8 ms·

A seafood company in Canada has a 100 foot section of train track, where they load trucks on and right back off, in an attempt to get around the Jones Act requi

by fooey 5y ago

A seafood company in Canada has a 100 foot section of train track, where they load trucks on and right back off, in an attempt to get around the Jones Act requirement that goods shipped between 2 points in the US must use US flagged vessels https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/09/15/feds-accuse-alaska-seafood-transporters-of-secret-scheme-to-evade-the-jones-act-using-100-foot-rail-line/ https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/09/15/feds-accuse-...

mmcgaha 5y ago
We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.
- stenl 5y ago
  Or maybe we need the opposite: basically just state that you did this stupid stuff only to avoid the tax, so you should pay the tax anyway.
  - version_five 5y ago
    The solution to a bad or poorly written law is not to leave it on the books and have some "oh well we actually meant" thing that means it can be arbitrarily applied in a different way than written. Courts can interpret laws if the interpretation is the problem. If there is just a stupid loophole, then either the law itself makes no sense (as seems to apply to this Jones Act) or it needs to be reworded to align with its intent. This reminds me of all the california electricity deregulation games where Enron et al moved power out of state and back, or had plants go down strategically for maintenance in order to gain the system. The correct solution is not to say "play nice, you know what we meant". It's to have a consistent and enforceable set of rules that dont admit gaming.
    - ggrrhh_ta 5y ago
      Laws, at least in many European countries, are prefaced with a preamble, introduction, or Vorwort, that explains a bit of the history, the motivation, the underlying principles, the philosophy, the practicality, and the guidelines for interpretation of that law. The words, as written, are not to be taken, in any case literally. Moreover, a literal interpretation contradicting the spirit of the law is unlawful, and that is one of the principles of many legal systems. Using a loophole that contradicts the law is unlawful; imagine the law says you have the right to water your plants in your balcony; however, you only do it when the neighbor below is sitting at their balcony with the intention to bother them: you are abusing the law and committing an unlawful act.
      - BizarroLand 5y ago
        A law system like that requires wisdom. America has a lot of smart but almost no wisdom, so it would be chaos and anarchy if we suddenly switched to such a system.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    You're being downvoted but that's actually how tax works in the U.S. and Europe. Tax is one of the few areas of law where activities can be declared illegal and subject to punitive sanction after the fact. For example, the fictive loss tax shelter scheme that was popular 15 years ago. Fictive losses were technically legal at the time the scheme began (in the sense that they were legal within the letter of the law but violated the intent of the law), and weren't explicitly stated to be illegal until years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist).
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole. We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, we like it for weed, but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage and goes, “well you aren’t enforcing drug laws, why should they get a pass but not us?” I’m sure there are better examples but hopefully I’m getting my point across. Exceptions = weakening of the established structure. I don’t know about you, but I like that “the law is king” in the US. Mostly because we can change them.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular Or like abortion. The new abortion rules in conservative states are betting they can sway the federal gov if a lawsuit arises, but its based on the assumption they'll get to ignore the gov.
  - spiffytech 5y ago
    > what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage That happened in North Carolina (albeit before weed legalization had gained momentum): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1
    - Forgeties79 5y ago
      Luckily it was shot down, but yeah, my concern is the serious precedent weed legalization is setting. I like the outcome, I am scared of the precedent.
  - sneak 5y ago
    > That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole. Yes, indeed. It completely defeats the purpose of the law, which is why the suggestion is akin to your A solution (that it should be invalidated/removed). The law doesn't encode "purpose" or "spirit", the law only exists as written. When applying the law, and tax law especially, it's counterproductive to speculate as to "spirit" or "purpose", and best to focus just on what the law actually is, because that's the only part that really counts as "democratic". Intentions and ideals weren't voted on, the actual literal text of the law was.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Aperocky 5y ago
  Exactly, but the ridiculousness of this is on the senate.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
The Jones Act is a major factor in Puerto Rico's economic problems because it unnecessarily raises the costs of shipping to and from PR.
spicybbq 5y ago
That's amazing. The section of track (ahem proper Canadian railroad) is quite visible on Google maps and street view has a great shot of it[0]. It is VERY short indeed. [0] https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,32.6h,79.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeAS8DeWbyr089JoSjyRMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,3...

by fooey 5y ago

mmcgaha 5y ago

We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.

stenl 5y ago
Or maybe we need the opposite: basically just state that you did this stupid stuff only to avoid the tax, so you should pay the tax anyway.
- version_five 5y ago
  The solution to a bad or poorly written law is not to leave it on the books and have some "oh well we actually meant" thing that means it can be arbitrarily applied in a different way than written. Courts can interpret laws if the interpretation is the problem. If there is just a stupid loophole, then either the law itself makes no sense (as seems to apply to this Jones Act) or it needs to be reworded to align with its intent. This reminds me of all the california electricity deregulation games where Enron et al moved power out of state and back, or had plants go down strategically for maintenance in order to gain the system. The correct solution is not to say "play nice, you know what we meant". It's to have a consistent and enforceable set of rules that dont admit gaming.
  - ggrrhh_ta 5y ago
    Laws, at least in many European countries, are prefaced with a preamble, introduction, or Vorwort, that explains a bit of the history, the motivation, the underlying principles, the philosophy, the practicality, and the guidelines for interpretation of that law. The words, as written, are not to be taken, in any case literally. Moreover, a literal interpretation contradicting the spirit of the law is unlawful, and that is one of the principles of many legal systems. Using a loophole that contradicts the law is unlawful; imagine the law says you have the right to water your plants in your balcony; however, you only do it when the neighbor below is sitting at their balcony with the intention to bother them: you are abusing the law and committing an unlawful act.
    - BizarroLand 5y ago
      A law system like that requires wisdom. America has a lot of smart but almost no wisdom, so it would be chaos and anarchy if we suddenly switched to such a system.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- gamblor956 5y ago
  You're being downvoted but that's actually how tax works in the U.S. and Europe. Tax is one of the few areas of law where activities can be declared illegal and subject to punitive sanction after the fact. For example, the fictive loss tax shelter scheme that was popular 15 years ago. Fictive losses were technically legal at the time the scheme began (in the sense that they were legal within the letter of the law but violated the intent of the law), and weren't explicitly stated to be illegal until years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist).
Forgeties79 5y ago
That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole. We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, we like it for weed, but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage and goes, “well you aren’t enforcing drug laws, why should they get a pass but not us?” I’m sure there are better examples but hopefully I’m getting my point across. Exceptions = weakening of the established structure. I don’t know about you, but I like that “the law is king” in the US. Mostly because we can change them.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular Or like abortion. The new abortion rules in conservative states are betting they can sway the federal gov if a lawsuit arises, but its based on the assumption they'll get to ignore the gov.
- spiffytech 5y ago
  > what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage That happened in North Carolina (albeit before weed legalization had gained momentum): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    Luckily it was shot down, but yeah, my concern is the serious precedent weed legalization is setting. I like the outcome, I am scared of the precedent.
- sneak 5y ago
  > That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole. Yes, indeed. It completely defeats the purpose of the law, which is why the suggestion is akin to your A solution (that it should be invalidated/removed). The law doesn't encode "purpose" or "spirit", the law only exists as written. When applying the law, and tax law especially, it's counterproductive to speculate as to "spirit" or "purpose", and best to focus just on what the law actually is, because that's the only part that really counts as "democratic". Intentions and ideals weren't voted on, the actual literal text of the law was.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aperocky 5y ago
Exactly, but the ridiculousness of this is on the senate.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

The Jones Act is a major factor in Puerto Rico's economic problems because it unnecessarily raises the costs of shipping to and from PR.

spicybbq 5y ago

That's amazing. The section of track (ahem proper Canadian railroad) is quite visible on Google maps and street view has a great shot of it[0]. It is VERY short indeed. [0] https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,32.6h,79.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeAS8DeWbyr089JoSjyRMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,3...