“Sparkling wine, jets, the unborn, and other special-interest wins”
The change relates to deducting some benefits for babies who are still in the womb. I guess it’s not incorrect to say they are “special interests”, but I’m not sure if I have seen a focused phrasing of this group in this way before.
Fat cat unborn kids sucking all the tax money, amiright?
Granted the wording is clunky at best, but the language is ridiculous. They go out of their way to define life at conception for these investment even though there is no rule prohibiting starting one of these plans prior to the birth of child. The money just needs to be spent on education. This is clearly a way to insert that type of language in in the tax code.
Meanwhile teachers can’t expense buying school supplies, but hedge funds get preferred tax treatment on the carry to “encourage” investment. As if, a $10 million bonuses isn’t enough “encouragement.” What a joke.
Carried interest doesn’t make sense, but I guess it is such a small portion of tax revenues that no one wants to really pursue it aggressively at the risk of offending the John Corzines or Mercers of the US.
I don’t think it would be a good idea to allow deductions for those teacher supplies. People will just abuse the system to the max, it will create tax evasion by over reporting, and it will be costly and unworthwhile to monitor receipts for cheap stuff. It would be better to just pay teachers 1% more, or whatever the supplies cost. Come to think of it, assuming at least some labor elasticity, it’s likely that it’s already priced in.
Good thing they cant vote am I right?
I wonder what turd would say about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maafa_21