4 ms·

Arguably they are both immoral, however.

roel_v 8y ago
When you got your last mortgage, didn't your advisor tell you the 'best' option, taking into account tax breaks and whether you are single- or dual income family? Sure, it's less money we're talking about, but it's 'tax planning' or 'tax avoidance' all the same. I find it weird that people complain about 'them' not paying their full share, yet use their retirement tax incentives to the max every December.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  It's terrible when everyone else can use it to get ahead. It's smart when I use it to save a few bucks and get ahead.
- null000 8y ago
  Some schemes stretch credulity and fly in the face of the intent of the law. If I choose to pay 22% down instead of 20% so I can qualify to write off my interest payments, that's one thing. The schemes revolving around putting out shitty books of poetry or what not mentioned above are an entirely different beast. My own way of looking at it is that it becomes more immoral the further out of your way you go and the further you stray from the original intent of the law
ada1981 8y ago
Can you explain the morality of taxation in your perspective? An entity with a gun says give me some of your money / labor or I will use violence or threat of violence to take it. Individuals at the other end of the gun do what they can to reduce what they turn over to the entity with the gun.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  An entity that we as a community have tasked with providing communal goods and services. An entity that you as an individual can participate in determining what goods and services are provided, at what cost.
  - ada1981 8y ago
    Did you give consent to be taxed? It seems to be more coercive at best. This entity was around long before you.
    - ambentzen 8y ago
      Are you participating in the community around you? Using the roads? Ever called 911? Then you gave consent. You are free to move some place more to your liking.
      - ada1981 8y ago
        Of course I understand this is the standard justification. In the US for example, the land we have here was taken by brute force / genocide, then a government was set up a couple hundred years ago (all of the founders have died and only about 5% of the population participated in the revolutionary war). There aren’t any other real options of where to move where you won’t encounter such a violent entity claiming that if you set foot on “its land” you are giving consent. You can’t give consent if there are no other real options or if you are being coerced. What is a better argument is to say that this is where our species is from an evolutionary perspective and that the risk of violent attack by the state if you don’t comply outweigh the benefits. Also, the state provides some things you like (sort of like an alcoholic step father who abuses you but also occasionally buys GMO food and does a decent job of starting fights with the neighbors if they try to come into the house). There is no morality involved, it’s simply a cost / benefit analysis. Do you like spending half your tax dollars on military operations? Including buying bullets that go to kill innocent kids in regions that have resources deemed valueable to US capital? The laws in the United States are not written in such a way that says “if you opt out of using roads or calling 9/11, you don’t pay taxes.” It’s quite the opposite. You are threatend with violence to pay for those things and much more no matter your use pattern and quite often if you are poor your roads don’t get fixed and 9/11 doesn’t result in cops showing up let alone justice being served. And simply because other outfits have set up similar rackets worldwide doesn’t make staying in the one you were born into a consentual agreement.
MockObject 8y ago
Not sure how it's immoral to pay precisely what the law demands. Exactly how much more than that is required for moral behavior?
- harveynick 8y ago
  There's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. I suppose it depends on which you think is more important.

When you got your last mortgage, didn't your advisor tell you the 'best' option, taking into account tax breaks and whether you are single- or dual income family? Sure, it's less money we're talking about, but it's 'tax planning' or 'tax avoidance' all the same. I find it weird that people complain about 'them' not paying their full share, yet use their retirement tax incentives to the max every December.

EADGBE 8y ago
It's terrible when everyone else can use it to get ahead. It's smart when I use it to save a few bucks and get ahead.
null000 8y ago
Some schemes stretch credulity and fly in the face of the intent of the law. If I choose to pay 22% down instead of 20% so I can qualify to write off my interest payments, that's one thing. The schemes revolving around putting out shitty books of poetry or what not mentioned above are an entirely different beast. My own way of looking at it is that it becomes more immoral the further out of your way you go and the further you stray from the original intent of the law

ada1981 8y ago

Can you explain the morality of taxation in your perspective? An entity with a gun says give me some of your money / labor or I will use violence or threat of violence to take it. Individuals at the other end of the gun do what they can to reduce what they turn over to the entity with the gun.

FireBeyond 8y ago
An entity that we as a community have tasked with providing communal goods and services. An entity that you as an individual can participate in determining what goods and services are provided, at what cost.
- ada1981 8y ago
  Did you give consent to be taxed? It seems to be more coercive at best. This entity was around long before you.
  - ambentzen 8y ago
    Are you participating in the community around you? Using the roads? Ever called 911? Then you gave consent. You are free to move some place more to your liking.
    - ada1981 8y ago
      Of course I understand this is the standard justification. In the US for example, the land we have here was taken by brute force / genocide, then a government was set up a couple hundred years ago (all of the founders have died and only about 5% of the population participated in the revolutionary war). There aren’t any other real options of where to move where you won’t encounter such a violent entity claiming that if you set foot on “its land” you are giving consent. You can’t give consent if there are no other real options or if you are being coerced. What is a better argument is to say that this is where our species is from an evolutionary perspective and that the risk of violent attack by the state if you don’t comply outweigh the benefits. Also, the state provides some things you like (sort of like an alcoholic step father who abuses you but also occasionally buys GMO food and does a decent job of starting fights with the neighbors if they try to come into the house). There is no morality involved, it’s simply a cost / benefit analysis. Do you like spending half your tax dollars on military operations? Including buying bullets that go to kill innocent kids in regions that have resources deemed valueable to US capital? The laws in the United States are not written in such a way that says “if you opt out of using roads or calling 9/11, you don’t pay taxes.” It’s quite the opposite. You are threatend with violence to pay for those things and much more no matter your use pattern and quite often if you are poor your roads don’t get fixed and 9/11 doesn’t result in cops showing up let alone justice being served. And simply because other outfits have set up similar rackets worldwide doesn’t make staying in the one you were born into a consentual agreement.

MockObject 8y ago

Not sure how it's immoral to pay precisely what the law demands. Exactly how much more than that is required for moral behavior?

harveynick 8y ago
There's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. I suppose it depends on which you think is more important.