That those loopholes exist is certainly not in question. They are reprehensible, but also completely legal. The House Ways and Means Committee, chaired and dominated by Democrats for 50 out of the last 62 years, is responsible for the tax codes found in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Exposing a bit more the already obvious lie that Republicans are the party of tax breaks for the rich, the members of The Ways and Means Committee are, and have been, guilty of making it perfectly legal for large corporations - the ones that can afford to hire all those former I.R.S. workers and lawyers - to pay no taxes. This is a particularly foul reality, because businesses are the only entities that generate income; logically, they are the only ones who should be paying income tax. People who are not in business, but earn their living by working for someone else who is in business, do not generate income.
Imagine you and I meet at a party for a mutual friend. During conversation, you learn that I have an old Mustang sitting in my driveway, unused and just taking up space because I have no interest in it. That's funny, you say, because you have an old Camaro sitting in your driveway in the same condition for the same reason. Turns out you like old Mustangs and I like old Camaros. So we decide to trade cars, agreeing that we will determine the blue-book value and whoever is getting the car of greater worth will pay the difference. We find to our delight that both cars are worth the same amount. We arrange for tows, sign the titles, and we both have a new project to pour money in.
Now then, what was the net effect on our personal assets? If you said "zero", very good. Obviously, it follows that this transaction will, for tax purposes, be non-existent.
Let's remember that we both had a finite number of cars in our driveways - one. Once it was towed away, that was it; it was gone. Another one would not appear in its place. Then, remember that both cars had fixed values, values that were agreed upon by human beings in accepted positions to ascertain those values. And then, remember that the transaction was voluntary on the part of both of us.
Now, let's go back to the time you were hired at your job. You met someone who liked something you had: time. (And skills to one degree or another, but as an employee, you are being compensated for your time - your skills are incidental, being of relevance only in how they affect the value of your time. If your boss had nothing specifically for you to do, but wanted you to stand by in case something came up, you would justly be paid even if you sat there all day.) You, in turn, met someone who had something you liked: money to invest. So, essentially, you had a Camaro and he had a Mustang.
You are both human beings who are in a position to ascertain the value of your time, for which you will compensated by the employer with the money he has to invest. In other words, together you determine the blue-book value of your time.
You then enter into a voluntary agreement that when a certain amount of time has expired - a period of time that, like your Camaro, will be gone and will not reappear - you will be given a specific amount of money and/or other compensation.
Understand this very clearly: at the end of that period of time, or at the end of a series of such periods of time, you will have made an even exchange of property, one Mustang for one Camaro. The net effect on your assets at the end of the pay period is zero. You did not generate any income.
Your employer's assets, on the other hand, are a different matter. He will take the work you have produced and sell it for more than he paid you to produce it - well, at least he should. This would be known as realized income.
So please, stop believing you owe income taxes on what you earn as an employee. If you want to pay the taxes they lie in saying you owe, no problem, but at least recognize they're lying. Besides, you can justify it by realizing that if taxes were collected on consumption instead of earnings, as would occur if thinking people were in charge of the matter, you'd be paying taxes anyway.
Back to the original point - yes, loopholes are there and they should be slammed shut, because when the law is used to advantage one group to the disadvantage of another, the law becomes a plunderer. This is common in government, and every time it occurs, those responsible are committing treason because they are violating the trust given them by citizens to perform the only valid function of government - the protection of property.
I've noticed a common denominator in liberal thought: the universal assumption that the real needs and problems of society are always to be addressed by government. As yet, I have heard or read no one who has a rational explanation for this assumption.
Some things must be done by government; no person of any intelligence will deny this. In fact, there are many things a government must do in order to fulfill its one legitimate function.
Government activities amount to what are known as services. (Government has no goods to sell, as everything it "owns" belong to me - and you.) This truth is the basis for what taxation actually is.
When I go into the grocery store, I pay for the stuff in the basket before I walk out the door. I exchange something I own for something they own in a voluntary agreement. If I don't think that particular steak is worth $7.00 a pound, I leave it on the shelf. All those things that I agree are worth the stated price, I pay for and take with me.
If I go into the restaurant, or the auto repair shop, or the movie theater, or the hardware store, or a department store, or a haberdashery, or any other business establishment, no moral transaction can take place without the presence of a voluntary agreement wherein I and the business owner agree on the terms of sale.
Contrary to what conservatives and liberals alike want you to believe, paying taxes is exactly the same arrangement. "Paying" taxes is no different in any way than "paying" your insurance premium. You are exchanging property, nothing more, and if it isn't a voluntary agreement, theft has occurred.
This is why the idea of the rich paying more is so vile and pernicious. Liberals, and only to a slightly lesser degree conservatives, advocate the open, blatant theft of one group's property based on something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of voluntary exchange - the amount of money in the purchaser's pocket. What these people believe can best be illustrated by imagining one of their crusaders standing behind the counter in a butcher shop and putting their fingers on the scale when a rich person steps up to the counter, then taking the extra money and using it to buy meat for people who don't have as much money. They would actually see this as a good thing, inexplicably believing that stealing from one person and giving it to another, especially when they can get people with guns to back them up, is noble.
Why would anyone cheer-lead a government agency to threaten a citizen with coercion and force to make them pay more for the same service? The roads need fixing? Why should a rich person, who is getting exactly the same service, pay more for it? Would someone open a coffee shop and start polling the customers about their income and jacking up the prices for the well-healed? Maybe they would if they believed the government would send an agent to stand outside the door and force people to come in while another goon is on the inside enforcing the Marxist pricing policy . . .
I suppose it would be easy to think this way if you are under the mistaken belief that government is a charitable organization.
As I think about it, mentioning the phrase ". . . promote the general welfare . . ." happens frequently when the seizure of a citizen's property is being justified. I suppose this is worth a few lines.
The phrase "promote the general welfare" is not contained in any of the articles of the U.S. Constitution. It is contained in the Preamble. A preamble such as the one opening the Constitution is defined as " the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows." The Preamble is not a list of what the federal government does; it is a list of the reasons why the Framers ordained and established the Constitution, just as it says. Think of it this way: I may open a business and on my website say that I established this business "to provide a new source of cutting-edge low-voltage solutions." That is a description of what I what to accomplish, not a description of what I do. What I do would be a long list of specific physical and mental activities that result in customers getting cutting-edge low-voltage solutions.
When the Framers said they wanted to "promote the general welfare" they were saying that operating under the rules of the Constitution would result in that, along with all the other objectives they mention. What liberals and, to a lesser degree, conservatives do is violate the Constitution by engaging in the process of passing legislation that requires the citizenry to participate in traitorous activities. The Constitution simply could not be any clearer - if it doesn't specifically tell the legislative, executive, or judicial branch to do it, they aren't allowed to do it. There is nothing in the list of enumerated powers that authorizes the federal government to take specific actions that will improve the lot of one group of citizens at the cost of another. Every law that attempts to do this is the result of treasonous and immoral activity. Government cannot give to one person what it does not first take from another. Picture in your mind a man with a gun taking money from one person and then handing it to another while saying he's promoting everyone's welfare! In the end, what we see is a mindless attempt to accomplish good by practicing evil. What government is supposed to do is stand by with a gun to prevent one person from taking money from another person!
By following the restrictions found in the document, the general welfare would - as promulgated by the requirement of Congress to " . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States" - be promoted by allowing it to occur as a natural result of human activity as they pursue their own happiness.
