3 ms·
I think the argument here is not that it's a bad idea to create a safety net state. The argument is that as long as no law is broken, there is no such thing as
by wlievens 14y ago
I think the argument here is not that it's a bad idea to create a safety net state. The argument is that as long as no law is broken, there is no such thing as "exploiting a loophole". Politicians should just learn to design better laws with less loopholes.
- dmix 14y agoThe choice: 1) pay a couple lawyers $300k to minimize taxes 2) pay the government $1 million Both are legal. Choose one.
- wlievens 14y agoIf the laws are drawn up well, then option (1) is in no sense unethical.
- briandon 14y agoA: So you have three 49-person companies ... That's odd. B: I employ no more than 49 people in each of my companies and start new companies as necessary to avoid sharing profits with my employees, having to deal with worker councils, and the like. Playing corporate twister to evade the clear intent of laws sure seems like loophole exploitation to me. In addition to working around the intent of laws that empower workers, organized groups of business owners are constantly trying to overturn those laws and, in the meantime, discourage enforcement.
- wlievens 14y agoI think the problem is with "intent of laws". Laws should minimize the degree to which intent plays a role, because intent is subjective, and therefore subject to very expensive and wasteful litigation.