50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

[Seattle]

You still don't seem to understand what is meant by the term "loophole". If the tax-break / deduction is intended then it is not a loophole. Everything you're exampling is an intended tax-break. If you're going to reply about "loopholes", probably best you refer to actual "loopholes"?

Or maybe it's a "lost in translation" thing?

One person's loophole is another person's deduction. I thought you would understand that. There are no actual "loopholes". They all have an intended benefit. You just agree with some and not others. Do you really not know that?

 

[parmalee]

One person's loophole is another person's deduction. I thought you would understand that. There are no actual "loopholes". They all have an intended benefit. You just agree with some and not others. Do you really not know that?

Nope. A loophole contradicts the stated intention. It's pretty simple.

 

[Sarkus]

One person's loophole is another person's deduction. I thought you would understand that. There are no actual "loopholes". They all have an intended benefit. You just agree with some and not others. Do you really not know that?

From wiki:
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

From Merriam Webster
": 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"
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

From Oxford Learners Dictionaries
"loophole (in something) a mistake in the way a law, contract, etc. has been written that enables people to legally avoid doing something that the law, contract, etc. had intended them to do"
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/loophole


Tax avoidance schemes that are set up by governments and are used as intended are therefore not loopholes, as the activity taken in line with that scheme would be to achieve the intended purpose.

I could go on, but I think this is settled. And as said, maybe it's lost in translation.

 

[billvon]

There are no actual "loopholes". They all have an intended benefit. You just agree with some and not others. Do you really not know that?

No, many are unintended, a consequence of a well meaning politician who does not understand the tax code. For example, the extracted fuel use tax exemption.

 

[Seattle]

From wiki:
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

From Merriam Webster
": 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"
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

From Oxford Learners Dictionaries
"loophole (in something) a mistake in the way a law, contract, etc. has been written that enables people to legally avoid doing something that the law, contract, etc. had intended them to do"
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/loophole


Tax avoidance schemes that are set up by governments and are used as intended are therefore not loopholes, as the activity taken in line with that scheme would be to achieve the intended purpose.

I could go on, but I think this is settled. And as said, maybe it's lost in translation.

It's not lost in translation. It's lost in literalness. The subjects that we are talking about aren't actually loopholes just because someone labels them that way. If I call you an idiot and then define idiot correctly that doesn't mean that you are actually an idiot.

 

[Seattle]

Nope. A loophole contradicts the stated intention. It's pretty simple.

It is pretty simple. However defining loophole doesn't mean that a label is correct. You could stay that all Billionaires are morally corrupt and then you could show the dictionary definition of morally corrupt. Yet, most Billionaires aren't actually morally corrupt.


Which are the actual loopholes that you object to?

 

[river]

Tax cuts for the rich never actually trickles down to the benifit of the middle class .

 

[parmalee]

It is pretty simple. However defining loophole doesn't mean that a label is correct. You could stay that all Billionaires are morally corrupt and then you could show the dictionary definition of morally corrupt. Yet, most Billionaires aren't actually morally corrupt.

The definition matters only if you think that words are actually supposed to mean something, you are not a pathological liar, and you believe that willful deception is the incorrect approach towards legislating and governance. So clearly none of that applies to you.

 

[parmalee]

Also, what the fuck is this?

You could stay that all Billionaires are morally corrupt and then you could show the dictionary definition of morally corrupt. Yet, most Billionaires aren't actually morally corrupt.

You could also say that all boats are big and then you could show the dictionary definition of big. Yet, most boats aren't actually big. So?! What exactly are you trying to say? Is your brain really this fried?

 

[Seattle]

Also, what the fuck is this?

You could also say that all boats are big and then you could show the dictionary definition of big. Yet, most boats aren't actually big. So?! What exactly are you trying to say? Is your brain really this fried?

Why be a jerk? It's a choice isn't it? There are no "loopholes". There are laws and exceptions that are for a purpose. You disagree with some of them, I guess? I don't think you even know enough to know which ones you disagree with. You haven't given it any thought have you? Isn't it just a "feeling"?

Are you saying you have no problem with capital gains rates? What exactly do you have a problem with? It it just about semantics? Are you OCD? Is that the problem? Do you just have a problem with everything?

 

[parmalee]

There are no "loopholes".

From wiki:
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

From Merriam Webster
": 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"
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

From Oxford Learners Dictionaries
"loophole (in something) a mistake in the way a law, contract, etc. has been written that enables people to legally avoid doing something that the law, contract, etc. had intended them to do"
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/loophole

If a law is named "tax cuts for the rich" and it provides tax cuts for the rich, then there is no loophole. If a law is named "funding for cat ranchers" but it actually provides tax cuts for the rich via some means which is not readily apparent, then that would be an example of a loophole. A ten year old child, of average intelligence, should be able to understand this--why can't you? Are you simply lying, or are you, in fact, this stupid?

 

[Seattle]

From wiki:
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

From Merriam Webster
": 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"
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

From Oxford Learners Dictionaries
"loophole (in something) a mistake in the way a law, contract, etc. has been written that enables people to legally avoid doing something that the law, contract, etc. had intended them to do"
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/loophole

If a law is named "tax cuts for the rich" and it provides tax cuts for the rich, then there is no loophole. If a law is named "funding for cat ranchers" but it actually provides tax cuts for the rich via some means which is not readily apparent, then that would be an example of a loophole. A ten year old child, of average intelligence, should be able to understand this--why can't you? Are you simply lying, or are you, in fact, this stupid?

It's apparent, at this point, that you are stupid. No law is named "tax cuts for the rich" and the Trump personal tax cuts that are now to be extended, is labeled by the Progressives, as a "tax cut for the rich". In fact, it's just a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes.

As a self-promoted literate person, why can't you understand that?

 

[parmalee]

It's apparent, at this point, that you are stupid. No law is named "tax cuts for the rich" and the Trump personal tax cuts that are now to be extended, is labeled by the Progressives, as a "tax cut for the rich". In fact, it's just a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes.

As a self-promoted literate person, why can't you understand that?

It's apparent, at this point, that you are either lying or are in the early stages of dementia. If the former, why would I even bother continuing here? If the latter, then it would be unnecessarily cruel for me to continue. Therefore, I'm out.

 

[Seattle]

It's apparent, at this point, that you are either lying or are in the early stages of dementia. If the former, why would I even bother continuing here? If the latter, then it would be unnecessarily cruel for me to continue. Therefore, I'm out.

You don't have to announce it when you have no answer and chose to leave.

 

[river]

Tax cuts are aimed at the rich . Not the middle class .

 

[parmalee]

Let's see how this goes:

No law is named "tax cuts for the rich"

Did anyone say that there was a law named "tax cuts for the rich"? No, they did not. That's your strawman. Interestingly, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is, and yet you make strawman arguments all the time--almost exclusively, in fact.

and the Trump personal tax cuts that are now to be extended, is labeled by the Progressives, as a "tax cut for the rich". In fact, it's just a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes.

Again, what people are labelling as "tax cuts for the rich" are the portions of the tax cuts which are, in fact, tax cuts for the rich. This has been explained to you at least a dozen times now. So, again, you are presenting a strawman--which, as noted, is almost exclusively what you do.

Now demonstrate that you can actually respond to what is written, without having to rely upon fabulation.

 

[billvon]

You could stay that all Billionaires are morally corrupt and then you could show the dictionary definition of morally corrupt. Yet, most Billionaires aren't actually morally corrupt.

But some are.

Just like most loopholes are not unintended. But some are indeed unintended.

Case in point - the previously mentioned extracted fuel exemption. It was a Washington State law that allowed sawmills to reuse their own waste (sawdust) for heating without paying any tax on it. This made a lot of sense when it was passed in 1949 - it encouraged sawmills to use their own waste for energy, thus improving energy efficiency and reducing waste, because otherwise they'd have to dispose of tons of sawdust.

Then refineries started opening in the state. And by the letter of the law, the refinery would not have to pay any tax on anything they produced that they used themselves. This was contrary to the intent of the law, which was to exempt material that would otherwise be wasted. The legislature recognized this mistake and rectified it in 2015. But for over 50 years, there was a big unintended loophole in Washington tax law.