One person's loophole is another person's right.

The spirit-of-law comes into play at the enforcement level in the form of executive discretion rather that at the adjudication level.

Civil/Social policy behind a law may be brought up during adjudication to help interpret a law -- but if policy is your strongest argument you are usually in a losing case.

A big issue — at least in the US — is that American laws don’t work well because one American party wishes to destroy government to cut taxes on the rich.

Because that is their goal, they want government to work badly. So they obstruct change and improvement. Any system of laws needs to be changed as loopholes are discovered to improve the law. We can’t do that in the US because billionaires own one of our two parties.

Not all change is improvement, and the changes proposed by the (current) minority party are not to "improve the law", but to take more from those who work and give it to those who do not. I challenge you to find that particular sentiment anywhere in our founding documents -- if you think it ought to be there, there's a political process to put it there.

And the generic sentiment about how horrid it is to "cut taxes on the rich" ignores the fact that taxes almost exclusively impact "the rich" as about 40% of the population pays essentially zero taxes. It's very difficult to cut taxes on those who do not pay them.

"The rich" ~= 60% of the population? Yikes. How many percents are you including in your "almost"?

Well that's the question, where do you draw the line.

Income tax is actually quite low for even a significant amount of the 60% above that no-tax line.

It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of those in that 40% actually get paid credits back at tax time that they didn't pay in. That phenomenon is so well known that January-April sees a significant spike in Xbox and big screen TV sales from that money the government injects into the economy using EIC and other refundable credits.

Ultimately I'd rather see people who are investing in building businesses that hire people to get tax cuts, as those can meaningfully impact the economy. Our current tax scheme of high corporate tax and high personal capital gains tax directly disincentivizes investment and economic growth.

Well, I certainly don't draw the line somewhere that makes 60% of the US population definitionally "rich", nor do I think being able to afford an Xbox and a "big screen TV" qualifies one as such.

Personally I would draw it at an income where someone living within their means can afford to raise a happy, healthy, well-educated family and provide all with proper dental and medical care, including responses to unforeseen and serious emergencies, without being financially destroyed, and go on to retire in relative comfort.

Beyond that, you and I have deep ideological differences that I hardly think are worth airing in an internet forum, and I'm not going to bother.

I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes.

Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.

> I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes

Well, I didn't say you said that, so we're good. I'd say I more implied that you implied it.

> Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich.

Yes, that does sound more like a middle class lifestyle than a "rich" one, doesn't it?

> And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.

Most of who? A hypothetical middle class that meets my (possibly flawed) criteria for richness, or an actual middle class as defined by some percentile spread about the median household income?

What rate of taxation is "much in taxes"?

When I was squarely middle class I normally didn't pay more than about 5k in annual federal income taxes.

That's pretty reasonable. It's also hard to cut a number that small.

When you get into paying 50k, 100k+ in taxes, then a percentage tax cut will appear much larger.

I know plenty of people who have about 2k withheld throughout the year and then get 5k-15k "refunds" at the end of the year. That's what I was referring to with the xbox and tv comment, those refunds are often spent that way.

"Spirit of the law" is a myth. It is something invented by non-lawyers when they want to gloss over something, normally when they dislike how a law is written. Calling for people to comply with "spirit" is simply a call for some arbitor to enforce thier interpretation, thier opinion on spirit. We have judges for that already. Spirit is a dogwhistle for non-lawyers to be involved ... but we have that too. Non-lawyers, elected officials, write and pass the laws. Blame them.

Intent of the law might be a better term, but it is clear that intent of the law makers does matter when it comes to court cases trying to decide the actual extents a law can be applied. Even the most legalese specific law can have major gaps depending upon how you read certain words. I've read court cases where judges had to go back to when a law was written, look at other laws, look at how the law was originally applied, and then take this all into account when determining if a specific action was legal or not under such a law.

That is judges looking to "drafter's intent" to interpret the language used, something often necessary with very old/new laws. It is a standard tool. Spirit is different, grounded not in language and history but in lay opinion and emotion.

IIRC, in Europe it's harder for companies to exploit letter-of-the-law loopholes than in the US. So I think you do have a point, but there's more nuance in practice.

There's loopholes, but there's also boundaries. In Europe there is scope creep where the boundaries of what's legal versus illegal keep getting redefined. A good example is antitrust enforcement against Google. In the U.S., antitrust is pretty clear cut. In Europe, it's this amorphous thing, where regulators can fine you just because what you're doing rubs them the wrong way.

The European system is better at keeping up with the evolution of crime. The US is generally a step (years) behind.

The US obsession with loopholes and "letter of the law" is a historical religious thing. US is protestant, where the language of the bible is made availible to all. Everyone is free to read and invent an interpretation, to find thier own loopholes. Europe follows a more catholic tradition, where biblical language is interpreted through priests. Hence, european judges (legal priests) are given more authority to interpret language and smooth out rough edges. It is centuries-old culture.

Ah yes, Martin Luther, that famous American. Who can forget when he inspired President Henry VIII to break with the Catholic church!

The distinction I’ve heard is called Roman law (continental) versus common law (UK, its colonies and empire).

Exactly, the UK being home of one of the largest protestant traditions (COE). The specifics of biblical language and translation is a cornerstone of English political and legal history (see Henry VIII and associated fiascos).

But when people speak of European colonial law v common law, they are normally talking about French v. British. The Napoleonic tradition followed in former french colonies is very different than the British common law. And there are places (Louisiana and Quebec) where these two legal traditions were forced to merge. When comparing the two we still see the catholic v protestant split, which is expected given the history. The french relationship with language, that there is a government agency to define words, also leans towards a more authoritarian view of legal interpretation. America today doesn't even have an official national language.