4 ms·
this question often gets posed, but i think its misleading. probably no one seeks a higher tax obligation, but people certainly differ on how far they are willi
by the_cat_kittles 9y ago
this question often gets posed, but i think its misleading. probably no one seeks a higher tax obligation, but people certainly differ on how far they are willing to go to lower it. so, its really missing the point to try and excuse people for avoiding paying taxes- the point is that some people are doing it in a way that may conform to the letter of the law, but is clearly unethical and bordering on fraudulent by a normal observer's standards. i see no reason to excuse people for legal but reprehensible behavior in other arenas, why here?
- gbacon 9y agoThis is a losing battle for would-be tax reformers. The flip side of a large tax bill is an equally large incentive to minimize the legally required, or at least defensible, liability. As revenue grows, finding the denizens of Hacker News for Tax Attorneys and paying them larger and larger fees makes more and more sense. On one side are slovenly political committees and the other elite tax code hackers. When proponents of “fair share” and “ethical tax planning” resist giving exact definitions of these terms, they cannot be implemented but are instead red meat talking points to toss out to fellow partisans. In his book The Millionaire Next Door, Tom Stanley characterizes American millionaires, some 80% of whom received inheritances no larger than $10k, as being good at playing defense, that is keeping unnecessary outflow down. With this mindset, tax bills are only another expense to drive down, and they’re skilled and determined at doing so. What it comes down to is it’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. Everyone thinks he is paying his fair share of taxes, but the guy down the street is another matter.