5 ms·

At a high level, what makes tax evasion wrong is when people are able to benefit from the commons — stable currency, weights and measures, a climate of rule of

At a high level, what makes tax evasion wrong is when people are able to benefit from the commons — stable currency, weights and measures, a climate of rule of law and the commensurate security of property — without paying into it. People who have successful businesses and are worth millions of dollars would be robbed and cheated every single day if it were not for the vast array of institutions — expensive institutions — that facilitate the climate of trust and security characteristic of developed countries today.

seibelj 8y ago
The majority of us would agree that 100% taxation is unworkable, as in, every single cent of income I earn is seized by the state. Given your comment, I assume you think 0% taxation is also infeasible. So we agree that somewhere above 0% and below 100% taxation there is some optimal amount. However, given the circumstances of the country and our personal philosophies, we may disagree on that optimal level. The fact that free people can move to lower (or higher!) tax jurisdictions, and judge the quality of those services based on how much they pay and what they get in return, is a good thing in my opinion. The competition keeps politicians from elevating taxation to that unworkable 100%.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  > The fact that free people can move to lower (or higher!) tax jurisdictions, and judge the quality of those services based on how much they pay and what they get in return, is a good thing in my opinion. I think few would disagree that if you move to a new jurisdiction to benefit from a different tax scheme, that's fine. But therein lies two problems: First, so few people are able to move; the wealthy are disproportionally able to have their pick of tax jurisdictions so they can extract benefits from one society and then jump ship when it suits them without returning benefits to that society. Second is when people move on "paper" to benefit from another jurisdiction but don't physically move in reality. Thus they continue to benefit from the society they nominally "left" but don't pay into it. That's the kind of tax avoidance / evasion that most people have a problem with.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    > Second is when people move on "paper" to benefit from another jurisdiction but don't physically move in reality. Thus they continue to benefit from the society they nominally "left" but don't pay into it. What jurisdiction allows this? The US is particularly draconian by taxing worldwide income; every other country that I know of will tax your income if you live there.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Many jurisdictions have residency rules that allow people to partially move - e.g in the UK if you have a residence overseas and spend less than half a year in the UK, you don't count as UK resident for that tax year. Although really most of the tax avoidance schemes rely on moving one's income and assets to a company and then playing games with the "residency" of the company.
  - sbacic 8y ago
    > First, so few people are able to move; Let me tell you a little story. In 2013, Croatia had some 350,000 unemployed. In a country of about 4 million people, that is a lot. Today, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the EU. What happened? Many of those people (and even some that were employed) left for Germany and Ireland. It's gotten to the point that the government has increased non-EU worker quotas in order to plug the hole - despite being part of the EU and having access to its huge labor market! So, as you can see, at least in the EU, people can and do move. What does this have to do with taxes? Germany does not have a problem with tens or even hundreds of thousands of skilled migrants emigrating to fuel its economy. But God forbid that some billionaire decides to leave Germany for Malta - that's an atrocity and a EU-wide problem that MUST be solved. Despite the fact that the EU is based on the free movement of labor, goods AND capital. I think that in the future, more and more people are going to be voting with their feet - and not just the rich. Between gerrymandering, vote buying, corporate lobbying, vocal minorities, apathetic voters and defective electoral systems (first past the post/two party systems) many have lost faith in democracy.
- analog31 8y ago
  I wonder if it's such a great loss. What if a few hundred Americans moved to Australia? Is whatever they would do with their wealth in the US worth more than the price we pay for their disproportionate political influence?
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    You’re thinking country level, but let’s go one step below that: when one billionaire moved from New Jersey to Florida, it was a major issue for New Jersey’s annual budget.
sbacic 8y ago
> stable currency, weights and measures, a climate of rule of law and the commensurate security of property — without paying into it. You are making a very big assumption here - that paying taxes guarantees you these things. I assure you, it does not. In fact, I believe that public services and the amount of tax you pay have been out of sync for a very long time - that is, that it is quite possible to pay a lot of tax and get none (or only a few) of those services.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  I am not saying it guarantees those things and that guarantee is not relevant to my argument at all. They have to be paid for, they aren’t free. It is definitely possible to pay a lot of tax and get nothing and that is something to be opposed. America’s existence is testament to the resentment that unjust taxation evokes.
mafribe 8y ago
Let me be the contrarian here: history seems to suggest otherwise. All throughout history, any society of sufficient complexity develops strong hierarchies, with a small ruling elite. Throughout history those ruling elites almost never had a problem exerting sufficient oppression on the majority of the population so as to remain rich and powerful. Indeed it has been argues that the ruling elites of yesteryear were substantially more wealthy in comparison with the rest of the population than today's rich. Ruling families tend to last centuries (e.g. the almost 2000 year rule of Europe by a few families like the House of Habsburg which ruled Austria for > 600 years, or ongoing 2.5K years ruling family in Japan, the Shang dynasty ruled in China for 554 years. House of Saud is ruling for nearly 3 centuries. Etc etc.) We remember the French revolution, because it's so rare. Contrary to what you claim ("expensive institutions"), oppressing a large number of people into submission is cheap, provided the oppressors cooperate tightly and efficiently. (See also the prevalence of slavery in almost all known societies before industrialisation). It has been argued that by letting the rich get off with some tax evasion, the population buys them off, buys their acceptance of democracy and low-levels of oppression.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  This is bogus because “the rich” we are talking about here only exist because of peace and security and these other institutions. The historical rich were not people who sold snacks; they were the people providing stability and security — they were warlords. Someone like Bezos or Gates is not able to oppress and doesn’t need to be bought off.
  - mafribe 7y ago
    It is true that Bezos' and Gates' ascent depended on "peace and security and these other institutions", but wealth once acquired can easily be defended by burning those institutions to the ground; indeed that would probably increase their relative wealth through making almost everybody else worse off. Hard to believe that Bezos or Gates would find it difficult to hire enough mercenaries to defend their position at the top of the social hierarchy. History certainly seems to suggest that the ruling class virtually always manage to do this. The main way in which the ruling class looses power has been being displaced by other members of the ruling class, which is why dictators are always especially suspicious of their own army and secret service leaders. For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became a fiefdom of 4 oligarchs pretty quickly, and they were displaced by a high-ranking ex-KGB operative (Putin) and his people, i.e. by a gang from another power center. What historical evidence to the contrary would you put forward?

seibelj 8y ago

The majority of us would agree that 100% taxation is unworkable, as in, every single cent of income I earn is seized by the state. Given your comment, I assume you think 0% taxation is also infeasible. So we agree that somewhere above 0% and below 100% taxation there is some optimal amount. However, given the circumstances of the country and our personal philosophies, we may disagree on that optimal level. The fact that free people can move to lower (or higher!) tax jurisdictions, and judge the quality of those services based on how much they pay and what they get in return, is a good thing in my opinion. The competition keeps politicians from elevating taxation to that unworkable 100%.

techsupporter 8y ago
> The fact that free people can move to lower (or higher!) tax jurisdictions, and judge the quality of those services based on how much they pay and what they get in return, is a good thing in my opinion. I think few would disagree that if you move to a new jurisdiction to benefit from a different tax scheme, that's fine. But therein lies two problems: First, so few people are able to move; the wealthy are disproportionally able to have their pick of tax jurisdictions so they can extract benefits from one society and then jump ship when it suits them without returning benefits to that society. Second is when people move on "paper" to benefit from another jurisdiction but don't physically move in reality. Thus they continue to benefit from the society they nominally "left" but don't pay into it. That's the kind of tax avoidance / evasion that most people have a problem with.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  > Second is when people move on "paper" to benefit from another jurisdiction but don't physically move in reality. Thus they continue to benefit from the society they nominally "left" but don't pay into it. What jurisdiction allows this? The US is particularly draconian by taxing worldwide income; every other country that I know of will tax your income if you live there.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Many jurisdictions have residency rules that allow people to partially move - e.g in the UK if you have a residence overseas and spend less than half a year in the UK, you don't count as UK resident for that tax year. Although really most of the tax avoidance schemes rely on moving one's income and assets to a company and then playing games with the "residency" of the company.
- sbacic 8y ago
  > First, so few people are able to move; Let me tell you a little story. In 2013, Croatia had some 350,000 unemployed. In a country of about 4 million people, that is a lot. Today, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the EU. What happened? Many of those people (and even some that were employed) left for Germany and Ireland. It's gotten to the point that the government has increased non-EU worker quotas in order to plug the hole - despite being part of the EU and having access to its huge labor market! So, as you can see, at least in the EU, people can and do move. What does this have to do with taxes? Germany does not have a problem with tens or even hundreds of thousands of skilled migrants emigrating to fuel its economy. But God forbid that some billionaire decides to leave Germany for Malta - that's an atrocity and a EU-wide problem that MUST be solved. Despite the fact that the EU is based on the free movement of labor, goods AND capital. I think that in the future, more and more people are going to be voting with their feet - and not just the rich. Between gerrymandering, vote buying, corporate lobbying, vocal minorities, apathetic voters and defective electoral systems (first past the post/two party systems) many have lost faith in democracy.
analog31 8y ago
I wonder if it's such a great loss. What if a few hundred Americans moved to Australia? Is whatever they would do with their wealth in the US worth more than the price we pay for their disproportionate political influence?
- TomVDB 8y ago
  You’re thinking country level, but let’s go one step below that: when one billionaire moved from New Jersey to Florida, it was a major issue for New Jersey’s annual budget.

sbacic 8y ago

> stable currency, weights and measures, a climate of rule of law and the commensurate security of property — without paying into it. You are making a very big assumption here - that paying taxes guarantees you these things. I assure you, it does not. In fact, I believe that public services and the amount of tax you pay have been out of sync for a very long time - that is, that it is quite possible to pay a lot of tax and get none (or only a few) of those services.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
I am not saying it guarantees those things and that guarantee is not relevant to my argument at all. They have to be paid for, they aren’t free. It is definitely possible to pay a lot of tax and get nothing and that is something to be opposed. America’s existence is testament to the resentment that unjust taxation evokes.

mafribe 8y ago

Let me be the contrarian here: history seems to suggest otherwise. All throughout history, any society of sufficient complexity develops strong hierarchies, with a small ruling elite. Throughout history those ruling elites almost never had a problem exerting sufficient oppression on the majority of the population so as to remain rich and powerful. Indeed it has been argues that the ruling elites of yesteryear were substantially more wealthy in comparison with the rest of the population than today's rich. Ruling families tend to last centuries (e.g. the almost 2000 year rule of Europe by a few families like the House of Habsburg which ruled Austria for > 600 years, or ongoing 2.5K years ruling family in Japan, the Shang dynasty ruled in China for 554 years. House of Saud is ruling for nearly 3 centuries. Etc etc.) We remember the French revolution, because it's so rare. Contrary to what you claim ("expensive institutions"), oppressing a large number of people into submission is cheap, provided the oppressors cooperate tightly and efficiently. (See also the prevalence of slavery in almost all known societies before industrialisation). It has been argued that by letting the rich get off with some tax evasion, the population buys them off, buys their acceptance of democracy and low-levels of oppression.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
This is bogus because “the rich” we are talking about here only exist because of peace and security and these other institutions. The historical rich were not people who sold snacks; they were the people providing stability and security — they were warlords. Someone like Bezos or Gates is not able to oppress and doesn’t need to be bought off.
- mafribe 7y ago
  It is true that Bezos' and Gates' ascent depended on "peace and security and these other institutions", but wealth once acquired can easily be defended by burning those institutions to the ground; indeed that would probably increase their relative wealth through making almost everybody else worse off. Hard to believe that Bezos or Gates would find it difficult to hire enough mercenaries to defend their position at the top of the social hierarchy. History certainly seems to suggest that the ruling class virtually always manage to do this. The main way in which the ruling class looses power has been being displaced by other members of the ruling class, which is why dictators are always especially suspicious of their own army and secret service leaders. For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became a fiefdom of 4 oligarchs pretty quickly, and they were displaced by a high-ranking ex-KGB operative (Putin) and his people, i.e. by a gang from another power center. What historical evidence to the contrary would you put forward?