3 ms·

You are probably in for a Nobel Price in economics if you manage to come up with a viable tax system that allows painting a black and white picture. But at leas

by danbruc 10y ago

You are probably in for a Nobel Price in economics if you manage to come up with a viable tax system that allows painting a black and white picture. But at least for the moment we are stuck with a gray scale picture where the border between tax avoidance and tax evasion is fuzzy and at least subject to some kind of subjectivity.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
There's a very clear distinction: one is illegal, the other is legal. If you say someone is engaging in tax evasion, you're accusing them of a crime. If you say someone is engaging in tax avoidance, you're accusing them of following the tax code as written. And if you just wish someone paid more in taxes than they're required to, then look closer at the things they're legally doing, decide which of them you'd rather not be legal, and argue against that. But that's not an argument about the behavior of that person; that's an argument about desired properties of tax law. Even if you believe that some part of the tax code is currently immoral (and I certainly think there's a critical distinction between law and morality), it still doesn't make sense to voluntarily pay extra. Pay the legally required amount, and if you decide that the best possible use of your additional funds is to donate them to the government, do so; the Treasury Department (and specifically the "Bureau of the Public Debt") accepts voluntary additional payments, and they're even tax-deductible. Or, perhaps you can find an even better use of that money to have an impact on the world.
- danbruc 10y ago
  There's a very clear distinction: one is illegal, the other is legal. If you say someone is engaging in tax evasion, you're accusing them of a crime. If you say someone is engaging in tax avoidance, you're accusing them of following the tax code as written. I am not a native speaker, tax mitigation seems to be the correct term that I should have used instead of tax evasion.

by danbruc 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago

There's a very clear distinction: one is illegal, the other is legal. If you say someone is engaging in tax evasion, you're accusing them of a crime. If you say someone is engaging in tax avoidance, you're accusing them of following the tax code as written. And if you just wish someone paid more in taxes than they're required to, then look closer at the things they're legally doing, decide which of them you'd rather not be legal, and argue against that. But that's not an argument about the behavior of that person; that's an argument about desired properties of tax law. Even if you believe that some part of the tax code is currently immoral (and I certainly think there's a critical distinction between law and morality), it still doesn't make sense to voluntarily pay extra. Pay the legally required amount, and if you decide that the best possible use of your additional funds is to donate them to the government, do so; the Treasury Department (and specifically the "Bureau of the Public Debt") accepts voluntary additional payments, and they're even tax-deductible. Or, perhaps you can find an even better use of that money to have an impact on the world.

danbruc 10y ago
There's a very clear distinction: one is illegal, the other is legal. If you say someone is engaging in tax evasion, you're accusing them of a crime. If you say someone is engaging in tax avoidance, you're accusing them of following the tax code as written. I am not a native speaker, tax mitigation seems to be the correct term that I should have used instead of tax evasion.