10-28-2016, 04:25 PM
(10-28-2016, 03:59 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I knew it wasn't an invite to argue or agree, kiddo.
Just an observation that the same mechanics generating their personal wealth also generates big money campaign contributions.
Legal or illegal, it's the same game plan . . . IMO.
Unfortunately, when Hillary claims that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share in taxes (corporations, too), her words transmit the specter of criminality, by these persons.
As if somehow following the existing tax laws are criminal, immoral or unethical.
I've never gotten the impression from Clinton (or Sanders) that they're suggesting taking advantage of tax codes/breaks is criminal, Tiki.
'Fair' and 'legal' are not synonymous.
So, calling for a change in tax codes which would require the very wealthiest in the country to pay a similar percentage of their incomes as the rest of us is not an implication that those who are taking advantage of current tax breaks are engaged in criminal activity.
Whether it's immoral or unethical to legally avoid paying taxes, on the other hand, is subjective. I think that since the Clintons elect to pay 33%, contribute considerably to charity, and have published 30 years of tax returns, Hillary Clinton has standing to criticize billionaire Trump's choice not to pay any personal income taxes and not to release his tax returns. She does seem to imply that it's unethical or immoral (and unfair) for him not to contribute to public works/society through income taxes. And, she has directly stated that failing to release his tax returns means he must have something big/bad to hide.
Personally, I don't think choosing not to pay personal income taxes has hurt Trump much, if at all. Most people pay as little taxes as possible themselves and don't seem to hold it against anyone, even the wealthiest 10%, for doing the same. I do suspect Trump's failure to release his tax returns, despite several broken promises to do so, has hurt him some with the general voter population though.