5 ms·

While yes, your last point is correct. And I think everyone should do everything in their power to lower their taxable income (Anything else, in my opinion, is

While yes, your last point is correct. And I think everyone should do everything in their power to lower their taxable income (Anything else, in my opinion, is irresponsible.) - So I absolutely think that people would continue to avoid a tax regardless. But you're comparing corporate and individual income tax.

lmm 8y ago
Well the article talks about "collapsible corporations", so the corporate tax rate can be relevant to individual income. I'm not aware of anywhere with a 10% rate on individual income, but I'd bet on seeing the same kind of behaviour from rich individuals in such a place.
- ljf 8y ago
  Monaco has 0% income tax: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/7243401/Monaco-might-not-charge-residents-income-tax-but-its-no-tax-haven.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/7243401/M...
  - chosenbreed37 8y ago
    Here are few others.... https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-without-income-tax.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-without-income...
  - lmm 8y ago
    Sure; that's not really any good for comparing rates of tax avoidance though.
coldtea 8y ago
>And I think everyone should do everything in their power to lower their taxable income (Anything else, in my opinion, is irresponsible.) Somehow how we don't apply the same logic to other things that we laws for, but that we can bypass (either because its difficult to catch us or because we only violate the spirit of the law). E.g. "I absolutely think that people should continue to throw waste to the countryside if they can be sure nobody's watching and they wont be caught.".
- jki275 8y ago
  He's not saying break the law. Throwing waste in the countryside is both legally and morally indefensible. Lowering one's taxable income using legal means is neither.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Either the law about tax is bad, so it should be repealed. Or the law is ok, and bypassing it with scheming is "morally indefensible", even if the schemes are legal.
    - jki275 8y ago
      Or the law is being strictly applied as it's written. If people don't like it, it can be changed through the legislative processes. You're using the word "bypass" as though it means to break the law. He's using it to mean that he's following the law strictly in order to pay less taxes. Those two interpretations are not compatible.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Every law has a letter and a spirit. Assuming a law is morally correct, trying to find loopholes to legally bypass its spirit, makes you a jerk.
        jki275 8y ago
        If the "spirit" of the law, is at odds with the letter of the law, and the letter of the law is an attempt to do things that are not constitutional, then it doesn't really matter what one calls someone over following the law.
        coldtea 8y ago
        Not even sure what this means. The spirit of the law ("pay your tax to contribute to the country's budget") is not at odds with the letter. And neither is it unconstitutional.

lmm 8y ago

Well the article talks about "collapsible corporations", so the corporate tax rate can be relevant to individual income. I'm not aware of anywhere with a 10% rate on individual income, but I'd bet on seeing the same kind of behaviour from rich individuals in such a place.

ljf 8y ago
Monaco has 0% income tax: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/7243401/Monaco-might-not-charge-residents-income-tax-but-its-no-tax-haven.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/7243401/M...
- chosenbreed37 8y ago
  Here are few others.... https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-without-income-tax.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-without-income...
- lmm 8y ago
  Sure; that's not really any good for comparing rates of tax avoidance though.

coldtea 8y ago

>And I think everyone should do everything in their power to lower their taxable income (Anything else, in my opinion, is irresponsible.) Somehow how we don't apply the same logic to other things that we laws for, but that we can bypass (either because its difficult to catch us or because we only violate the spirit of the law). E.g. "I absolutely think that people should continue to throw waste to the countryside if they can be sure nobody's watching and they wont be caught.".

jki275 8y ago
He's not saying break the law. Throwing waste in the countryside is both legally and morally indefensible. Lowering one's taxable income using legal means is neither.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Either the law about tax is bad, so it should be repealed. Or the law is ok, and bypassing it with scheming is "morally indefensible", even if the schemes are legal.
  - jki275 8y ago
    Or the law is being strictly applied as it's written. If people don't like it, it can be changed through the legislative processes. You're using the word "bypass" as though it means to break the law. He's using it to mean that he's following the law strictly in order to pay less taxes. Those two interpretations are not compatible.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Every law has a letter and a spirit. Assuming a law is morally correct, trying to find loopholes to legally bypass its spirit, makes you a jerk.
      - jki275 8y ago
        If the "spirit" of the law, is at odds with the letter of the law, and the letter of the law is an attempt to do things that are not constitutional, then it doesn't really matter what one calls someone over following the law.
        coldtea 8y ago
        Not even sure what this means. The spirit of the law ("pay your tax to contribute to the country's budget") is not at odds with the letter. And neither is it unconstitutional.