3 ms·

Ah, "spirit of the law". A favorite of the authoritarian (unless, of course, we are talking constitutional law). At what point do taxes become "taking"? Do t

Ah, "spirit of the law". A favorite of the authoritarian (unless, of course, we are talking constitutional law). At what point do taxes become "taking"? Do they ever? I mean, why isn't the forceful confiscation of someones labor/result of labor considered "taking"? Just because in this one instance we change the definition? Seriously never understood this...

darawk 11y ago
Well, i'm starting from the premise that governments have the right to levy taxes. If you'd like to argue that point we can do so, but that is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
- djschnei 11y ago
  Nitpick: Governments don't have "the right" to do anything. We the people consent to grant them abilities. I think reasonable taxation is a perfectly legitimate function of government -- not many would argue that. However, we are light years away from reasonable taxation. I'm a year out of school and already I work over 6 months of the year to pay taxes... But, I digress... The law is the law. This notion that "the spirit of the law" is king is incredibly dangerous. Next level dangerous. Have you ever seen the tax code printed out? To argue that you should "just close the loopholes" is absurd. Also, the notion that if companies keep more of their earning then tax revenue will fall is a huge fallacy. If you over tax, tax revenue will fall. It's a proven fact, all over the world. The answer is to simplify the tax code. Create economic certainty (from a tax liability standpoint) and the economy, as well as tax revenue, will surge.
  - darawk 11y ago
    I don't disagree with any of that. I wasn't arguing that the spirit of the law should be enforced despite it not being written, I was arguing that the law should be rewritten to better conform to its spirit. And I agree that probably the best way of accomplishing that is to simplify the tax code. You'll get no argument from me there.
    - djschnei 11y ago
      Fair enough, sounds like we agree. Sorry for sounding combative; I get a little touchy about this stuff :) Have a good one internet stranger!

darawk 11y ago

Well, i'm starting from the premise that governments have the right to levy taxes. If you'd like to argue that point we can do so, but that is not particularly relevant to this discussion.

djschnei 11y ago
Nitpick: Governments don't have "the right" to do anything. We the people consent to grant them abilities. I think reasonable taxation is a perfectly legitimate function of government -- not many would argue that. However, we are light years away from reasonable taxation. I'm a year out of school and already I work over 6 months of the year to pay taxes... But, I digress... The law is the law. This notion that "the spirit of the law" is king is incredibly dangerous. Next level dangerous. Have you ever seen the tax code printed out? To argue that you should "just close the loopholes" is absurd. Also, the notion that if companies keep more of their earning then tax revenue will fall is a huge fallacy. If you over tax, tax revenue will fall. It's a proven fact, all over the world. The answer is to simplify the tax code. Create economic certainty (from a tax liability standpoint) and the economy, as well as tax revenue, will surge.
- darawk 11y ago
  I don't disagree with any of that. I wasn't arguing that the spirit of the law should be enforced despite it not being written, I was arguing that the law should be rewritten to better conform to its spirit. And I agree that probably the best way of accomplishing that is to simplify the tax code. You'll get no argument from me there.
  - djschnei 11y ago
    Fair enough, sounds like we agree. Sorry for sounding combative; I get a little touchy about this stuff :) Have a good one internet stranger!