5 ms·

America won't understand Amazon's tax returns. Between the vast bulk of people who simply won't understand them, and the small-but-loud minority of people who w

by jerf 7y ago

America won't understand Amazon's tax returns. Between the vast bulk of people who simply won't understand them, and the small-but-loud minority of people who will be loudly misinterpreting them (in many cases, deliberately), I don't see this being helpful. It amounts to people asking for a platform to demagogue from. The amount of data we have now is really plenty to do the job. It's up to the professional legislators to figure out how to fix it.

frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
I agree, transparency is bad and people shouldn't have information if they don't understand it. Also people shouldn't have information because they might misuse it.
- mc32 7y ago
  The thing is fringe elements will abuse this and misrepresent. Just as on the right statistics will be used to misrepresent crime and such so that now many news orgs omit certain aspects of perp information so as not to contribute to that phenomenon.
  - noobermin 7y ago
    Was Edward Snowden wrong to expose pervasive spying from the government? That was, in fact, the government's argument regarding the leaks being damaging to national security.
    - 420codebro 7y ago
      Snowden did a noble deed. On the other hand, Manning is a fucking basket case.
    - mc32 7y ago
      This is a delicate thing. This kind of high level whistleblowing is necessarily frought with peril. It has to be one of those things that do knowing you’re sacrificing everything. Like being a deserter or being a double agent. Your belief has to be high and you should be willing to take the repercussions as a patriot. Not too dissimilar from being a colonial revolutionary.
  - danielscrubs 7y ago
    You can lie with or without statistics, but sunlight is really the best disinfectant. I frankly get scared when people think otherwise. Corrupt af.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      But you're not asking for sunlight. You're asking for a spotlight. That's what people are saying causes the problems. If you were asking for sunlight, and everyone's tax returns would be opened for public scrutiny, that would be one thing. But you are choosing a sub-group, and saying, "No, we only want to drag your tax returns out into this spotlight." That's a totally different thing, and that incentivizes a completely different set of behaviors game theoretically speaking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jerf 7y ago
  Actually, if you carefully re-read my post, I didn't say it "shouldn't" be released. I just said it won't do any of the good things people are hoping the release to accomplish. It may do other good things, but only after a period of substantial demagoguery and incomprehension.
- dang 7y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
    I wasn't sarcastic. I'm just a big believer in Niebuhr's 'necessary illusion' or Strauss' 'noble lie' and thought I had found a fellow compatriot.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>It amounts to people asking for a platform to demagogue from... Well, that's true. If we could count on well reasoned analysis from all concerned, that might be one thing. But I think we all know that likely won't happen. It rarely does with anything actually. And policies based on sound bite scapegoating are rarely a good idea either. Witness, the drug war. Probably best for congress to just do their jobs, look at every tax return in corporate America, and recommend and make regulatory changes where appropriate. No real need for grandstanding, it wouldn't be helpful. The grandstanding might actually hurt in this case?
supercanuck 7y ago
It doesn't matter whether they will understand it. I'm sure the next future leaders in college may be studying tax codes and their effects and would benefit from learning based on what is happening in practice. Maybe there are some Algorithms that have not been invented yet that could find better ways to adjust our tax code and arguments need to be made with evidence. Free Markets, Liberal Democracy means freedom of exchange of information. We're not talking about National Security Interests here.

by jerf 7y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago

I agree, transparency is bad and people shouldn't have information if they don't understand it. Also people shouldn't have information because they might misuse it.

mc32 7y ago
The thing is fringe elements will abuse this and misrepresent. Just as on the right statistics will be used to misrepresent crime and such so that now many news orgs omit certain aspects of perp information so as not to contribute to that phenomenon.
- noobermin 7y ago
  Was Edward Snowden wrong to expose pervasive spying from the government? That was, in fact, the government's argument regarding the leaks being damaging to national security.
  - 420codebro 7y ago
    Snowden did a noble deed. On the other hand, Manning is a fucking basket case.
  - mc32 7y ago
    This is a delicate thing. This kind of high level whistleblowing is necessarily frought with peril. It has to be one of those things that do knowing you’re sacrificing everything. Like being a deserter or being a double agent. Your belief has to be high and you should be willing to take the repercussions as a patriot. Not too dissimilar from being a colonial revolutionary.
- danielscrubs 7y ago
  You can lie with or without statistics, but sunlight is really the best disinfectant. I frankly get scared when people think otherwise. Corrupt af.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    But you're not asking for sunlight. You're asking for a spotlight. That's what people are saying causes the problems. If you were asking for sunlight, and everyone's tax returns would be opened for public scrutiny, that would be one thing. But you are choosing a sub-group, and saying, "No, we only want to drag your tax returns out into this spotlight." That's a totally different thing, and that incentivizes a completely different set of behaviors game theoretically speaking.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jerf 7y ago
Actually, if you carefully re-read my post, I didn't say it "shouldn't" be released. I just said it won't do any of the good things people are hoping the release to accomplish. It may do other good things, but only after a period of substantial demagoguery and incomprehension.
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
  I wasn't sarcastic. I'm just a big believer in Niebuhr's 'necessary illusion' or Strauss' 'noble lie' and thought I had found a fellow compatriot.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>It amounts to people asking for a platform to demagogue from... Well, that's true. If we could count on well reasoned analysis from all concerned, that might be one thing. But I think we all know that likely won't happen. It rarely does with anything actually. And policies based on sound bite scapegoating are rarely a good idea either. Witness, the drug war. Probably best for congress to just do their jobs, look at every tax return in corporate America, and recommend and make regulatory changes where appropriate. No real need for grandstanding, it wouldn't be helpful. The grandstanding might actually hurt in this case?

supercanuck 7y ago

It doesn't matter whether they will understand it. I'm sure the next future leaders in college may be studying tax codes and their effects and would benefit from learning based on what is happening in practice. Maybe there are some Algorithms that have not been invented yet that could find better ways to adjust our tax code and arguments need to be made with evidence. Free Markets, Liberal Democracy means freedom of exchange of information. We're not talking about National Security Interests here.