all 5 comments

[–]GuyWhite 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The person who wrote this doesn’t understand economics or investments.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

many such cases

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

vox hasn't laid everyone off yet?

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it by complying with the laws that were written to help rich people stay rich?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, many of them are not a benefit and others aren't really a tax benefit, but the ability to make a business out of holding money.

This article points out the real problem:

An overly complex and poorly defined tax code.

When you have a graduated tax scale like ours, where the more you make the more you pay in taxes, things are about as fair and "tax the rich" as possible.

Yet that wasn't good enough. Legislators bastardized that into this endless mess of failed authoritarian exemptions and special features a mile long. You can thank your moronic, but overly confident, regulators, whom ruin everything and turn it into market-manipulating socialism regulations.

Because of this, any time a politician says they are going to raise taxes on the rich, they really mean they are raising taxes on the middle class, furthering the wealth divide. The communists love this, because then the poor get poorer and become more dependent on them.