TexasCHLforum.com

Using the law, to save yourself money, is immoral. My sister is a big, huge, liberal. She used to help write U.S. tax laws and uses those laws to her advantage. Trying to save money is normal and using the law to do it is smart no matter what "party" you belong to.
I ignore all gunbuster signs. Again, I'm using the law to my advantage.

2firfun50 wrote:I wonder how many American jobs the "paper companies" create?

2firfun50 wrote:Then there is Ryan

Now that there is funny, I don't care who y'are.

Teamless wrote:So if a person is being legal, but maybe not moral (and remember, "morality" is in the eye of the person, not in "all people"), then they should be shunned?

I don't know if they should be shunned but I know many people who choose to avoid socializing with other people they think are dishonest or sinful.

Full disclosure... I advocate adoption of The Fair Tax. Get the books and read up on it if you haven't.

Anyway, I have been CEO and General Counsel of a group of corporations ultimately owned offshore since the early '90's, from which I have just retired. If there are any of the kind of tax loopholes being reported, I'd like to know what they are. US citizens can't get any of these mentioned. In our case, the ultimate owners were not US citizens, so this arrangement made sense but there were no tax savings because of it. In fact, income earned in the US by a non-US taxpayer gets a 30% tax without the ability to file a tax return to claim any exemptions or deductions.

For example, if our US entity owned an investment, say 100,000 shares of Coco-Cola, it would pay tax with the dividends being included as gross income and any deductions would be claimed, salaries, rent, etc., tax calculated on the balance. If our offshore entity owned those same shares, it would have deducted by Coco-Cola or its broker, 30% of the dividend, but would not have to file a tax return or claim any of the deductible expenses it might be allowed as a US taxpaying entity. No edge there!

I was advised that if a US taxpayer owned 25% or more of a foreign entity, a corporation in Cayman, a corporation in, say, France, Egypt, Viet Nam, Cook Islands etc., the 25% shareholder had to include the 25% share of the revenues and expenses on his individual return... no loophole there. I didn't ever have the opportunity to see this in real life as we didn't ever do anything like that.

It is inconceivable to me that anyone of the stature of Romney, with his purpose the last many years, would cut corners on tax returns. Of course, Gary Hart took that boat ride, and Nixon, well, we know about that.

The fascination with Romney's returns is solely to generate envy and jealousy, class warfare. Obama has never had to run against anyone who is squeaky clean before, no ex-wives to rat him out, no mistresses to parade, weeping on talk shows, no rap sheet to pour over salivating for squalid past conduct. It's a problem. You have to do the best you can with what you have, though and this is a challenge.

Teamless wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.

So if a person is being legal, but maybe not moral (and remember, "morality" is in the eye of the person, not in "all people"), then they should be shunned?
And they shouldn't be smart enough to know the in's and out's of the laws? And if they are smart enough, you should punish them?

I have an idea, make the laws without loopholes, until then, well, I cant see punishing them.

Lets think about this in relation to our carrying concealed weapons, legally, in the Great State of Texas.
I walk up to a business, they have a gun buster sign, or an all 4413.ee sign, and I walk right on by the sign into the business carrying my concealed weapon, still legally.
Is that a loophole?
Is that morally OK, even thought it is legally OK?

Now this is a good analogy. Did anyone counter to this? Way to go Teamless.

JALLEN wrote:Full disclosure... I advocate adoption of The Fair Tax. Get the books and read up on it if you haven't.

I think a fair tax is great if it's really fair, i.e. no loopholes. (Deductions. Exemptions. Credits. Adjustments. Etc.)

Funny how there is so much attention paid to what Romney does with HIS money and so little about what Obama has done with OUR money.

I'm concerned about the latter, not the former.

bizarrenormality wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Full disclosure... I advocate adoption of The Fair Tax. Get the books and read up on it if you haven't.

I think a fair tax is great if it's really fair, i.e. no loopholes. (Deductions. Exemptions. Credits. Adjustments. Etc.)

The Fair Tax does all that and more besides. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

It is a tax on consumption, not income. The tax is collected on purchases of new goods and services sold to consumer for the first time. All other Federal taxes are repealed, no more Income Tax, Social Security tax etc. Every family is given a monthly allowance of the tax on basic living needs. I urge you to read up on this with an open mind.

JALLEN wrote:Every family is given a monthly allowance of the tax on basic living needs.

That's not fair. That's socialism.

bizarrenormality wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Every family is given a monthly allowance of the tax on basic living needs.

That's not fair. That's socialism. [ Image ]

I disagree. The "prebate" is a way to allow everyone their basic needs without taxes, therefore heading off the, "you're taxing the poor" argument. If you only buy basic necessities you pay no taxes, and that goes for everyone equally, if you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy any more than poverty level spending.

It will be the people who spend the most on new items that pay the most taxes, and those are the people who can afford to spend it. It will reward people for saving, it will remove the necessity of businesses to manage taxes as part of their business model (you realize we as a country spends hundreds of "man-lives", not man-hours, every year figuring taxes), and it will bring billions of dollars back into our economy as a "tax haven" from off shore.

I really don't see a downside to the FairTax, unless you are a lobbyist or CPA, but the latter can find work in a thriving economy, and the former can... well, I don't care.

I've been a proponent of the FairTax for many years.