Every loop closed makes tax evasion harder and riskier. There will always be people who do it, like there will always be people killing other people, but it is worth making it hard and risky enough that most people will consider other solutions before resorting to murder/tax evasion.
> What if you make the rules so simple that there are NO loopholes and there is no/little possibility for tax avoidance?
Then we could lower tax "rates", reduce dead weight loss, and increase tax receipts.
But no, we've decided, for example, that home ownership is important for everyone so we subsidize home ownership by letting people write off mortgage interest. This has the unintended effect of driving up prices for homes and encouraging people to buy more home than they need.
When taxes are too high, it causes pathological behavior.
Some people will, even if it nets them less after taxes, minimize taxes paid. "Tax shelters" in the 80's would be all but guaranteed to lose money, and yet people would still buy into them because they would reduce their taxes and pay huge fees based on the total taxes that would be reduced. These arrangements were legal (although the IRS was hawkish on them) but actually made no business sense for investors.
Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing.
Sounds fair. Can I also reduce my income by furnishing my building (home) with equipment (e.g. furniture and appliances) in the same way that commerce can? Would that make sense?
> Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing.
There's only so much housing stock. If more are renting, there's more business in renting, but that mostly affects the mid to upper classes. Do we really want to subsidize urban sprawl? Maybe we do. Maybe we should. Should we do it forever? I... don't like it.
Maybe all subsidies should have a phase-out/sunsetting period to avoid economic shocks while reducing the plethora of loop-holes and market distortions that they create.
I'm not following you here. Rental market dynamics affect the lower and middle classes and the rent/buy margin affects the middle class. If the gulf between renting and buying widens (by buying becoming relatively more expensive), how does that not help landlords (mostly upper-middle and upper class), who in turn achieve increased power over the poor and middle classes (vs the status quo)?
Every 750 credit score, 2 steady income, $100K household income family who doesn't buy a house but instead rents put pressure on someone worse off in the economic stack-rank.
The overall tax rate is too high (or it would be too expensive to lower the overall rate), so politicians give certain people sweetheart deals on certain things because they consider it relevant, thus offering someone, somewhere a tax break. Others are then free to use the same deduction for their benefit.
The wealthy aren't stupid. They're generally quite pragmatic and flexible when it comes to making money.
Loopholes:
- obfuscate the fact that "certain" people, who should be paying 35% are not, in fact, paying a penny.
- give incredible power to the people who decide what "certain" group to reward with them or threaten to withdraw them
No matter how you slice it, if government taxes "income", and your business is set up such that you decide what your "income" is, you can control how much tax you are bound to pay. The only way around it is to make people think that spending more money on more government is a good and sensible thing to do. Or perhaps that spending more money on higher employee payroll is a good and sensible thing to do.
Another is to tax things that are very hard to structure around. Taxing land, taxing stock sales (the SEC section 31 fee), taxing retail purchases, etc.
The problem is that changes also always affect some of the non-rich. You'll never manage to tailor laws so that everyone is hit exactly as desired.
Read: Arbitrary and capricious legislation what will be abused in creative ways. I'd prefer laws remain as objective as possible, and I'm a lot more concerned about bad legislation than 1%ers moving their money around.
You don't want the IRS dictating what they consider to be creative ways. The IRS can not agree with something you've done, but you don't want to end up in a situation where they effectively make the law. That makes no sense at all.
Claiming 'nothing has changed' in this regard is mostly true. There's some more red tape to get through but we're very clearly moving towards a Gilded-Age level of corruption and inequality in the US. Heck, we even put one of these 'enlightened' billionaires in as president!
Wish I had more to contribute to this conversation, but its pretty hopeless as the wealthy can simply propagandize people via their media sources to vote against their interests and can successfully lobby politicians to give them almost anything they want. Trust me, the Koch brothers aren't funding reason.com because they're academics, but because the libertarian philosophy it sells lines their pockets the most. I suspect this is the norm for later-stage capitalist economies that pride themselves on low regulations. High regulatory European economies seem to have a stronger firewall against this compared to the US. This isn't going away barring a massive economic change, perhaps when we can't continue to hide what automation and wealth hoarding are doing to working people. That could be anywhere between 10 and 100 years from now depending on how its handled.
I suspect deep automation will simply lend itself to a new economic and social reality. I just don't envy our kids and grandkids who will have this fight against the status quo. The 'enlightened' wealthy aren't going to concede on anything that affects wealth and status easily.