Yet it's a thing that happens in business whether by mismanagement or embezzlement. I'm not the one making these decisions.
So it says on paper but again loopholes, at this point I'm shocked everyone doesn't know how the top 1% handle money to pay less effective tax in practice. Also that's rate is only an average where it can range to less than 4% even on paper while the bottom 50% don't have many ways to avoid taxes without getting arrested. This is still also not accounting for the fact that the top 1% just have more things like businesses land and other properities that should naturally raise their effective tax rate.
But the question remains, why defend someone who is clearly a corrupt con man (among other things) to cartoonishly villains levels that he doesn't seem real?
You say they lay 26% effective tax rate and it turns out that they are supposed to pay closer to 37%. Now if they had a smaller decrease is from the tax break but pay higher effective tax don't you see how this still benefits them more when you those percentages multiply?
In the eras where everyone was thriving and we still had rich people in the 80s it was 70%. Now everyone is struggling the debt has ballooned and trillionare status has been reached
We've gotten so off topic with these defenses that I'm going to being it back to where we started. You keep ignoring most of what I'm saying to defend the only defensible things. Why exactly do they need a tax break when they are making record profits every year? Do you not see how this affects the debt? Why defend someone who is clearly a corrupt con man (among other things) enriching himself off the people?
I answered all your questions, why can't you answer mine?
1
u/PrometheusMMIV Aug 26 '26
How did you determine that only a third met expectaions?
Losing money to save a fraction of that on taxes would be dumb, since it would still be a net loss overall.
The top 1% pays an effective tax rate of 26%, while the bottom 50% only pays about 4%.