2 ms·

I would say this is a false equivocation to the extent that the "database" that the author referenced in beginning of the metaphor should not include victimless

I would say this is a false equivocation to the extent that the "database" that the author referenced in beginning of the metaphor should not include victimless crimes such as "drug abuse". The author also assumes that there would be a de-facto backlash against the "hacker"'s behavior. I don't think so. If the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty", and these people are proven guilty in a court of law by evidence (even if such evidence is blasted to the world by this 'hacker'), there is no difference between whether they make $10 or $10 million per year. This does invoke a bit of a quandary as referenced earlier over whether certain victimless crimes should actually be classified as crimes, but I believe that is orthogonal to the conversation to some extent. The stronger argument was mentioned below: Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? If yes, then why should it be any different whether you make $10 or $10 million in a year? Is there some sort of arbitrary monetary amount where you are supposed to make this moral decision "oh I made enough money now, it's time to pay more taxes than I am legally required to". If so, when is it? If not, then the tax code and subsequently the government are the systems you need to look at if legal lowering of the rich man's tax burden is something you find reprehensible.

toyg 9y ago
> Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? The problem is that regular citizens do not have access to means of minimizing their taxes to the extent that the wealthy have. It's been shown over and over again that corporations and wealthy individuals can shrink their tax rates to be as low as 2%. Nobody else can get that low. That is the fundamental problem: that in practice there is a law for the rich and one for everybody else. This is not unlike the sort of privileges European aristocracy used to enjoy up to the XVIII century. It took a number of violent uprising to change that state of things, let's hope it won't be necessary this time.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
  I don’t disagree with you at all. I wholeheartedly agree. The point still stands though. If you or I as middle or lower class schmucks could lower our tax burdens to 2%, wouldn’t we as well? Or is it some arbitrary number where it’s like “ok I feel like I need to contribute to society now”. If the answer to the above is non-arbitrary, the fault lies with the people that invented such tax code in the first place.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > Or is it some arbitrary number where it’s like “ok I feel like I need to contribute to society now” Some cultures do have such arbitrary numbers codified in their religions, as it happens - 10% for Muslims, 20% for some Christians, etc. Secularly speaking, tax law in most countries is laid down with certain public thresholds, defined through open process by democratically-elected representatives, and everyone is supposed to abide by them; but the rich can afford armies of professionals poking and prodding these laws until they find loopholes, contradictions and secret hatches. Obviously the legislator should carry some of the burden for not explicitly forbidding these escamotages; but it's similarly obvious that this sort of activity has reached levels that, even where ostensibly legal, are patently immoral and against the spirit of the law, and that's not the legislator's fault. In a lot of cases, these activities are not even legal, in fact; they are just not prosecuted because authorities lack manpower for enforcement. This is why public leaks often results in new charges being brought forward: because someone else did the job and the taxman can piggyback on that. Responsibility for illegal activities lies squarely with the people engaging in them.

toyg 9y ago

> Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? The problem is that regular citizens do not have access to means of minimizing their taxes to the extent that the wealthy have. It's been shown over and over again that corporations and wealthy individuals can shrink their tax rates to be as low as 2%. Nobody else can get that low. That is the fundamental problem: that in practice there is a law for the rich and one for everybody else. This is not unlike the sort of privileges European aristocracy used to enjoy up to the XVIII century. It took a number of violent uprising to change that state of things, let's hope it won't be necessary this time.

SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
I don’t disagree with you at all. I wholeheartedly agree. The point still stands though. If you or I as middle or lower class schmucks could lower our tax burdens to 2%, wouldn’t we as well? Or is it some arbitrary number where it’s like “ok I feel like I need to contribute to society now”. If the answer to the above is non-arbitrary, the fault lies with the people that invented such tax code in the first place.
- toyg 9y ago
  > Or is it some arbitrary number where it’s like “ok I feel like I need to contribute to society now” Some cultures do have such arbitrary numbers codified in their religions, as it happens - 10% for Muslims, 20% for some Christians, etc. Secularly speaking, tax law in most countries is laid down with certain public thresholds, defined through open process by democratically-elected representatives, and everyone is supposed to abide by them; but the rich can afford armies of professionals poking and prodding these laws until they find loopholes, contradictions and secret hatches. Obviously the legislator should carry some of the burden for not explicitly forbidding these escamotages; but it's similarly obvious that this sort of activity has reached levels that, even where ostensibly legal, are patently immoral and against the spirit of the law, and that's not the legislator's fault. In a lot of cases, these activities are not even legal, in fact; they are just not prosecuted because authorities lack manpower for enforcement. This is why public leaks often results in new charges being brought forward: because someone else did the job and the taxman can piggyback on that. Responsibility for illegal activities lies squarely with the people engaging in them.