3 ms·
There is no coercion or deception in this situation, so it can't be racketeering. Unless you want to classify all taxation as an extortion racket. It's just a
by tux3 3y ago
There is no coercion or deception in this situation, so it can't be racketeering. Unless you want to classify all taxation as an extortion racket.
It's just a bad tax policy that creates weird incentives ("use the canteen even if you don't need it"). Let's keep the word racket for criminal enterprises and antivirus companies.
- mdekkers 3y agoNo coercion? Try not paying it.
- tux3 3y agoRight. But this position applies equally to all taxes. So that's a general "taxation is theft" type position. Which is fine in general, just not specific to this particular tax.
- mdekkers 3y agoI don’t believe all taxes are equal, or bad. But some are terrible, such as this one.
- tux3 3y agoI agree this one is terrible, but I don't think it's because this one is racketeering. If we think this tax is a racket, we should equally think that all taxes are a racket. That's because your "Try not paying it" argument applies to all taxes. If we think this tax is uniquely bad, there should be another reason that it's bad. Which is my point.
- kazinator 3y agoIt depends on the interest rate. A 5% interest may be a legitimate loan; 70% interest is in the territory of loan sharking.
- kazinator 3y agoThe percentage of a nonzero tax off a zero amount is staggering though.