4 ms·

I would go as far as to say that a little bit of corruption is healthy. It adds flexibility. For example: you don't want to register your neighbor's daughter f

by otikik 4y ago

I would go as far as to say that a little bit of corruption is healthy. It adds flexibility. For example: you don't want to register your neighbor's daughter for taxes just so that she can babysit your child once or twice. That is crazytalk. And yes, a lot of countries make sure that small payments don't require registration or taxes. This was just a quick example to make the point, sometimes the general law is just not applicable to a local event and it is better that everyone ignores it. But this is like cholesterol. The right amount in your body makes everything better. Too much and you are in deep trouble.

eastbound 4y ago
Well for small payments we need a simple tax box, no country is doing that, all countries require a ton of paperwork for each new “employee”.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  The problem is that the revenue leakage for babysitters and other under the table services is lower than the scaled grifts that an “easy box” would generate.
- riskable 4y ago
  Why not just have one payment system to rule them all run by the government that is required by law for all payment of employee-driven services? Businesses could save a TON of money on payroll systems and HR. A government-run system--presumably--would take care of withholding the correct amount of taxes and also making sure the business/person paying a salary never has to worry about running afoul of the law (having the IRS or equivalent) come after them.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    In France there are more than a hundred mandatory numbers on the paysheet. Each class of worker has its own retirement/health/subhealth/old-age-health/unemployment/family benefits. Each has a different rate.
goodcanadian 4y ago
I realise that you are making an off the cuff example, and I agree with your basic point. However, in the places I have lived, the babysitter would be an independent contractor and thus responsible for her own taxes. Moreover, it is unlikely that she would be making enough money to exceed the personal exemption, and therefore, it is unlikely that she would owe taxes anyway. An argument could be made that she should collect and remit sales tax or VAT where applicable, but again, there are usually thresholds below which there is no obligation. My point is that well run, non-corrupt, systems tend to have exemptions to make everything sane and reasonable. If these exemptions don't exist, you can believe that it is because the system is corrupt and not because they are trying to stop corruption.
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
> I would go as far as to say... In the UK, it wasn't corruption. These people were paid money for products, they delivered those products, the price paid wasn't excessive. The UK has an independent auditor that found no evidence of corruption, and that (where product was delivered incorrectly) it was due to problems with contract specs. Afaik, there is only one case where a person was directly involved in politics and was related to a vendor, they went to great lengths to hide their connection to a vendor, repeatedly lied to civil servants who questioned them, and is now being charged criminally (for some reason, the person who made the original comment about the UK chose not to mention it, it was PPE Medpro). The issue was that at the start of Covid, the govt called up all their suppliers asked for PPE, and they said they didn't have any. So the govt started using suppliers who often had other businesses that imported product from China (and had to set up new companies). The level of profit on the contract was normal, the price was higher but that was related to the pandemic (how quickly forgotten, in the UK there was literally no PPE for most of 2020, you couldn't buy masks at any price). So the flexibility already exists...the UK is not corrupt, things happen naturally. Corruption is only necessary where there are supply-side bottlenecks due to politics (i.e. Qatar, Russia, India).
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence. Which I think is a fair point but does raise some questions about the competency of the civil servants and politicians we trust with a fairly large chunk of our income.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    Yes, I think we should do that (there are massive issues with both the civil service and civil service procurement, Scotland has significant issues here...these are probably bigger than with politicians) but we have a system with robust checks and balances (for example, ministers don't make procurement decisions...if a firm was fast-tracked, they delivered something...that doesn't mean there were no issues, but ministers aren't writing cheques to people).
  - 4y ago

by otikik 4y ago

eastbound 4y ago

Well for small payments we need a simple tax box, no country is doing that, all countries require a ton of paperwork for each new “employee”.

Spooky23 4y ago
The problem is that the revenue leakage for babysitters and other under the table services is lower than the scaled grifts that an “easy box” would generate.
riskable 4y ago
Why not just have one payment system to rule them all run by the government that is required by law for all payment of employee-driven services? Businesses could save a TON of money on payroll systems and HR. A government-run system--presumably--would take care of withholding the correct amount of taxes and also making sure the business/person paying a salary never has to worry about running afoul of the law (having the IRS or equivalent) come after them.
- eastbound 4y ago
  In France there are more than a hundred mandatory numbers on the paysheet. Each class of worker has its own retirement/health/subhealth/old-age-health/unemployment/family benefits. Each has a different rate.

goodcanadian 4y ago

I realise that you are making an off the cuff example, and I agree with your basic point. However, in the places I have lived, the babysitter would be an independent contractor and thus responsible for her own taxes. Moreover, it is unlikely that she would be making enough money to exceed the personal exemption, and therefore, it is unlikely that she would owe taxes anyway. An argument could be made that she should collect and remit sales tax or VAT where applicable, but again, there are usually thresholds below which there is no obligation. My point is that well run, non-corrupt, systems tend to have exemptions to make everything sane and reasonable. If these exemptions don't exist, you can believe that it is because the system is corrupt and not because they are trying to stop corruption.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

> I would go as far as to say... In the UK, it wasn't corruption. These people were paid money for products, they delivered those products, the price paid wasn't excessive. The UK has an independent auditor that found no evidence of corruption, and that (where product was delivered incorrectly) it was due to problems with contract specs. Afaik, there is only one case where a person was directly involved in politics and was related to a vendor, they went to great lengths to hide their connection to a vendor, repeatedly lied to civil servants who questioned them, and is now being charged criminally (for some reason, the person who made the original comment about the UK chose not to mention it, it was PPE Medpro). The issue was that at the start of Covid, the govt called up all their suppliers asked for PPE, and they said they didn't have any. So the govt started using suppliers who often had other businesses that imported product from China (and had to set up new companies). The level of profit on the contract was normal, the price was higher but that was related to the pandemic (how quickly forgotten, in the UK there was literally no PPE for most of 2020, you couldn't buy masks at any price). So the flexibility already exists...the UK is not corrupt, things happen naturally. Corruption is only necessary where there are supply-side bottlenecks due to politics (i.e. Qatar, Russia, India).

VBprogrammer 4y ago
I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence. Which I think is a fair point but does raise some questions about the competency of the civil servants and politicians we trust with a fairly large chunk of our income.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  Yes, I think we should do that (there are massive issues with both the civil service and civil service procurement, Scotland has significant issues here...these are probably bigger than with politicians) but we have a system with robust checks and balances (for example, ministers don't make procurement decisions...if a firm was fast-tracked, they delivered something...that doesn't mean there were no issues, but ministers aren't writing cheques to people).
- 4y ago