No person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code. If you have a problem with people avoiding taxes, you can endeavour to change the tax code and plug those loopholes.
Otherwise, you’re really trying to solve a legal problem by social means. You’re perfectly in your right to do so, but plenty of people will disagree with you.
We're talking about a public servant. It just highlights a cutthroat selfishness in past actions and current politics.
>No person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code.
But let me ask you something. Do you believe there is zero moral obligation or simply that the current tax code is at the absolute pinnacle of moral balance?
They're allowed. It's not illegal to act in a singular self interest. That doesn't mean everyone wants to elect someone who only works for their own self interest. We're talking about a public figure and that means they're subject to public opinion beyond the low bar of legality.
However, at this point this sort of thing is baked in to opinions of the president. I don't think anyone is surprised.
I’m of the opinion that no one should avoid taxes, so if you’re asking just about government employees, then the answer is still yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to.
What does that mean though? If the government introduces a new tax credit for home renovations that increase the energy efficiency of the home, are you saying no one should take advantage of that?
The problem I have with the word “tax avoidance” is that it carries negative connotations (which of course the media leap on in order to attack their preferred bogeyman). In reality, all that’s happening is that people are following the law and taking advantage of loopholes and tax credits to reduce their tax obligation.
If you think these loopholes and tax credits are unfair, then focus on fixing that. If you think the tax code is so enormous that it’s hopeless to fix it, then say that and offer an alternative. Otherwise you’re not really offering people an objective measure to live by.
That statement is meaningless. The government provides incentives and deductions for certain reasons (e.g. buying electric cars, home offices, charity contributions, etc.). It's put into law by the lawmakers.
How much do you choose to pay in taxes? How much do you think others should choose to? All discretionary income? All charitable giving? Some fixed percentage?
> Otherwise, you’re really trying to solve a legal problem by social means.
Haven't you noticed how over the past decade activists have started to bypass this whole democracy thing and instead legislate via Twitter mob? Plenty of people, many very influential, think we can shame our way to a better world --- their better world, of course, not yours or mine.
In my opinion: when you could be paying tens of thousands or more to support others, instead you are paying $0, and you know other people who barely make half the median household income are paying 20–30% of their total income.
Do these rules exist for other people? Yes! Is he possibly only taking advantage of what others allow him to do? Sure! Is it still selfish and trivially anti-social? Yes.
If they made it legal for billionaires to steal cars off the street, it would still be shitty for them to steal cars.
If you make half the median national household income, you’re making about $30K, and your effective federal tax rate is barely over 14%. Your 20%-30% scenario doesn’t seem to add up.
