(1) It's not legal to run your personal expenses through a corporation to evade taxes. People do it, but it's not allowed and they could get fined or worse if audited.

It can be done, but it's annoying.

Your sweaters-for-cats company can pay for a cruise if it's a sales trip to promote the product. So promote the product.

Super annoying, but if it saves a lot of money, people will do it.

(2) is good, right? If people stop buying luxury goods then the resources are going to move to other things which is generally what we want.

> what we want

We being the operative word. Do "we" want people to buy more soylent green and fewer flatscreen TVs? Depends on who "we" is.

I submit that in aggregate what "we" want is what "we" are already buying.

> Does that mean rich people should incorporate

The IRS is already ahead of you there. Although it is a common statement here, you'd be very lucky to pull it off with any reasonable success.

There are some workable tax avoidance strategies, but they typically involve already having a bunch of money and family trusts.

(1) Nonsense. (2) Trickle down economics doesn't work.

I would also like to add that a luxury tax is very different than taxing rich people. I am not a fan of luxury tax at all.

> Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Trickle up economics (is that what you call a luxury tax?) doesn't work.

> August 1993, the Congress decided to eliminate the “luxury tax” since it did not achieve its main objective...According to the tax's critics, these revenues were disappointing and unsatisfactory and also negatively impacted the incomes of the sellers of the luxury items.

Yes the luxury tax is foolish. I Made that comment

In response to (2) pretend that we weren't talking about wealthy people exclusively. If we were arguing about putting money in the hands of individuals to grow demand would you still disagree?