over 30% of the wealth. Of course they’ll pay a bigger chunk in taxes. But that doesn’t mean the system isn’t tilted in their favor. What matters more is effective tax rate what people actually pay after deductions, loopholes, and write offs. And for many ultra wealthy individuals, that rate ends up being lower than what middle-class families pay. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos they’ve gone years paying little to no federal income tax thanks to asset based income and tax shelters. So yeah, they pay more in raw dollars but the system still gives them more ways to keep and grow their wealth than the average worker.

Musk and Bezos also have years where they paid billions in taxes. You need to the entire story, not the bits and snippets you are getting from BlueSky...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

It’s not about punishing success it’s about making sure the rules aren’t rigged in favor of the already ultra wealthy. I fully recognize that people like Musk or Bezos create jobs and innovation. That’s not the issue. The issue is when they benefit from a tax system that lets them pay a lower effective rate than a nurse, a teacher, or a firefighter. That’s not fair and it’s not sustainable. I’m not against wealth. I’m against a system where people at the top have access to loopholes and special treatment that regular working people don’t. Wanting a fair system isn’t jealousy it’s common sense. The Democratic Party is no different when it comes to tax corruption, they’re as scummy and corrupt as it gets too

the only way to make it fair is to institute a flat tax with no deductions and EVERYBODY pays. NO deductions. For anybody.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So everyone pays the same tax rate across the board with no credits or deductions or in your words, “loopholes?” Everyone writes a check at the end of the year.

No they should pay every month. That way they would be constantly reminded of how much is being taken from them.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Nice strawman. I’m saying the system shouldn’t be designed to let the ultra wealthy avoid paying a fair share through legal tricks that most people can’t access

If they are already paying the lions share of the entire tax bill, how are they not paying their fair share? It’s the working poor that are not paying their fair share if you really want to go down that road. I’m not advocating they pay more, it is just that the old “fair share” schtick is getting really old. You think rich people should pay more like Soetoro said, “because they can afford it”. It’s theft

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

The cost of carried interest is a tiny fraction of that of the SALT deduction, grren energy credits, EITC, and refundable child tax credits. Wonder why the left has no issue with those far more substantial loopholes?

And yes, carried interest loophole should be closed.

 

[hog88]

the only way to make it fair is to institute a flat tax with no deductions and EVERYBODY pays. NO deductions. For anybody.

I’m fine with zero deductions as long as the corporate tax rate is zero.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

If they are already paying the lions share of the entire tax bill, how are they not paying their fair share? It’s the working poor that are not paying their fair share if you really want to go down that road. I’m not advocating they pay more, it is just that the old “fair share” schtick is getting really old. You think rich people should pay more like Soetoro said, “because they can afford it”. It’s theft

I think taxes are a scam in general. But loopholes shouldn’t exist, period.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

The cost of carried interest is a tiny fraction of that of the SALT deduction, grren energy credits, EITC, and refundable child tax credits. Wonder why the left has no issue with those far more substantial loopholes?

And yes, carried interest loophole should be closed.

I don’t get why everything has to be left or right. There’s people on the left that abuse tax loopholes too. I am not a left wing supporter.

 

[hog88]

I think taxes are a scam in general. But loopholes shouldn’t exist, period.

There is no such thing as "tax loopholes".

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think taxes are a scam in general. But loopholes shouldn’t exist, period.

We're getting closer to an agreement. All I would want to see in addition is this to be done via constitutional amendment setting the rate.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

There is no such thing as "tax loopholes".

Then what do you consider them? Elaborate?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I don’t get why everything has to be left or right. There’s people on the left that abuse tax loopholes too. I am not a left wing supporter.

A lot more elite billionaires on the left

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Then what do you consider them? Elaborate?

define 'loophole'. It implies something that only a certain person has access to. I think the job is saying that is not the case.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

We're getting closer to an agreement. All I would want to see in addition is this to be done via constitutional amendment setting the rate.

This I agree with. Everyone pays or doesn’t pay, and nobody can exploit the system.

 

[hog88]

Then what do you consider them? Elaborate?

Tax law that anyone can use if they qualify for that specific provision. Do you consider the EITC and first time homebuyer credits "loopholes"?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

This I agree with. Everyone pays or doesn’t pay, and nobody can exploit the system.

You know as well as I that this is as likely as Congressional term limits though

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Tax law that anyone can use if they qualify for that specific provision. Do you consider the EITC and first time homebuyer credits "loopholes"?

Outstanding point!

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

define 'loophole'. It implies something that only a certain person has access to. I think the job is saying that is not the case.

A tax loophole is more or less a provision or gap in the tax code that allows individuals or companies to reduce their tax liability in ways that are technically legal but often not what the law was originally intended for. It’s not tax evasion, which is illegal it’s legal exploitation of complex rules, usually used by corporations or high net worth individuals to significantly reduce what they owe. These typically require access to special knowledge, legal teams, or specific types of income or investments that most people don’t have, which creates an uneven playing field. hedge fund managers as I’ve mentioned in this thread before, use the carried interest loophole to pay a lower capital gains tax rate (around 20%) on what is basically their income, while regular workers pay up to 37% on theirs. That’s a loophole, it follows the letter of the law, but clearly sidesteps the spirit of it. These are things only the ultra wealthy have the ability to exploit.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

Tax law that anyone can use if they qualify for that specific provision. Do you consider the EITC and first time homebuyer credits "loopholes"?

You’re right that provisions like the EITC or homebuyer credits are clearly intended parts of the tax code they’re designed to benefit specific groups for policy reasons, like helping working class families or encouraging home ownership. That’s not what I mean by loopholes. A loophole is when a tax law is used in a way that clearly sidesteps its original purpose, often to avoid taxes in large amounts like when billionaires borrow against assets to avoid realizing taxable income, or when hedge fund managers use the carried interest rule to pay a lower tax rate on earnings that function like a salary. Yes, they’re legal. But the spirit of those laws wasn’t meant to let the ultra wealthy pay lower effective rates than teachers or nurses. That’s the key difference, a credit that’s meant to help working families isn’t a loophole. A technical maneuver that exploits a law’s structure to save millions, even though the point of the law wasn’t meant to allow that, is. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand or why we are bootlicking billionaires here.

 

[hog88]

You’re right that provisions like the EITC or homebuyer credits are clearly intended parts of the tax code they’re designed to benefit specific groups for policy reasons, like helping working class families or encouraging home ownership. That’s not what I mean by loopholes. A loophole is when a tax law is used in a way that clearly sidesteps its original purpose, often to avoid taxes in large amounts like when billionaires borrow against assets to avoid realizing taxable income, or when hedge fund managers use the carried interest rule to pay a lower tax rate on earnings that function like a salary. Yes, they’re legal. But the spirit of those laws wasn’t meant to let the ultra wealthy pay lower effective rates than teachers or nurses. That’s the key difference, a credit that’s meant to help working families isn’t a loophole. A technical maneuver that exploits a law’s structure to save millions, even though the point of the law wasn’t meant to allow that, is. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand or why we are bootlicking billionaires here.

How could you possibly know what the original intended purpose of a specific tax was? Those codes are not written by politicians, they are written by the people who want them passed into law.

 

[C-south]

A tax loophole is more or less a provision or gap in the tax code that allows individuals or companies to reduce their tax liability in ways that are technically legal but often not what the law was originally intended for. It’s not tax evasion, which is illegal it’s legal exploitation of complex rules, usually used by corporations or high net worth individuals to significantly reduce what they owe. These typically require access to special knowledge, legal teams, or specific types of income or investments that most people don’t have, which creates an uneven playing field. hedge fund managers as I’ve mentioned in this thread before, use the carried interest loophole to pay a lower capital gains tax rate (around 20%) on what is basically their income, while regular workers pay up to 37% on theirs. That’s a loophole, it follows the letter of the law, but clearly sidesteps the spirit of it. These are things only the ultra wealthy have the ability to exploit.

Don’t write lazy laws.

 

[hog88]

Everyone needs to understand what our income tax laws are designed to do, they're not designed to raise revenue for the government. They are written to give the government control over behavior.

The income tax laws are written to keep the lower middle class and working poor dependent on the government.
The upper middle class in their place and in debt.
The wealthy and businesses spending/pumping money back into the economy and not hoarding cash.
Otherwise our fractional reserve banking system would collapse.

 

[Vol423]

We're getting closer to an agreement. All I would want to see in addition is this to be done via constitutional amendment setting the rate.

Dream another dream. It will never happen.

 

[McDad]

You’re right that provisions like the EITC or homebuyer credits are clearly intended parts of the tax code they’re designed to benefit specific groups for policy reasons, like helping working class families or encouraging home ownership. That’s not what I mean by loopholes. A loophole is when a tax law is used in a way that clearly sidesteps its original purpose, often to avoid taxes in large amounts like when billionaires borrow against assets to avoid realizing taxable income, or when hedge fund managers use the carried interest rule to pay a lower tax rate on earnings that function like a salary. Yes, they’re legal. But the spirit of those laws wasn’t meant to let the ultra wealthy pay lower effective rates than teachers or nurses. That’s the key difference, a credit that’s meant to help working families isn’t a loophole. A technical maneuver that exploits a law’s structure to save millions, even though the point of the law wasn’t meant to allow that, is. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand or why we are bootlicking billionaires here.

My friend, you've bought into a public relations campaign with respect to loopholes. It isn't a "loophole" that people borrow money against assets. Borrowed money is not income. If it was, then every person with a mortgage would have to claim the amount borrowed and pay taxes on that amount.