6 ms·

> but there's absolutely zero reason to allow the return gifts in the first place There are reasons, but just ones that you don't agree with or haven't thought

> but there's absolutely zero reason to allow the return gifts in the first place There are reasons, but just ones that you don't agree with or haven't thought of. You need to understand that reciprocation is in the culture, and people are not purely rational economic actors. It's entirely possible some towns would outright refuse 'assistance' without being able to reciprocate somehow.

munk-a 8y ago
This is a thing, definitely, but I don't think it's something we can't talk about and criticize. The fact that this cultural tradition has caused a well-intentioned(ish, if you're rural) tax law to become a big loop hole is a bad thing. I'm certain if they thought this was going to be an issue (with small towns refusing the money) some more reasonable solution could be found. The town I grew up in, Boston, receives a christmas tree every year from Nova Scotia due to the fact that Boston sent a lot of emergency aide to Halifax and the surrounds after a large explosion there in 1917. Something similar could be done with small towns sending local art and culture items to large cities in free exhibitions to demonstrate what the tax money is benefiting or just as a gift or maybe a small japanese town might sponsor a fair in Tokyo where free plums are available using a portion of the tax money they received. This would be a way to express thanks in a common manner for the sum of the donations made by citizens without creating perverse tax loop holes that are exploited to simply lower the amount of money coming out of your pocket.
- megaman2 8y ago
  I agree with you that we should be able to talk about it and criticize it, but I think declaring 'there are no reasons for this' requires more thoughts on the perspectives of the individuals or entities involved. Certainly it is a (somewhat mitigated) loophole that can be exploited, so in that respect it is not good. But weighed against the positive impact for the rural towns and the connection it makes back to hometowns, you could argue it's worth it.
jfroma 8y ago
Isn't the person donating to their hometown the tax, giving something to the town (reciprocation) for the education and childhood they had in the hometown in the first place? Where does the reciprocation ends? You give money to your hometown because you have very found memories and you feel grateful about the education etc., your hometown sends you plums, you send a pie to thank the plums, then they respond back with something else, ad infinitum.
- megaman2 8y ago
  Ha, well, if you take your (pathological) example and apply the 30% reciprocation value rule, then no, it does not go ad infinitum, but there is eventually the floor of $0. But more practically speaking, from the perspective of say, the mayor of a town in Japan - he has revenue being conciously directed towards him from mostly anonymous citizens of the country. Reciving a real (monetary) gift from someone you hardly know definitely would require a reciprocation. In some ways, sure, you're reciprocating to your hometown for your education/etc, but it's not being seen that way from the town's perspective. There's also the factor that the redirected tax revenue is a physical thing, where as the 'education and life experience' imbued upon a child growing up is a rather non tangible gift .
- rtpg 8y ago
  I mean there's the stereotype of the "thank you" note for the birthday gifts. You bring a gift to someone hosting a dinner party at their house. There's of course a cynical tax play here. But it is entirely possible that people also _feel good for helping their hometowns_. Sure, there's the vouchers, but there are also the (not super resellable) plums! It's maintaining emotional bonds in the community. At least that's the most optimistic way of thinking about it
dublidu 8y ago
So kickbacks are ok as long as they’re part of the culture?

munk-a 8y ago

This is a thing, definitely, but I don't think it's something we can't talk about and criticize. The fact that this cultural tradition has caused a well-intentioned(ish, if you're rural) tax law to become a big loop hole is a bad thing. I'm certain if they thought this was going to be an issue (with small towns refusing the money) some more reasonable solution could be found. The town I grew up in, Boston, receives a christmas tree every year from Nova Scotia due to the fact that Boston sent a lot of emergency aide to Halifax and the surrounds after a large explosion there in 1917. Something similar could be done with small towns sending local art and culture items to large cities in free exhibitions to demonstrate what the tax money is benefiting or just as a gift or maybe a small japanese town might sponsor a fair in Tokyo where free plums are available using a portion of the tax money they received. This would be a way to express thanks in a common manner for the sum of the donations made by citizens without creating perverse tax loop holes that are exploited to simply lower the amount of money coming out of your pocket.

megaman2 8y ago
I agree with you that we should be able to talk about it and criticize it, but I think declaring 'there are no reasons for this' requires more thoughts on the perspectives of the individuals or entities involved. Certainly it is a (somewhat mitigated) loophole that can be exploited, so in that respect it is not good. But weighed against the positive impact for the rural towns and the connection it makes back to hometowns, you could argue it's worth it.

jfroma 8y ago

Isn't the person donating to their hometown the tax, giving something to the town (reciprocation) for the education and childhood they had in the hometown in the first place? Where does the reciprocation ends? You give money to your hometown because you have very found memories and you feel grateful about the education etc., your hometown sends you plums, you send a pie to thank the plums, then they respond back with something else, ad infinitum.

megaman2 8y ago
Ha, well, if you take your (pathological) example and apply the 30% reciprocation value rule, then no, it does not go ad infinitum, but there is eventually the floor of $0. But more practically speaking, from the perspective of say, the mayor of a town in Japan - he has revenue being conciously directed towards him from mostly anonymous citizens of the country. Reciving a real (monetary) gift from someone you hardly know definitely would require a reciprocation. In some ways, sure, you're reciprocating to your hometown for your education/etc, but it's not being seen that way from the town's perspective. There's also the factor that the redirected tax revenue is a physical thing, where as the 'education and life experience' imbued upon a child growing up is a rather non tangible gift .
rtpg 8y ago
I mean there's the stereotype of the "thank you" note for the birthday gifts. You bring a gift to someone hosting a dinner party at their house. There's of course a cynical tax play here. But it is entirely possible that people also _feel good for helping their hometowns_. Sure, there's the vouchers, but there are also the (not super resellable) plums! It's maintaining emotional bonds in the community. At least that's the most optimistic way of thinking about it

dublidu 8y ago

So kickbacks are ok as long as they’re part of the culture?