4 ms·

I remember a speech by the British comedian David Mitchell. There had been recent scrutiny on a celebrity figure when it came to light that he used all sorts o

by furyg3 5y ago

I remember a speech by the British comedian David Mitchell. There had been recent scrutiny on a celebrity figure when it came to light that he used all sorts of dirty (but legal) tricks to avoid paying income tax. Tax avoidance is, of course, legal. In this sense the rich are allowed to choose how much tax they wish to pay, based on their individual conscience or morals. So effectively, governments have a 'tax on moral behavior', which is stupid.

stordoff 5y ago
I suspect you're thinking of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8epam4NyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8epam4NyY
- llimos 5y ago
  Absolutely brilliant
refurb 5y ago
By “dirty (but legal) tricks” you means following the the tax code and legally paying what you owe?
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  That's one framing. Another framing is that if you think we ought to have roads and socialized healthcare and so on, then it seems like it's a bad thing if people are financially incentivized to pay a small platoon of rule-understanders to prevent their money from being spent on those things you think we ought to have.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    This framing seems like a classic case of "yesterday's compromise is today's loophole". The rules and their various exceptions and special cases were put in to be used. Would you complain that someone takes a right turn on red where allowed or complain that someone builds a structure to the maximum specifications they can before incurring additional permitting or construction compliance requirements?
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      If I was alive when the special cases were put in, I would also have told you that I did not care for them. If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? "Well you see, you voted for Barack Obama, and he spent all his political capital to pass a subsidy for the insurance industry, and as part of a compromise internal to the Democratic party that subsidy included incentives to employ people for less than full time, so really this is on you" and so on?
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. So then why complain about the people following the rules? They're just making the best of the situation they're in. >I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. So then it's about whether or not you like the outcome that rule provides? Regardless of how much you care about compliance with the law it is farcical to pick and choose laws that get special treatment (within the same class of laws, we're not talking about dodging sales tax vs murder here). You don't get to pick one area of minor noncompliance to be good guys and one area to be bad guys, equality under law and all that. >Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? I levy the criticism at the people screeching online about how the companies that do it are evil, as if they have a choice and it's not a collective action problem. Sure Home Depot could take a stand and give everyone 40hr and eat the cost of the healthcare requirements but then Lowe's would eat their lunch. The only way to fix these problems is to change the rules for everyone.
        anonymoushn 5y ago
  - sidlls 5y ago
    Here's another framing: I think the government ought to fund infrastructure, healthcare, and so on, and also that it doesn't mainly because it's filled with corrupt lackeys of the wealthy elite, and even where it does fund these things the mechanism of distribution (government contractors) is also corrupt. It's perfectly rational to attempt to minimize funding that.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
> In this sense the rich are allowed to choose how much tax they wish to pay, based on their individual conscience or morals. Not so. There's the law that dictates a minimum amount of tax payable and everyone is entitled to pay only what is strictly owed under the law and not more. Conscience and morals have nothing to do with it and in my view playing that card in an attempt to make people pay more than legally owed is a form of bullying. Now, of course we can discuss if the law makes sense and is just, but that's another issue.

by furyg3 5y ago

stordoff 5y ago

I suspect you're thinking of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8epam4NyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8epam4NyY

llimos 5y ago
Absolutely brilliant

refurb 5y ago

By “dirty (but legal) tricks” you means following the the tax code and legally paying what you owe?

anonymoushn 5y ago
That's one framing. Another framing is that if you think we ought to have roads and socialized healthcare and so on, then it seems like it's a bad thing if people are financially incentivized to pay a small platoon of rule-understanders to prevent their money from being spent on those things you think we ought to have.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  This framing seems like a classic case of "yesterday's compromise is today's loophole". The rules and their various exceptions and special cases were put in to be used. Would you complain that someone takes a right turn on red where allowed or complain that someone builds a structure to the maximum specifications they can before incurring additional permitting or construction compliance requirements?
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    If I was alive when the special cases were put in, I would also have told you that I did not care for them. If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? "Well you see, you voted for Barack Obama, and he spent all his political capital to pass a subsidy for the insurance industry, and as part of a compromise internal to the Democratic party that subsidy included incentives to employ people for less than full time, so really this is on you" and so on?
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. So then why complain about the people following the rules? They're just making the best of the situation they're in. >I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. So then it's about whether or not you like the outcome that rule provides? Regardless of how much you care about compliance with the law it is farcical to pick and choose laws that get special treatment (within the same class of laws, we're not talking about dodging sales tax vs murder here). You don't get to pick one area of minor noncompliance to be good guys and one area to be bad guys, equality under law and all that. >Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? I levy the criticism at the people screeching online about how the companies that do it are evil, as if they have a choice and it's not a collective action problem. Sure Home Depot could take a stand and give everyone 40hr and eat the cost of the healthcare requirements but then Lowe's would eat their lunch. The only way to fix these problems is to change the rules for everyone.
      - anonymoushn 5y ago
- sidlls 5y ago
  Here's another framing: I think the government ought to fund infrastructure, healthcare, and so on, and also that it doesn't mainly because it's filled with corrupt lackeys of the wealthy elite, and even where it does fund these things the mechanism of distribution (government contractors) is also corrupt. It's perfectly rational to attempt to minimize funding that.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> In this sense the rich are allowed to choose how much tax they wish to pay, based on their individual conscience or morals. Not so. There's the law that dictates a minimum amount of tax payable and everyone is entitled to pay only what is strictly owed under the law and not more. Conscience and morals have nothing to do with it and in my view playing that card in an attempt to make people pay more than legally owed is a form of bullying. Now, of course we can discuss if the law makes sense and is just, but that's another issue.