5 ms·

Labeling the action that is legal under the law as "theft" makes me very suspicious of both the arguments and findings. The laws should be a set of hard, well d

by ptero 9y ago

Labeling the action that is legal under the law as "theft" makes me very suspicious of both the arguments and findings. The laws should be a set of hard, well defined rules (ideally finalcial rules are even formally interpretable). And if one does not break those rules he is not a criminal. I think much of the problem is due to tax system complexity. Not sure about Germany, but in the US we have a horribly complicated mess. Thus the spirit and the letter of the law are not the same (at least it is not clear if they are the same). I think the main argument that I kind of buy is that while the companies described do not break the letter of the tax law, the break the spirit of it. I would agree if the rules were simple and well understood. As it is, what if I got audited by the IRS. If they find me missing a receipt (say, a paper copy got destroyed) my arguments that I am fulfilling the spirit of the law by paying my share of taxes would fall on deaf ears (I think). Broke the letter of the law -- this is your fine. And this approach encourages reciprocity. My 2c.

joncrocks 9y ago
I'd note that this is also applicable to most legal systems, in that there aren't a set well defined rules which describe legal behaviour. Vague laws are written and then interpreted by judges and these go on to set precedent. Suddenly you find yourself in the situation that in order to make sure you're not breaking any laws, it's a full-time job. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law....
- pdimitar 9y ago
  > If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law.... That's sadly very true and assumes guilt by default which is a very broken state of affairs. It's roughly the same as with mass surveillance -- if the government has enough data on you, they will find something to convict you of.
pdimitar 9y ago
The law system is built and maintained by humans. As such, they can't predict every possible loophole and they adapt over time. So yes, this behaviour should absolutely be labelled illegal and persecuted. Your comment didn't contribute much to the discussion save for reinforcing the original objection of your parent commenter -- "who cares if it's technically legal when it's very clearly immoral and destructive for the society at large".

by ptero 9y ago

joncrocks 9y ago

I'd note that this is also applicable to most legal systems, in that there aren't a set well defined rules which describe legal behaviour. Vague laws are written and then interpreted by judges and these go on to set precedent. Suddenly you find yourself in the situation that in order to make sure you're not breaking any laws, it's a full-time job. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law....

pdimitar 9y ago
> If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law.... That's sadly very true and assumes guilt by default which is a very broken state of affairs. It's roughly the same as with mass surveillance -- if the government has enough data on you, they will find something to convict you of.

pdimitar 9y ago

The law system is built and maintained by humans. As such, they can't predict every possible loophole and they adapt over time. So yes, this behaviour should absolutely be labelled illegal and persecuted. Your comment didn't contribute much to the discussion save for reinforcing the original objection of your parent commenter -- "who cares if it's technically legal when it's very clearly immoral and destructive for the society at large".