5 ms·

I don't believe that at all. That said, i 'm OK with people finding legal ways to avoid taxes.

• a3n 10y ago
  "I'm rich. Here Mr Congressman, write me a law that makes this practice legal. Here's a campaign contribution."
  • pc86 10y ago
    That's ridiculous. Nobody says "I'm rich."
    • kafkaesq 10y ago
      They don't need to. The donations (and other things the wealthy and connected to get the attention of lawmakers) speak much louder than words.
    • dpark 10y ago
      Well, almost no one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTmUhcRX3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTmUhcRX3I
    • a3n 10y ago
      Caricature to shorten the example.
• uola 10y ago
  Legality as such isn't really relvant when it comes to tax planning. Not only that, but most people don't actually care about illegal tax planning even if they say they do, because in that case you would ask for a receipt ever time at your corner store. What you instead should ask yourself is if you are okay with people paying less tax then they would if the tax agency had all the information and resources to find out the truth.
• belorn 10y ago
  Are you OK with people using other kind of loopholes/bugs in the legal system, or is it just the tax system? We have for example involuntary manslaughter, which was a fix to a legal system which before only considered a crime if someone had an intention to kill someone. As the story goes, the law came as a result from train companies in the early days went ahead and drove with no warning horn or cross overs, and as a result people got run over. The train companies did not have an intention to kill anyone, and their action was legal, but people kept dying from train accidents and society did not deem that OK. Thus the law was changed.
  • return0 10y ago
    These laws are the result of expanded free international trade. We're not entitled to the one without the other. So if these double taxation and trade agreements were gone, then also tariffs should be increased, and suddenly, the iphone becomes unaffordable.
  • roel_v 10y ago
    There were varying degrees of guilt when killing someone in Roman law already. Suggesting that involuntary manslaughter was 'invented' because of trains is preposterous. You might be thinking of corporate manslaughter but that's an entirely different matter. You also seem to suggest that people were killed in droves because of trains not using a horn, and that the only was that was stopped was by introducing some new form of manslaughter. I hope you see for yourself how that falls under the category of 'extraordinary claims', which as we know requires extraordinary evidence.
    • belorn 10y ago
      Since you are talking about proofs, will you now provide evidence that it was criminal in roman law to unintentionally cause someones death? They had mines and work accidents, so it should be easy for you to find. I mean, I only recited what I heard from a professor of law and legal history, but I am sure that as a random person on the INTERNET as yourself has more validity. That extraordinary evidence you provided is all I needed.