However, most examples given of supposedly nefarious tax avoidance I see are simply businesses that plow a ton of money back into expanding the business, hence bringing their tax liability way down, exactly as the law intended. Amazon being the prototypical example.
Or even better, is the complaining of billionaire's having low income tax...when they have low incomes. The better use of time and energy would be to propose additional property (wealth) taxes.
Just because they take a $1 salary and get paid in stock or have tons of stock holdings that increase in value instead doesn’t mean they don’t have any money to play with to cover their own personal needs / desires, as I’m sure you’re aware. This is what people mean about avoiding the spirit of the tax while adhering to the letter of the law.
From what I understand, they way they do this is to get millions per year in personal loans from banks, secured with their stock. Then, instead of “income”, they have “debt”, but most reasonable people would still see that as “they can spend millions of dollars on whatever they’d like and they didn’t pay tax on it”. Most people would love to do this, the problem being they don’t have hundreds of millions+ in stock to secure those same types of loans.
I’m sure every politician working with tax law understands how they play the system (and how tax offshoring works for companies), yet they choose to do nothing about it as not enough lay folks complain hard enough to affect their next election. Combine that with “the car dealership” / “ISP” model, where “if we all agree to do the bad thing and hold the line, people will have no choice but to let us continue to do the bad thing”. There’s no political will to fix it among those in power, as they benefit from it too. This is why I have very little hope of ever seeing real tax reform in my lifetime in this country — the politicians willing to actually carry out the will of the people or engage in topics that would materially benefit the masses are few and far between. It’s much easier to keep everyone frothing at the mouth over tie pins and tan suits.
If you want to reduce illegal immigration, a good starting point is to look at laws and make sure they are not only fair, but easy for the would-be immigrant to follow. Most folks in the US 'illegally' started out being legal, after all, and you realistically want to close that gap.
And so we are clear, asylum seekers aren't "illegal".
Paying folks under the table is a sign of exploitation - and undocumented folks easily fall into exploitation. I would have thought a fair reading would have come to this conclusion. Of course it isn't always that way.
I suppose it depends on how you interpret the term "exploitation". Most frequently this is used implying some harm is being done to the exploited party. My comment is to argue this is not the case here, as they would be strictly worse off without this employment. The employer is certainly exploiting an opportunity to employ the undocumented worker, but (arguing about words here) that does not constitute them "being exploited". Arguably, both honest tax-paying employers and employees are "being exploited" by the government by way of it collecting income tax.
Depending on your point of view, the greatest harm here is either self-inflicted by the worker, by coming to the country and putting them self in this situation, or by the government, by inventing rules dictating that a person is not legally allowed to work, punitively disincentiving their becoming "documented" with the threat of deportation versus the convoluted immigration process, etc.
Giving it some thought, I can relate that there is some potential for exploitation in the sense that someone working under the table does not receive the same protections that a legal worker would under law, but it seems moot when the same government promising those protections says you're not entitled to work at all. Considering this, rather than outright condemning the employer, I defer to asking whether the employee is better or worse off in the end.
Many illegal immigrants pay taxes as they need an SSN (not theirs) to work.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc756
In addition, if they made less than their standard deduction, there would also be no income tax liability or filing requirement.
What probably happened was that the kid was incorrectly sent a 1099 form. This is wrong for two reasons. First, it's not needed for a personal residence or rental properties for investment, only for businesses. Second, a household employee is not a contractor, and should generally receive a W-2 (or nothing at all, in the kid's case).
this really helps the IRS find non-compliance in the other long mandated 1099 filing
big penalties to collect