5 ms·

Vox should bother to learn the difference between evasion and avoidance if they're going to write on taxes.

by thrill 10y ago

__jal 10y ago
Or people could accept that 'politically correct' language is not the province of one side of these battles.
- delinka 10y ago
  "Legally correct" is what we should strive for.
  - fnord123 10y ago
    Many of us are in tech. If you exploited a security hole to gain access to an unpatched system, you are still guilty of circumventing the system. Many believe the tax code should be similar: avoidance==evasion. Of course, I am not a lawyer.
    - hueving 10y ago
      There are no laws saying it's illegal to follow the tax laws.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        Never heard of a GAAR? (general anti avoidance rule)
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
        GAAR replaces the predictable rule of law with the unpredictable caprice of whoever is currently the arbiter of what qualifies as 'avoidance'. (In practice, in a legal system that respects precedent, that would just replace legislation with case law.) If you consider something a loophole, fix it. If the law is so complex that fixing loopholes seems untenable, consider simplifying the law to have fewer special cases.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        Forget the law for a moment. A company profits from the infrastructure a country provides and therefore has at the very least a moral obligation to help financing it. It is a deal - company pays taxes, country provide infrastructure the company needs. If a company then tries to avoid paying its share of the infrastructure, the company is breaking the deal. If doing so does not break existing tax law, that does not mean the company is in the right. All this is of course fuzzy, but when a profitable company pays zero taxes, you can certainly not claim that you believed the amount of taxes you paid seemed reasonable to you. And the company should of course be held accountable for this even if it did not break any specific tax law. Not paying your share is a breach of the deal.
        Spooky23 10y ago
        That's a moral argument for tax compliance. Even Christianity teaches that Caesar gets his due. You have no moral obligation to pay a tax that is not levied.
        danbruc 10y ago
        In the case we are talking about, the companies have to pay taxes but they exploit loopholes to avoid it. They may be not in violation of the letters of the law but they are in violation of the spirit of the law. The moral obligation is to participate in the funding of the system you are profiting from. Making money by transporting your goods on roads built by the state, employing people educated in schools funded by state, and enforcing your contracts by courts established by the state but not paying taxes towards this system is wrong. And this obligation does not go away if you find a trick to circumvent the written rules.
        thrill 10y ago
        Loopholes are not exploits. They are compliance. The only moral obligation is to follow laws, and then when they are just.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Where's the line? In New York, a sliced bagel with a smear of butter is a taxable prepared food product. A uncut bagel with a side butter is tax free. Should I be a criminal for going the unsliced route if I wish to deprive the state treasury of $0.10?
Analemma_ 10y ago
A lot of us believe it is a distinction without a difference, so your view is not universally shared.
- kyleblarson 10y ago
  Do you take any deductions in your annual taxes?
  - danbruc 10y ago
    The difference is between deducting what just happens to be deductible and deliberately acting in a way to maximize deduction and minimize your taxes.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The government would be very disappointed to learn people weren't making decisions based on a tax system that's filled with incentives to change the way people conduct their lives and businesses.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        That are different kinds of taxes. There are taxes especially designed to steer behavior away from discouraged actions or towards encouraged actions and there are taxes that are mainly for funding. That is certainly no absolutely sharp distinction and all taxes can at least at times be used to steer behavior, but income taxes certainly do not exist to discourage having an income.
        gozur88 10y ago
        That's why, instead of trying to figure out what Congress intended, people should just worry about the law as written. Congress can always make changes.
        10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Vox should bother to learn the difference between evasion and avoidance if they're going to write on taxes.

by thrill 10y ago

Vox should bother to learn the difference between evasion and avoidance if they're going to write on taxes.

__jal 10y ago

Or people could accept that 'politically correct' language is not the province of one side of these battles.

delinka 10y ago
"Legally correct" is what we should strive for.
- fnord123 10y ago
  Many of us are in tech. If you exploited a security hole to gain access to an unpatched system, you are still guilty of circumventing the system. Many believe the tax code should be similar: avoidance==evasion. Of course, I am not a lawyer.
  - hueving 10y ago
    There are no laws saying it's illegal to follow the tax laws.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Never heard of a GAAR? (general anti avoidance rule)
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        GAAR replaces the predictable rule of law with the unpredictable caprice of whoever is currently the arbiter of what qualifies as 'avoidance'. (In practice, in a legal system that respects precedent, that would just replace legislation with case law.) If you consider something a loophole, fix it. If the law is so complex that fixing loopholes seems untenable, consider simplifying the law to have fewer special cases.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      Forget the law for a moment. A company profits from the infrastructure a country provides and therefore has at the very least a moral obligation to help financing it. It is a deal - company pays taxes, country provide infrastructure the company needs. If a company then tries to avoid paying its share of the infrastructure, the company is breaking the deal. If doing so does not break existing tax law, that does not mean the company is in the right. All this is of course fuzzy, but when a profitable company pays zero taxes, you can certainly not claim that you believed the amount of taxes you paid seemed reasonable to you. And the company should of course be held accountable for this even if it did not break any specific tax law. Not paying your share is a breach of the deal.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        That's a moral argument for tax compliance. Even Christianity teaches that Caesar gets his due. You have no moral obligation to pay a tax that is not levied.
        danbruc 10y ago
        In the case we are talking about, the companies have to pay taxes but they exploit loopholes to avoid it. They may be not in violation of the letters of the law but they are in violation of the spirit of the law. The moral obligation is to participate in the funding of the system you are profiting from. Making money by transporting your goods on roads built by the state, employing people educated in schools funded by state, and enforcing your contracts by courts established by the state but not paying taxes towards this system is wrong. And this obligation does not go away if you find a trick to circumvent the written rules.
        thrill 10y ago
        Loopholes are not exploits. They are compliance. The only moral obligation is to follow laws, and then when they are just.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Where's the line? In New York, a sliced bagel with a smear of butter is a taxable prepared food product. A uncut bagel with a side butter is tax free. Should I be a criminal for going the unsliced route if I wish to deprive the state treasury of $0.10?

Analemma_ 10y ago

A lot of us believe it is a distinction without a difference, so your view is not universally shared.

kyleblarson 10y ago
Do you take any deductions in your annual taxes?
- danbruc 10y ago
  The difference is between deducting what just happens to be deductible and deliberately acting in a way to maximize deduction and minimize your taxes.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The government would be very disappointed to learn people weren't making decisions based on a tax system that's filled with incentives to change the way people conduct their lives and businesses.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      That are different kinds of taxes. There are taxes especially designed to steer behavior away from discouraged actions or towards encouraged actions and there are taxes that are mainly for funding. That is certainly no absolutely sharp distinction and all taxes can at least at times be used to steer behavior, but income taxes certainly do not exist to discourage having an income.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        That's why, instead of trying to figure out what Congress intended, people should just worry about the law as written. Congress can always make changes.
        10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]