I think you might have missed one of the key assumptions for that loophole - that you WANT to give that money to someone else (such as a close family member). If you are giving that money either way, then you can either do it in a way where you get taxed fully on that money first, or do it in a way where you pay less tax and get more money as a result. Hence in the first scenario you have $0.65 spending power on that $1 earnt, while in the second scenario it's say $0.75 per $1.

It also doesn't stop there either - if savings are taxed (and they usually are, even though it's a case of double taxation) and you trust someone enough, you can give them your money, have them save it, earn the interest, get taxed on a lower rate than you, and then purchase items on your behalf (although anti-avoidance legislation will usually kick in if you try and do that with too high an amount). Where married couples are able to transfer assets between each other freely yet don't get taxes combined for them (i.e. if one earns $100k and the other earns $10k they'll pay more in taxes than if they both earn $55k) then it proves most effective, with the lower income getting increased income at the expense of the other partner, and then getting savings income that will be taxed at a lower rate as well.

Why the sarcasm? That is the sort of thing that can fit into the seemingly broad and loose definitions of loopholes used by many people, as I pointed out in my first post. In fact if it wasn't for such a more obvious 'good'/'fair' cause, you'd probably have people arguing it's unfair that the rich get given more government money than the poor here (since the rich will get tax relief at a higher rate than the poor).

It's not a loophole.  You don't save more than a dollar for each dollar donated (that would be a loophole) - at most you reduce your taxes by about 50% of the amount donated, but you've still donated 100% of it.

It isn't 'more government money' - it's the taxpayer's money in the first place.  'Relief at a higher rate?'  Nonsense.

rich people never get any money from the government, they give. I don't know where you pulled the idea that they somehow get more money then the poor, the poor get welfare checks, they get college aid, they get food stamps, they get medicaid, they get unemployment benefits, etc. The rich are not eligible for any of that.

Can you please explain to me this "get given government money" thing?

I am not "rich", but I pay taxes and I don't see how I can "get given government money". Somehow it is always _I_ paying money whereas those who don't work _get_ (that same aka my) money.

If you can figure out a way for the "rich" to get money from the government, please tell me how to do that.

That's a huge assumption.  That's like arguing that money given to charity is a loophole or deducting employee wages is a loophole. Those aren't loopholes.

What are you talking about? How is the government "giving" the rich money at all? I don't drive on special roads (our roads suck).

The poor are the ones who get cut checks from the government.  Even that tax rebate check that people got last Summer -- I didn't get one.  

I already pointed out the charity link and he admitted that he considers charity deductions an loophole too. sure you could have kept that 65$ and paid 35$ in tax, but now you get to donate a whole 100$ to charity without tax. obviously that is a loophole for the rich only because they are the only ones who donate enough for this to be a significant amount.

Only if you have no greater interest in the wellbeing of your own children than some charitable cause (such as the wellbeing of someone you don't know). While I haven't seen any statistics for it, I'd be amazed if charities tended to receive a higher proportion of someones wealth from their will than their own children. Similarly I doubt much money is given to current or former employees in wills.

The government takes say $0.35 of every $1 earnt, meaning that money is now the governments. The government then decides to give rich people $0.35 for every $1 spent if that money is spent in a particular way, while poorer people only get say $0.20 for every $1 spent in such a way. Hence the government is giving the rich a greater benefit than the poor.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually I made the charity link, and you still don't seem to have bothered to read what I said hence why you keep on making false accusations on what I consider a loophole. I'll spell it out simply for you (and others who seem to be having the same problem):

IF you class tax avoidance as (making use of) loopholes, then:

Giving money to charity -> tax deduction -> avoiding tax -> loophole.

Now please provide a quote to show where I have ever said I personally consider charity deductions a loophole.

aeortar... we are asking for a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE where the government gave 35 to the rich and 20 to the poor out of money that they have taken from the poor.

We understand the concept, we just say it doesn't exist. although i don't doubt you will give a misguided and unrealistic example, such as the "loophole" of donating money or giving it to a relative resulting in paying less taxes (but you our out more money).

And btw... the reason we said uncle is because YOUR CHILDREN are a whole different ball game. the government treats children and spouses as special cases.

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong! If you are rich by government standards you do not get to deduct charitable contributions. The more money you make the less you are allowed to deduct until it is all for nothing. If you are a millionare you can't deduct anything for charity, you can't even deduct the interest on the mortgage of your home. If you own a company you can take a charity deduction but not the individual owner of the company so the rich don't have that loophole. This leads to only one conclusion, rich people give because they believe it is the right thing to do, not for making money. What little that could be deducted is eaten away with the AMT which people that make 200k are now finding out. The top tax rate is 35% if i remember correctly. That means the rich only get to keep 65 cents on every dollar earned. This was a great relief because when Mr. Reagan changed the tax code it was at 70%, yup, bust your butt and get rich only to have uncle sam let you keep a 30 cents from each dollar you made. That is unfair and one of the best ways of forcing people not to earn money. Mr. Kennedy bought the tax rate from 92% to 70% and the democrats screamed that the nation would go broke, instead the nation had a surplus. The problem is not the top tax rate but what the Congress wastes the money on.

Amazing to me that some people still think their money 'belongs to the government' once it is paid to the Treasury.  Might call it splittin' hairs, but the distinction is important.

First off I have seen the poor, I lived with the poor, did not know I was poor until I made money. Every Year I take in homeless kids that are at risk and provide a roof over their head, food and clothing, and if they work really hard a job. This last batch I hit 50% one went to jail the other went into the air force. Oh well, people make choices and have to live with them.

No, I am not rich, but would it not seem reasonable that if a person worked really hard and saved up and planned well that they should have a yacht, or a mansion, or buy over priced food? They earned the money, why can’t that person choose to spend it on what they want? I have two sons, one has a MBA and a doctorate in economics. The other has a kid out of wedlock and no prospects for employment. Same family 20 years apart. The difference is the choices they made. By the way my dead beat son has a big screen TV my oldest son the one that makes real money, he does not have a big screen TV he as an old Sony Trinitron I gave him 15 years ago.

Well if someone is poor and their priority is big screen TV, I'd say their priorities are misguided. If anyone can become poor then it should be safe to say that anyone poor can become rich. I agree with you that cell phones can be a necessity these days. They are often cheaper than a hard line. But having the privilege of being near many "poor" folks talking on their cell phones, I'm a bit skeptical they are using them to set up job interviews. The late model Lexus and Acura's with the fancy rims, parked in front of shanties, during work hours, also don't inspire pity. There are folks trying, but a lot aren't. You might think it's right to provide the later with a stipend just because they weren't born rich. I don't. The quickest way to become poor is to give it to someone with no clue as how to manage it.

You only believe this because you believe the lies of the criminals. What you failed to learn is that all the bonuses were approved by Congress prior to getting the money. The bonuses were part of their employment contract. The deal was since the job is temporary, and once they do their job they will be out on the street, if they promise not to get another job or go job hunting, they will be paid a completion bonus. Only after their jobs are completed with certain bench marks they get a bonus. This was not some off the wall Christmas bonus or an, I like you bonus, these bonuses were part of their contract. The bonuses had nothing to do with AIG running out of money it was part of the budget a year before they ran into financial trouble. AIG was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. You were fooled into believing that the bonuses are the result of excesses.

What you should be angry with is the bonuses paid by Fannie an Freddie when they are 35 billion dollars in debt. The idiots running both Fannie and Freddie were running the companies into the ground and still demanded a bonus that was approved by the Congress. The AIG thing was misdirection so you would not see the friends of Congress getting paid with our money while they are telling us that they are 35 billion in debt and want another 19 billion dollars and that won’t be enough to fix the problem while the Congress says that  Fannie and Freddie are fine.

How is the government spending $.35 of every $1 spent on rich people?

What special programs are there for the rich? Enlighten me please.