5 ms·

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

by jpwatts 16y ago

Semiapies 16y ago
You seem to be confusing tax revenues with fairness.
- jpwatts 16y ago
  I'm not taking a position on Arrington. I just object to the idea that legality implies fairness, by definition.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    "Conformity with rules or standards" is an established meaning of "fairness"; to make any other judgement, as the poster a few levels above did, requires one to take a position on Arrington.
    - jpwatts 16y ago
      There are two places where one might take a position: "are the laws being fairly applied in this case?" and "are the laws themselves fair?". Clearly it would be unfair to treat Arrington differently than the law requires. I think the charitable interpretation of the above poster is that he thinks the laws themselves are unfair. You may disagree, but arguing that what Arrington did is legal is beside the point.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        I've already pointed out that if Arrington's complied with the tax rules and standards, his action have met one definition of fairness, which is not at all beside the point. To argue fairness or unfairness by other definitions, you have to take a position on those laws. Otherwise, you rule out such judgments, which leads us back to the question "did he play by the rules?"
poet 16y ago
Agreed, but it's your job as a citizen to try and pay exactly what you owe by law. If what Arrington did was legal, it wasn't wrong of him. No one should be paying more taxes than what's legally required. If there are any loopholes (so to speak), it's the role of the citizens to "exploit" them and the role of law makers to close them if necessary.
- ericd 16y ago
  If there are any loopholes (so to speak), it's the role of the citizens to "exploit" them and the role of law makers to close them if necessary. That's a pretty bad attitude to have, that citizens should be trying to exploit as many loopholes as possible. That sets up citizenry vs. govt. as a competitive game, which is a great recipe for making something that's supposed to be cooperative become dysfunctional and complex. It's an impossibly complex task to make a perfect airtight literal codex of laws in a system, and it's not reasonable to assume that humans can create such without introducing a huge number of contradictions, etc. We need to keep in mind the spirit of the law in order to keep our system from devolving into a morass.
  - count 16y ago
    I'd argue that complexity is what causes loopholes, rather than the other way around. Things like tax credits aren't 'loopholes' - they're specifically codified in the law for people to utilize, in an attempt to encourage certain behaviors. It's not gamesmanship, although there is some competitiveness between state tax laws (such as this WA vs CA capital gains thing). That's WA's incentive to get people with lots of money to come live (and hopefully spend) it in WA. CA has enough people with lots of money that it can afford to take a different stance.
    - ericd 16y ago
      Right, complexity definitely leads to loopholes, I was saying that it was an adversarial/exploitative attitude that leads to increasing complexity.
steveklabnik 16y ago
Sorry. The word 'fair' tends to get me going slightly, because I'm a competitive person. That word tends to be used by people as a crutch. For more: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ and specifically: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html If the state of California didn't think what Arrington did was right, there'd be a law. We've built up a system of rules, we all have to follow them, Mike did, so he's in the clear.
- jpwatts 16y ago
  The State has the right to determine what is legal; I reserve for myself the right to determine what is fair. I encourage you to do the same.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Yes, reading your other post below, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
    - jpwatts 16y ago
      "Fair" enough.
  - gxti 16y ago
    "Law" is [theoretically] a consensus on "fairness". If we all went around killing each other based on our personal views, well that just wouldn't be very fair, now would it?

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

by jpwatts 16y ago

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

Semiapies 16y ago

You seem to be confusing tax revenues with fairness.

jpwatts 16y ago
I'm not taking a position on Arrington. I just object to the idea that legality implies fairness, by definition.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  "Conformity with rules or standards" is an established meaning of "fairness"; to make any other judgement, as the poster a few levels above did, requires one to take a position on Arrington.
  - jpwatts 16y ago
    There are two places where one might take a position: "are the laws being fairly applied in this case?" and "are the laws themselves fair?". Clearly it would be unfair to treat Arrington differently than the law requires. I think the charitable interpretation of the above poster is that he thinks the laws themselves are unfair. You may disagree, but arguing that what Arrington did is legal is beside the point.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      I've already pointed out that if Arrington's complied with the tax rules and standards, his action have met one definition of fairness, which is not at all beside the point. To argue fairness or unfairness by other definitions, you have to take a position on those laws. Otherwise, you rule out such judgments, which leads us back to the question "did he play by the rules?"

poet 16y ago

Agreed, but it's your job as a citizen to try and pay exactly what you owe by law. If what Arrington did was legal, it wasn't wrong of him. No one should be paying more taxes than what's legally required. If there are any loopholes (so to speak), it's the role of the citizens to "exploit" them and the role of law makers to close them if necessary.

ericd 16y ago
If there are any loopholes (so to speak), it's the role of the citizens to "exploit" them and the role of law makers to close them if necessary. That's a pretty bad attitude to have, that citizens should be trying to exploit as many loopholes as possible. That sets up citizenry vs. govt. as a competitive game, which is a great recipe for making something that's supposed to be cooperative become dysfunctional and complex. It's an impossibly complex task to make a perfect airtight literal codex of laws in a system, and it's not reasonable to assume that humans can create such without introducing a huge number of contradictions, etc. We need to keep in mind the spirit of the law in order to keep our system from devolving into a morass.
- count 16y ago
  I'd argue that complexity is what causes loopholes, rather than the other way around. Things like tax credits aren't 'loopholes' - they're specifically codified in the law for people to utilize, in an attempt to encourage certain behaviors. It's not gamesmanship, although there is some competitiveness between state tax laws (such as this WA vs CA capital gains thing). That's WA's incentive to get people with lots of money to come live (and hopefully spend) it in WA. CA has enough people with lots of money that it can afford to take a different stance.
  - ericd 16y ago
    Right, complexity definitely leads to loopholes, I was saying that it was an adversarial/exploitative attitude that leads to increasing complexity.

steveklabnik 16y ago

Sorry. The word 'fair' tends to get me going slightly, because I'm a competitive person. That word tends to be used by people as a crutch. For more: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ and specifically: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html If the state of California didn't think what Arrington did was right, there'd be a law. We've built up a system of rules, we all have to follow them, Mike did, so he's in the clear.

jpwatts 16y ago
The State has the right to determine what is legal; I reserve for myself the right to determine what is fair. I encourage you to do the same.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  Yes, reading your other post below, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
  - jpwatts 16y ago
    "Fair" enough.
- gxti 16y ago
  "Law" is [theoretically] a consensus on "fairness". If we all went around killing each other based on our personal views, well that just wouldn't be very fair, now would it?