SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
An elite group of the richest Americans has created "a kind of private tax system," according to the New York Times. (Photo: Philip Taylor/flickr/cc)
A special report out Tuesday from the New York Times shines a light on the so-called "income-defense industry," which exploits "a dizzying array of tax maneuvers" so that the uber-wealthy can shield their fortunes.
"Operating largely out of public view -- in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions, and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service -- the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government's ability to tax them," write Times reporters Patricia Cohen and Noam Scheiber. "The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans."
That elite group, the Times points out, is also "providing much of the early cash for the 2016 presidential campaign," in the hopes of influencing tax policy and keeping large loopholes in place.
The income-shielding maneuvers, which range from organizing one's business as a partnership to capitalizing on "a range of esoteric and customized tax deductions that go far beyond writing off a home office or dinner with a client," are largely unavailable to the average taxpayer, due to cost and complexity.
The ultra-wealthy "literally pay millions of dollars for these services," Jeffrey A. Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies economic elites, told the Times. In return, he said, they "save in the tens or hundreds of millions in taxes."
Indeed, Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality, told the Times: "We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice. At the very top of the income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive income tax system."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A special report out Tuesday from the New York Times shines a light on the so-called "income-defense industry," which exploits "a dizzying array of tax maneuvers" so that the uber-wealthy can shield their fortunes.
"Operating largely out of public view -- in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions, and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service -- the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government's ability to tax them," write Times reporters Patricia Cohen and Noam Scheiber. "The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans."
That elite group, the Times points out, is also "providing much of the early cash for the 2016 presidential campaign," in the hopes of influencing tax policy and keeping large loopholes in place.
The income-shielding maneuvers, which range from organizing one's business as a partnership to capitalizing on "a range of esoteric and customized tax deductions that go far beyond writing off a home office or dinner with a client," are largely unavailable to the average taxpayer, due to cost and complexity.
The ultra-wealthy "literally pay millions of dollars for these services," Jeffrey A. Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies economic elites, told the Times. In return, he said, they "save in the tens or hundreds of millions in taxes."
Indeed, Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality, told the Times: "We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice. At the very top of the income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive income tax system."
A special report out Tuesday from the New York Times shines a light on the so-called "income-defense industry," which exploits "a dizzying array of tax maneuvers" so that the uber-wealthy can shield their fortunes.
"Operating largely out of public view -- in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions, and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service -- the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government's ability to tax them," write Times reporters Patricia Cohen and Noam Scheiber. "The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans."
That elite group, the Times points out, is also "providing much of the early cash for the 2016 presidential campaign," in the hopes of influencing tax policy and keeping large loopholes in place.
The income-shielding maneuvers, which range from organizing one's business as a partnership to capitalizing on "a range of esoteric and customized tax deductions that go far beyond writing off a home office or dinner with a client," are largely unavailable to the average taxpayer, due to cost and complexity.
The ultra-wealthy "literally pay millions of dollars for these services," Jeffrey A. Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies economic elites, told the Times. In return, he said, they "save in the tens or hundreds of millions in taxes."
Indeed, Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality, told the Times: "We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice. At the very top of the income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive income tax system."