5 ms·

They should not be prosecuted for avoidance. I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal.

They should not be prosecuted for avoidance. I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. Not that they probably care.

bawolff 6y ago
Governments should just close the loopholes. In some cases, the loopholes people talk about are less loopholes and more the intentional way the law works. Those in particular are the govs fault.
- neaden 6y ago
  An accountant once told me a loophole is just someone else's deduction. I don't think you can even just go with the intent of the law, 401ks famously weren't intended at all, they were a loophole that are now viewed as a pillar of most American's retirement plans.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Ya, but there are a lot more ways to avoid taxes than just deductions. Sometimes going way out of your way and doing things like renouncing your citizenship or creating shell corporations or never paying dividends and just using corporate profits to buy back your own stock forever.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > > I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. Not that they probably care. > Governments should just close the loopholes. Calling attention to the existing wrong — its existence, it's wrongness, and it's connection to the present state of the law — is a key part of changing the law, so such public shaming is directly part of that process in a democratic republic, though perhaps not in a regime where “the government” is an aloof dictator unconcerned with public opinion.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Do they do this though? I don't see anyone making specific policy proposals, just blaming "loopholes". What is the moral wrong here? Can anyone state it in a way that doesn't also apply to everyone else. I suspect that people are less concerned about loopholes and more just jealous that some people make massively more than them.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      Many of the loopholes were 100% known by everyone passing the law. They were often an agreement to keep certain stakeholders happy. For example, this year in the UK there is a special question on the tax form for if you are a deep water diver. Why? Because divers have a different taxation system put in place as a sweetheart deal for BP (who employ a lot of divers for their offshore oil rigs)
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I don't care in the least if someone makes more money than me. Good for them. But if they make significantly more than me and yet pay a significantly lower effective tax rate than I do, well then I get a bit annoyed.
  - innagadadavida 6y ago
    > public shaming is directly part of that process in a democratic republic When the wealthy can collectively lobby their way out of paying taxes, this process is pretty much useless. The middle/lower class don’t care so much to do public demonstrations.
- brundolf 6y ago
  "Were I the government, I would simply close all the loopholes" "Were I the programmer, I would simply fix all the bugs"
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I don't blame my users for my bugs.
    - brundolf 6y ago
      Not for the ones they fall victim to, but what is hacking but the exploitation of bugs for personal gain? I assume you or your company would blame a user who exploits a security bug and uses it to compromise your product/business/other customers
      - bawolff 6y ago
        Maybe yes, but generally if the company has been informed about the issue for a reasonable amount of time and refused to fix it, we blame the company
- stuaxo 6y ago
  Yep, and yet the people in power often use these very loopholes and defund their tax departments.
cheph 6y ago
> I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. How do you define a loophole?
- xyzzy21 6y ago
  Loophole is a loaded term because it itself implies morality or lack thereof. If it's legal, it's legal. Period. Calling it a loophole implies otherwise.
  - mcny 6y ago
    I know it won’t work because some businesses work on high volume, really slim margins (such as grocery stores) but I really believe the solution is still to have a tax based on gross receipts with no credits, deductions, or anything like that. Call it like alternate minimum taxes for businesses maybe? As for personal income tax, I strongly believe all credits, deductions, exemptions should be abolished/phased out completely. These are nothing but an extra tax on the lazy, the stupid, and the poorly educated like me. Whether you have zero dependents or a hundred, your tax obligation does not change. Whether you donated nothing or all your income, your tax obligation does not change. Why can’t we have that?
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Except it's not that simple. There are a lot of legal grey area techniques that people use to avoid taxes. Tricks that the average person cannot take advantage of because it would not be cost effective to have to defend them in tax court.
LatteLazy 6y ago
That really depends on what is a loophole. Should people be publicly shamed for making pension contributions or buying an electric car? I sympathise with where you are coming from. Someone employing themselves via a company in Ireland that owns one in Barbados and calling the money a loan is likely shameful. But there is no hard line between these two...
- brundolf 6y ago
  There's no hard line, but there's a soft line at the letter vs intent of the law. More concretely, when the wealthy as a category are contributing less than their fair share to society, the intent of the law is not being fulfilled. Even if it's a tough thing to solve.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
I don't think people should be shamed for trying to minimize how much they pay for something they didn't consent to, that ends up mostly enriching government sector insiders in powerful unions.
znpy 6y ago
> I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes if it's shameful to take advantage of a loophole, shouldn't we close that loophole?

They should not be prosecuted for avoidance. I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. Not that they probably care.

bawolff 6y ago

Governments should just close the loopholes. In some cases, the loopholes people talk about are less loopholes and more the intentional way the law works. Those in particular are the govs fault.

neaden 6y ago
An accountant once told me a loophole is just someone else's deduction. I don't think you can even just go with the intent of the law, 401ks famously weren't intended at all, they were a loophole that are now viewed as a pillar of most American's retirement plans.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Ya, but there are a lot more ways to avoid taxes than just deductions. Sometimes going way out of your way and doing things like renouncing your citizenship or creating shell corporations or never paying dividends and just using corporate profits to buy back your own stock forever.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> > I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. Not that they probably care. > Governments should just close the loopholes. Calling attention to the existing wrong — its existence, it's wrongness, and it's connection to the present state of the law — is a key part of changing the law, so such public shaming is directly part of that process in a democratic republic, though perhaps not in a regime where “the government” is an aloof dictator unconcerned with public opinion.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Do they do this though? I don't see anyone making specific policy proposals, just blaming "loopholes". What is the moral wrong here? Can anyone state it in a way that doesn't also apply to everyone else. I suspect that people are less concerned about loopholes and more just jealous that some people make massively more than them.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Many of the loopholes were 100% known by everyone passing the law. They were often an agreement to keep certain stakeholders happy. For example, this year in the UK there is a special question on the tax form for if you are a deep water diver. Why? Because divers have a different taxation system put in place as a sweetheart deal for BP (who employ a lot of divers for their offshore oil rigs)
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I don't care in the least if someone makes more money than me. Good for them. But if they make significantly more than me and yet pay a significantly lower effective tax rate than I do, well then I get a bit annoyed.
- innagadadavida 6y ago
  > public shaming is directly part of that process in a democratic republic When the wealthy can collectively lobby their way out of paying taxes, this process is pretty much useless. The middle/lower class don’t care so much to do public demonstrations.
brundolf 6y ago
"Were I the government, I would simply close all the loopholes" "Were I the programmer, I would simply fix all the bugs"
- bawolff 6y ago
  I don't blame my users for my bugs.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    Not for the ones they fall victim to, but what is hacking but the exploitation of bugs for personal gain? I assume you or your company would blame a user who exploits a security bug and uses it to compromise your product/business/other customers
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Maybe yes, but generally if the company has been informed about the issue for a reasonable amount of time and refused to fix it, we blame the company
stuaxo 6y ago
Yep, and yet the people in power often use these very loopholes and defund their tax departments.

cheph 6y ago

> I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal. How do you define a loophole?

xyzzy21 6y ago
Loophole is a loaded term because it itself implies morality or lack thereof. If it's legal, it's legal. Period. Calling it a loophole implies otherwise.
- mcny 6y ago
  I know it won’t work because some businesses work on high volume, really slim margins (such as grocery stores) but I really believe the solution is still to have a tax based on gross receipts with no credits, deductions, or anything like that. Call it like alternate minimum taxes for businesses maybe? As for personal income tax, I strongly believe all credits, deductions, exemptions should be abolished/phased out completely. These are nothing but an extra tax on the lazy, the stupid, and the poorly educated like me. Whether you have zero dependents or a hundred, your tax obligation does not change. Whether you donated nothing or all your income, your tax obligation does not change. Why can’t we have that?
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Except it's not that simple. There are a lot of legal grey area techniques that people use to avoid taxes. Tricks that the average person cannot take advantage of because it would not be cost effective to have to defend them in tax court.

LatteLazy 6y ago

That really depends on what is a loophole. Should people be publicly shamed for making pension contributions or buying an electric car? I sympathise with where you are coming from. Someone employing themselves via a company in Ireland that owns one in Barbados and calling the money a loan is likely shameful. But there is no hard line between these two...

brundolf 6y ago
There's no hard line, but there's a soft line at the letter vs intent of the law. More concretely, when the wealthy as a category are contributing less than their fair share to society, the intent of the law is not being fulfilled. Even if it's a tough thing to solve.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

I don't think people should be shamed for trying to minimize how much they pay for something they didn't consent to, that ends up mostly enriching government sector insiders in powerful unions.

znpy 6y ago

> I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes if it's shameful to take advantage of a loophole, shouldn't we close that loophole?