D'Oh-bama!: If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

And you can't fault people who aren't able to exploit the same loopholes for being pissed off and wanting to know if their prospective leaders...the one who is suppose to represent America, is getting away with paying less tax by moving money out of America.

 

Nonsense. Cheating has many definitions, and exploiting loopholes could certainly fit within some of the commonly used definitions.

Again, not remotely true. If you create shell corporations that were added to the tax code for one use, but figure out a way to use them for a different use - to avoid taxes - that would certainly fit under "tricking the system." Exploiting a loophole is the definition of tricking the system - because the system wasn't designed to be used that way.

Immoral is in the eye of the beholder because morality is subjective - just because doing that is not immoral to you doesn't mean that applies to everyone else.

I do agree that nothing that has been suggested as of yet would be considered illegal.

 

Didn't Elizabeth Warren make a pseudo-famous speech along the same lines as Obama did here? Of course, in the minds of the far right, Warren is basically a socialist devilwoman, so it's not surprising they don't like Obama hitting them with a dose of reality.

 

Romney To Olympians: ‘You Didn’t Get Here Solely On Your Own’

"You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."

 

Sorry, but legally exploiting loopholes is not cheating.

That's where you're wrong. If the system weren't designed to be used that way, it wouldn't be used that way.

 

lol, same thing!

 

Is it your contention that no system has ever been used in a way it wasn't designed for?

 

If a system were being misused, then the rules would be modified to prevent further misuse.

 

Real world no work that way pangloss.

 

Actually, it does. Tax loopholes are not cheating. After all, it is the set of rules that creates the loophole and if you are abiding by the rules than you are playing the game as intended.

The tax code needs to be completely revised to eliminate the complexity for everyone and simultaneously closing all loopholes so that they do not just favor those with wealth and CPA's. I am also in favor of a federal consumption tax as a supplement or replacement for the federal income tax system.

Our economy will eventually only be sustainable if it is a steady-state economy. The current path of consuming until there is nothing left to consume is highly irresponsible.

 

If evading taxes and taking advantage of loopholes is perfectly fine and dandy, then why isn't Romney releasing his tax returns?

If all he's got to worry about is perfectly legal loopholes, why is it a big deal for him?

 

Obviously either his story about not willfully granting his opposition ammunition is accurate or there are some imperfectly legal loopholes involved.

This does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with using a legal loophole in the system. In fact, some of the legal loopholes are there by design. If there is something wrong with them you change the law. Unfortunately, the people who vote on such things are often the people who stand to benefit from them.

Now I have a question for you - do you willfully pay more to the government in taxes than is required by law?

 

Romney must be trolling now.

 

That's not true at all. If you have said you will be faithful to your wife every single day you're on this Earth, and you end up going to the moon and cheating on her, do you think she'll think "oh, nothing wrong with that"? Intent matters. And, by definition, exploiting a loophole means going around the intent. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a loophole.

That's pretty naive and silly. You assume Congress is perfectly functional and can change laws anytime they are considered wrong or unfair. You think every law currently on the books works exactly as it was intended? You think Congress intended millionaire lottery winners to be eligible for welfare?

 

The real world though is stuck with a lot more gray than there is black and white in terms of unlawful tax behavior.

That's why things like the IRS' 2009 Amnesty for swiss bank account holders exist....(which may have been what Mitt is doing here, who knows....).
'
Lots of it turns on intent which is very tricky to prove or judge, ex post.

As for the OP's suggestion that if a problem in the tax code exists, a fresh set of rulemaking swoops in to instantaneously fill the gap...LOLOL.

 

The flaw in your analogy is that your wife is still your wife regardless of where you are. So if you go to the moon and cheat on your wife, that's still adultery.

Like I said before, I think that if Congress sees a law being misused, it will modify the law.

And in regards to your welfare lottery winner allusion, isn't there pending legislation that would re-evaluate a lottery winner's welfare status if he wins more than $1,000?

That sure seems like the govt taking steps to fix a misused law...

 

I suspect there is enough grey in Mitt's returns to keep people talking through the election.

Bottom line is releasing the returns at this point are not going to benefit him in any way - so I understand the strategy. As a citizen I do not agree and would expect more transparency from a candidate for office. It also sets a poor precedent for future candidates.

 

I'm specifically talking about the agreement you made that says "I will be faithful every day I'm here on this earth". If you find a loophole to that and go to the moon, the wife isn't going to say "oh, well that's cool."

I think that's insane. There are endless examples of laws not working the way they intended. In that, that's the whole definition of a loophole:

a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

If the law isn't being misused, it's not a loophole in the first place.

How long have we known about this problem? What is the status of that fix? It sure seems to me like a problem that is NOT being fixed. Just like welfare queens for decades, etc. Do you think when Congress reduced regulations on financial institutions in the 1990s, they intended them to be used as they were in the financial crisis?

You act as though unintended consequences don't exist.

 

She should. Otherwise, the agreement should say "I will be faithful every day."

Taxes aren't being evaded though. The tax code is being followed, and no terms are being violated. He's paying his legally obligated share of taxes.

Like I said before, if the rules aren't fulfilling their intended purpose, they'll be changed.

Of course they exist. But if the rules change, that's the govt's way of addressing the problem. If the rules stay the same, that's the govt's way of condoning it.

 

We don't know this. Hence the reason to release his tax returns (like every presidential candidate before him).

Can you give a legitimate reason why someone would have a Swiss Bank account other than to shield their finances from taxes?