Support NeoGAF

[FLEABttn]

I read it and it's disgusting. I'm trying to support my family and save for retirement and this shit only hurts that cause. I'm lucky we were just able to pay off our auto loans a couple months back. But the fucking student debt might as well be a mortgage in and of itself. So essentially I'll be at a higher tax rate just because I barely make more than 500k? Absurd. It'd be different if I were even at 750k but essentially 505k for 3 people and another on the way with the already absurd health cost, cost of living etc. it's just not helping and I'm pissed.

In what world do you like in where 1) $500K+ per year is middle class 2) $500k is barely enough to pay off your auto loans, and 3) where your money overwhelmingly comes from capital gains. You didn't read what's going on or you're trolling.

 

[bodyboarder]

In what world do you like in where 1) $500K+ per year is middle class 2) $500k is barely enough to pay off your auto loans, and 3) where your money overwhelmingly comes from capital gains. You didn't read what's going on or you're trolling.

Lamborghini's don't pay themselves off.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Even if it was for all incomes, I wouldn't call it "destructive" to the middle class. Capital gains should be taxed even higher IMO. Most middle class people earn money through their wages so any marginal tax increase on capital gains is unlikely to do real damage.

It certainly wouldn't help.

Even though employer based retirement plans are not subject to capital gains tax, it can only deter people from making general investments.

 

[Fuzzy]

If you really want to tax the rich then you don't go after their income because they can hide that, you go after their spending. Implement a luxury tax for big ticket items.

 

[Blues1990]

It started as an insult from the right trying to claim that he is acting like a monarch by issuing executive orders and so it's used by everyone else as sarcastic joke

Man, it's a lot like in the cartoon "Porky in Wackyland," when a three-headed monster (which looked like the Three Stooges mushed into one) was walking by, and then a small creature had explained to the audience that the monster said "His Mother was scared by a pawnbroker's sign!" I get that pawnbroker shops had three metal balls as the symbol of the business they do, similar to barber shops having the striped pole, and the three round heads are like those three balls. But, like calling the President of the United States a king, it's still a weird insult/sarcastic joke. :/

 

[terrene]

Pretty much this. I can't believe I am agreeing with Terrene, but if Obama were serious about any of this it would have come to the table BEFORE republicans controlled everything. The only reason he's dropping all these bombs left and right is to make life tougher for Congress in the next few years.

HEY! What's so bad about agreeing with me?

 

[hipbabboom]

The fact that the two richest Americans have come out and flat-out said that they're not being taxed nearly what they should be taxed tells you something yet when someone tries to fix it. The uneducated

Spoiler

relatively

poor swallow the lie from the rich that this will hurt the poor more then it hurts them.

Spoiler

Nothing will change

 

[MauMau]

The fact that the two richest Americans have come out and flat-out said that they're not being taxed nearly what they should be taxed tells you something yet when someone tries to fix it. The uneducated

Spoiler

relatively

poor swallow the lie from the rich that this will hurt the poor more then it hurts them.

Spoiler

Nothing will change

There's a way to give the government more money if you feel you aren't being taxed enough.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._wants_you_or_at_least_your_spare_change.html

Since 1996, Americans have donated about $26 million to reducing federal indebtedness, which represents 0.00018 percent of the current national debt.

The article is from 2011, so it amounts to roughly $1.7 million per year. I don't think either person you have mentioned have done that based on the amount given...

Warren Buffet should put his money where his mouth is if he cares that much about it.

 

[hipbabboom]

There's a way to give the government more money if you feel you aren't being taxed enough.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._wants_you_or_at_least_your_spare_change.html



The article is from 2011, so it amounts to roughly $1.7 million per year. I don't think either person you have mentioned have done that based on the amount given...

Warren Buffet should put his money where his mouth is if he cares that much about it.

Or fix the broken system. Buffet's position was that the rich have means afforded to them by the government to avoid taxes in ways normal American citizens cannot and the taxes they end up paying is dis-proportionate to their wealth. Having him and Bill Gates pay their fair share does not fix it for the other 10's of thousands that are still abusing the system.

 

[DragonGirl]

Ugh. Daycare is not the option this country should move toward. Let people be with their children.

......People have the option to be with their children. This is the option desired by parents who work.

 

[GaimeGuy]

......People have the option to be with their children. This is the option desired by parents who work.

What? In nearly every country on the planet, you have a child, you get at least a few months (Some countries a full year) of full pay to not go to work, but to stay at home and nurture and raise your newborn.

In America, raising your newborn isn't an option for a lot of families because there's no paid maternity leave, and both parents have to work to pay the bills. So you end up with the kid being raised at a daycare or by a babysitter, or grandma/grandpa, instead of mom and dad

 

[Coriolanus]

Warren Buffet should put his money where his mouth is if he cares that much about it.

He did.

 

[Maxim726X]

The real problem is tax loop holes... Research an S-Corp, you'd be amazed at the tax benefits. And basically anyone can become one, assuming you can afford an accountant of course.

You can raise rates all you want- they're playing an entirely different game than the average American.

 

[ISOM]

The real problem is tax loop holes... Research an S-Corp, you'd be amazed at the tax benefits. And basically anyone can become one, assuming you can afford an accountant of course.

You can raise rates all you want- they're playing an entirely different game than the average American.

You should actually read what Obama is proposing, instead of just blanketed complaints.

 

[Konka]

What? In nearly every country on the planet, you have a child, you get at least a few months (Some countries a full year) of full pay to not go to work, but to stay at home and nurture and raise your newborn.

In America, raising your newborn isn't an option for a lot of families because there's no paid maternity leave, and both parents have to work to pay the bills. So you end up with the kid being raised at a daycare or by a babysitter, or grandma/grandpa, instead of mom and dad

The Scandinavian model uses daycare extensively and I think you're off base with what you're proposing. Not everyone wants to stay home away from work for 6 months after they have a child.

"I never once thought about not going back to work after having Martha," says Mette Miller-Harris, cuddling her 13-month-old daughter. "The only person who asked me whether I had thought about giving up my job was an English friend."

As Martha totters across the wooden floorboards of the Copenhagen flat of Mette and her husband, Christian, the 34-year-old ministry of justice lawyer adds: "I don't know anyone who is a stay-at-home mother, and none of my mother's friends was either. Nearly all women go back to work after having children in Denmark."

The flexible-hours culture in Denmark means that either Mette or Christian can pick Martha up between 3pm and 4pm. Christian, 33, who is building a career as a freelance scriptwriter, said: "We get to spend a lot of time with Martha. Fathers here are very involved in their children's lives. Most men I know take about three months' paternity leave."

He points out that, while they both have to work for financial reasons, what makes their setup viable is the affordable cost of childcare. In Denmark families pay up to 25% of the cost of day care, with those on low incomes or single parents paying between nothing and 25% of the cost, with discounts for siblings. The government makes up the difference.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/18/britain-learn-denmark-childcare-model

The Government should help facilitate options for child care, not a one size fits all option.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The real problem is tax loop holes... Research an S-Corp, you'd be amazed at the tax benefits. And basically anyone can become one, assuming you can afford an accountant of course.

You can raise rates all you want- they're playing an entirely different game than the average American.

And now I guess we're referring to entire subchapters of the Internal Revenue Code as "loopholes."

SMH.

 

[thepotatoman]

And now I guess we're referring to entire subchapters of the Internal Revenue Code as "loopholes."

SMH.

In common language, it does seem that loopholes are basically any exceptions put in place to go around the law, even though in legal terminology loopholes refer to people abusing the ambiguity of a law to do something the law didn't intend.

Language is a constantly evolving thing. If a term somehow changes, I say go with it. If that means the tax break for renewable energy companies to incentivize people to invest in renewable energy is a loophole, then it's a loophole.

That would also mean the two largest loopholes are the mortgage deductible, and the charitable donation deductible.

 

[numble]

And now I guess we're referring to entire subchapters of the Internal Revenue Code as "loopholes."

SMH.

I think it is fine to use the term "loophole" to refer to exceptions to a general rule, even if intentionally created. It is fine to say parties are intentionally inserting loopholes in the law. As a tax lawyer, clients often ask me if there are any loopholes available for their situation, and I am not going to be a pedant about their use of the term--I know they also want to know about intentionally created exceptions that allow them to avoid the general rule. You will not get many happy clients if you feel the need to lecture them about legal terminology, save that for Moot Court.

I could care less if you feel a need to be a pedant about the use of the term. For all intensive purposes, people understand the term's use.

 

[Halvie]

The fact that the two richest Americans have come out and flat-out said that they're not being taxed nearly what they should be taxed tells you something yet when someone tries to fix it. The uneducated

Spoiler

relatively

poor swallow the lie from the rich that this will hurt the poor more then it hurts them.

Spoiler

Nothing will change

/

 

[Metaphoreus]

In common language, it does seem that loopholes are basically any exceptions put in place to go around the law, even though in legal terminology loopholes refer to people abusing the ambiguity of a law to do something the law didn't intend.

I think it is fine to use the term "loophole" to refer to exceptions to a general rule, even if intentionally created. It is fine to say parties are intentionally inserting loopholes in the law. As a tax lawyer, clients often ask me if there are any loopholes available for their situation, and I am not going to be a pedant about their use of the term--I know they also want to know about intentionally created exceptions that allow them to avoid the general rule. You will not get many happy clients if you feel the need to lecture them about legal terminology, save that for Moot Court.

My problem with using the term "loophole" is that it implies something untoward--that some clever lawyer or accountant (not "clever" as in "I just read this introductory tax law book" but "clever" as in "I can get a type of trust named after you once we win this case") has sneakily discovered a way to avoid the intended effect of a law. To use it is to stack the rhetorical deck, to poison the well, so that any discussion of a provision will be automatically biased against the provision on the basis of the term's connotations rather than on the basis of the provision's merits.

So it is in the case of the "Trust Fund Loophole" (which gets bonus points for using the menacing phrase "Trust Fund" to refer to a provision that has precious little to do with trusts). The term "loophole" implies that this was an oversight, and brings to mind the image of high-paid lawyers and accountants of dubious ethics poring over arcane legal texts in a smoke-filled room to find an "out" from their fat cat client's taxes. Of course you'd want to close the "Trust Fund Loophole"! My God, do those sleazy lawyers and accountants know no shame?! That's quite a different reaction from the one you'd have if you realized that the nightmare-inducing "Trust Fund Loophole" is actually just section 1014 of the IRC, intentionally enacted by Congress in broad daylight for the benefit of every person who receives property from a decedent and--again--having precious little to do with trusts.

So, numble, I won't begrudge you the right to present yourself to your clients as a Tax Superlawyer simply because you know about S corps. But when discussing the merits of a proposal to amend the tax laws, I'll continue to criticize the lazy thinking embodied in the improper use of the term "loophole."

EDIT: Notice how my first post complaining about the term "loophole" in this thread was in response to Future saying:

How about we just close all the loopholes

and thepotatoman saying:

Is the trust fund loophole able to be addressed through executive action?

Clearly he needs congress to do things like up the capital gains tax, but it seems like loophole fixing might be within his power.

I very much doubt that Future meant, "Why don't we get rid of all deductions?" And I suspect that thepotatoman thought of the "Trust Fund Loophole" in the manner I describe it above, rather than the harmless way he describes it in his comment to which my current comment responds. So, I offer these as evidence that "loophole" carries the connotation I say it does, and distorts the discussion just as I say.

 

[benjipwns]

Loopholes are things that are legal that someone wants to be criminal.

 

[numble]

My problem with using the term "loophole" is that it implies something untoward--that some clever lawyer or accountant (not "clever" as in "I just read this introductory tax law book" but "clever" as in "I can get a type of trust named after you once we win this case") has sneakily discovered a way to avoid the intended effect of a law. To use it is to stack the rhetorical deck, to poison the well, so that any discussion of a provision will be automatically biased against the provision on the basis of the term's connotations rather than on the basis of the provision's merits.

So it is in the case of the "Trust Fund Loophole" (which gets bonus points for using the menacing phrase "Trust Fund" to refer to a provision that has precious little to do with trusts). The term "loophole" implies that this was an oversight, and brings to mind the image of high-paid lawyers and accountants of dubious ethics poring over arcane legal texts in a smoke-filled room to find an "out" from their fat cat client's taxes. Of course you'd want to close the "Trust Fund Loophole"! My God, do those sleazy lawyers and accountants know no shame?! That's quite a different reaction from the one you'd have if you realized that the nightmare-inducing "Trust Fund Loophole" is actually just section 1014 of the IRC, intentionally enacted by Congress in broad daylight for the benefit of every person who receives property from a decedent and--again--having precious little to do with trusts.

So, numble, I won't begrudge you the right to present yourselves to your clients as a Tax Superlawyer simply because you know about S corps. But when discussing the merits of a proposal to amend the tax laws, I'll continue to criticize the lazy thinking embodied in the improper use of the term "loophole."

I don't think there is a problem with referring to an exception to the general rule as a loophole. It does not bring to mind an "image of high-paid lawyers and accountants of dubious ethics poring over arcane legal texts in a smoke-filled room". Perhaps you get that view, but I think most people understand it is an exception to the general rule.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't think there is a problem with referring to an exception to the general rule as a loophole. It does not bring to mind an "image of high-paid lawyers and accountants of dubious ethics poring over arcane legal texts in a smoke-filled room". Perhaps you get that view, but I think most people understand it is an exception to the general rule.

As I say in my edit, the evidence in this thread suggests otherwise.

 

[benjipwns]

Sometimes when someone says loophole I like to think of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

You could drive a ferry through those.

 

[numble]

As I say in my edit, the evidence in this thread suggests otherwise.

I don't think all deductions are a loophole--the general rule is tax on profit, and you deduct expenses. Why would they be talking about deductions? Some deductions may be abused as a loophole. Personal expenditures aren't deductible, but if you structure it as a charitable donation, it can be. You would see why that can be considered a loophole and why lots of legislation, litigation, and regulations have occurred to prevent using the charitable contribution deduction as a loophole to allow deductions for items that should more likely be classified as a personal expenditure. In the end you still have a lot of what should be personal expenditures structured as charitable contributions, until a definitive regulation comes out to stop that particular structure.

 

[Mr.Mike]

If you really want to tax the rich then you don't go after their income because they can hide that, you go after their spending. Implement a luxury tax for big ticket items.

I'd imagine that spending on fancy things is a very small part of the spending of the super wealthy. And income would be a very small part of their revenue as well.

If there's gonna be any serious wealth transfer it'd be through capital gains and estate taxes.

OT, I'd like to see some sort of experiment/simulation done where income and corporate taxes are eliminated and all government revenue comes from capital gains, estate, sales and carbon taxes. The government would put a lot of effort into getting people to save and invest, providing the working and middle classes with sizable tax-sheltered accounts where their wealth could grow capital-gains tax free. In theory this would help achieve a better spread of WEALTH (note the distinction between wealth and income).

 

[benjipwns]

The U.S. actually had a luxury excise tax for almost two years. It didn't come close to generating the expected revenue of $9 billion and had a bigger impact on the sellers of the products.

This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period.

Boats/yachts were the popular go-to story for the people hardest hit.

Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.

Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress' projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.

 

[adamsappel]

That yacht tax did blow up in liberal faces.

The Scandinavian model uses daycare extensively and I think you're off base with what you're proposing. Not everyone wants to stay home away from work for 6 months after they have a child.

The Government should help facilitate options for child care, not a one size fits all option.

I would prefer the government pay people's current salaries than subsidize third-party childcare. EIther parent could stay home. If both parents worked, they could afford private babysitting.

If you really want to tax the rich then you don't go after their income because they can hide that, you go after their spending. Implement a luxury tax for big ticket items.

I was also going to bring up the yacht tax. That was a huge blunder, and consequences do trickle down. A yacht is a pretty easy thing to put off buying. Has the industry bounced back?

Don't punish the wealthy by stopping them from spending their money. Far better spent than simply growing.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

Sometimes when someone says loophole I like to think of the European Convention on Human Rights:



You could drive a ferry through those.

lmao...what? So basically, you have right X unless we don't wanna give it.

 

[benjipwns]

A lot of modern Constitutions have similar clauses, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example:

Section 1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Kinda like "reasonable search and seizure" in the U.S. Constitution. What's "reasonable" mean? Or "demonstrably justified" or "democratic society"?

 

[Metaphoreus]

A lot of modern Constitutions have similar clauses, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example:


Kinda like "reasonable search and seizure" in the U.S. Constitution. What's "reasonable" mean? Or "demonstrably justified" or "democratic society"?

To be fair, even the U.S. Constitution is interpreted so as to permit the government to infringe on textually absolute Constitutional rights so long as the government convinces the courts it has a good enough reason. I guess the Canadians are just more up-front about it.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, I was trying to get at that with the 4th Amendment thing.

There's a few countries (maybe even Germany's Basic Law?) where they list like 5000 different rights you have, and then at the end add a clause how the government can ignore them. The Soviet Union had a constitution like this guaranteeing free and fair elections, freedom of speech, etc. "within Marxist principles" or something like that lol

It's really backwards from the American drafting process. And ironically, we help nations write theirs using the "new" method, like with Iraq.

EDIT: Here's the 1936 Soviet one: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

Well, unless you're in Siberian work camps.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

ARTICLE 126. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are ensured the right to unite in public organizations--trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,' sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies; and the most active and politically most conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other sections of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.

ARTICLE 127. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

ARTICLE 130. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to abide by the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to observe the laws, to maintain labor discipline, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of socialist intercourse.

ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to safeguard and strengthen public, socialist property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the Soviet system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the prosperous and cultured life of all the working people.

Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah, I was trying to get at that with the 4th Amendment thing.

Even ignoring such rights as the right against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, though, none of our rights are treated as absolute under the Constitution, even though some are stated as though they were. There's always the exception when the courts feel the government has given a good enough reason for ignoring some right or another.

 

[neogaffer1]

If he wins middle class likes him and so does his base.

If he fails middle class hates Republicans.

It's pretty much a win-win.

 

[benjipwns]

Even ignoring such rights as the right against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, though, none of our rights are treated as absolute under the Constitution, even though some are stated as though they were. There's always the exception when the courts feel the government has given a good enough reason for ignoring some right or another.

Don't make me get my 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments! And are those gold fringes on the flag of this court?!? Gold fringes signify an Admiralty Court and I cannot be court-martialled twice!

 

[smokeandmirrors]

GoBama

 

[numble]

If he wins middle class likes him and so does his base.

If he fails middle class hates Republicans.

It's pretty much a win-win.

I think it will be a wash at best. Republicans can propose their own tax cut plans and force Obama to oppose/veto a bill that provides tax cuts to the middle class.

 

[WonkyPanda]

The real problem is tax loop holes... Research an S-Corp, you'd be amazed at the tax benefits. And basically anyone can become one, assuming you can afford an accountant of course.

An S-Corp is not, in and of itself, a "loophole." I'm not sure why you've singled out S-Corps, nor why you've decided to ignore other seemingly similar entities, like LLCs. I believe your reference is to certain abuses one may use when forming and/or running an S-Corp; the abuses themselves do not render an S-Corp as a tax loophole. S-Corps serve a very relevant and important purpose.

Also, not "basically" anyone can form an S-Corp. I'm not sure how many S-Corps you've formed, but I can assure you it isn't a seemingly "no-braner" process, let alone the formalities that have to be followed post-incorporation.

Sure, S-Corps may be abused, but that doesn't make them any different than C-Corp abuses, LLC abuses, or any other abuses within the system that cheat out tax dollars (SSI fraud, welfare fraud, etc).

Your singling out of S-Corps is perplexing to me.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Good luck.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm not sure why you've singled out S-Corps

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/a-tax-shelter-mitt-romney-could-love/
http://www.demos.org/blog/harry-reids-sensible-tax-plan-close-s-corp-loophole
http://www.thenation.com/node/167391
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...eek-to-end-s-coporation-payroll-tax-loophole/

 

[Condom]

Yeah but who is going to fill the stores then?

No, the wealthy should get more tax cuts so they can get more stuff in stock for the poor to buy.

Supply side economics man.

 

[WonkyPanda]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/a-tax-shelter-mitt-romney-could-love/
http://www.demos.org/blog/harry-reids-sensible-tax-plan-close-s-corp-loophole
http://www.thenation.com/node/167391
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...eek-to-end-s-coporation-payroll-tax-loophole/

Again, this isn't any different than loopholes used for C-corps, or many other business entities for that matter. S-Corps are not loopholes; that self-employment tax is being abused by some people who form S corporations doesn't make S-corps a loophole.