3 ms·

Apologies if the below comes across as inflammatory. It's not the intention, however it's largely the same as what you're saying, only how things actually play

Apologies if the below comes across as inflammatory. It's not the intention, however it's largely the same as what you're saying, only how things actually play out in reality today. It doesn't need to be this way. It shouldn't be this way. Unfortunately, it is this way. > Schemes that get more widely used are removed from the tax code and something else is put in their place. Schemes that benefit the income-class are removed from the tax code > The fact their only used by a small percentage of the population is a feature not a bug. The fact they're only used by the very wealthy is a feature, not a bug. > Governments spend mind boggling amounts of money, most people need to hand over a large fraction of their earnings or the system fails. Governments are paid by the ultra weathly to siphon more money their way, most non-ultra-wealthy people need to hand over a large fraction of their earnings or the system fails.

Retric 5y ago
Well, sure but I try and avoid inflammatory language when it comes to taxes etc. People get really uptight that of course X, when you bring up say ‘business shield their owners from liability’ like whatever is being discussed is some inherent property or the universe rather than simply a social contract subject to change. People pretend anything that is currently benefiting them is simply a forgone conclusion in part to avoid having to defend it. Nobody wants to admit that say “companies should pay taxes” because incorporation brings benefits and those benefits should have an associated cost. I use the liability thing because it’s such an old social contract. Plenty of more recent exceptions evoke similar responses from those who benefit.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  The problem is you are trying to base a tax code on "should," which is why it's broken in the first place. The problem with taxing corporations is that it isn't clear cut what their income is. Individual income is much more easily defined, (even if it comes from distributions from corporations) so taxes that target individuals tend to be more successful.
  - Retric 5y ago
    I don’t mean should as in an ethical argument. Forcing people to do paperwork to get shielded from liability is simply less efficient than shielding everyone from liability. Yes the second option seems silly, but if there is zero costs to forming a cooperation then why would anyone refrain? The only way such a system is a good idea is if there is some reason for people not to incorporate.

Retric 5y ago

Well, sure but I try and avoid inflammatory language when it comes to taxes etc. People get really uptight that of course X, when you bring up say ‘business shield their owners from liability’ like whatever is being discussed is some inherent property or the universe rather than simply a social contract subject to change. People pretend anything that is currently benefiting them is simply a forgone conclusion in part to avoid having to defend it. Nobody wants to admit that say “companies should pay taxes” because incorporation brings benefits and those benefits should have an associated cost. I use the liability thing because it’s such an old social contract. Plenty of more recent exceptions evoke similar responses from those who benefit.

fallingknife 5y ago
The problem is you are trying to base a tax code on "should," which is why it's broken in the first place. The problem with taxing corporations is that it isn't clear cut what their income is. Individual income is much more easily defined, (even if it comes from distributions from corporations) so taxes that target individuals tend to be more successful.
- Retric 5y ago
  I don’t mean should as in an ethical argument. Forcing people to do paperwork to get shielded from liability is simply less efficient than shielding everyone from liability. Yes the second option seems silly, but if there is zero costs to forming a cooperation then why would anyone refrain? The only way such a system is a good idea is if there is some reason for people not to incorporate.