5 ms·

It’s more than tax minimization. It’s buying politicians and distorting society so they pay less.

by lokar 2y ago

gruez 2y ago
> It’s buying politicians and distorting society so they pay less. If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? It's not fundamentally any different than showing up to your city council meeting to get housing developments approved/blocked, for instance. Moreover, most people don't think of themselves as bad people, so they probably legitimately think they're doing the Right Thing™, rather than being some sort of cartoonishly evil villain trying to ruin society by starving government of funding.
- photonthug 2y ago
  > If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? This is going to be hard for the politically inclined to understand, but no, it's simply not the case that everyone everywhere is preoccupied with finding/creating legal ways to push their will/preferences onto other people.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    This is going to be hard for the ideologically blind to understand, but not every rich person everywhere keeps politicians in their back pockets. Some don't even have their own PAC!
    - photonthug 2y ago
      I'm not making any comment on whether rich people are more or less likely to be politically inclined than average people, draw your own conclusions. I'm also not sure who you're suggesting is ideologically blind. All I'm saying is that given resources like a huge pile of money, many would not wish to use that money to coerce others or otherwise change their local political situation to better suit them. Instead they'd use those resources to increase their own resilience, i.e. simply choosing to leave the neighborhood or situation that was bothering them instead of trying to change it and assuming their own interests are the best and most appropriate ones for everyone. As the parent is pointing out, everyone thinks they are doing TheRightThing(tm) when they collect/use power to force their views on others. Instead you could have power/wealth and just choose to not fuck with other people. That's not being ideologically blind, it's just an ideology that says, you know what, even my strongly held opinions could be wrongheaded, and maybe I shouldn't be using my arbitrarily acquired wealth/power to steer anything besides my own life.
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        If only corporations weren't (technically) people, or at least stayed in their lane instead of capturing regulators and buying politicians.
  - pnut 2y ago
    That choice does come with the consequence of having to abide by the agendas of people who are trying to push their will onto other people though. It's only a viable option if you trust your political system to function when your back is turned.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      If we're assuming the kind of time/resources that it requires to affect political change, then no, you don't really have to abide by anything. You can either opt out, or you can wade into a corrupt system and start finally enjoying your ability to join in on all the corruption. In the 2nd case, what's the plan moving forward for an ethical actor really? Using money to bribe politicians into stop accepting bribes? Should we bribe citizens to stop electing politicians that accept bribes? If you don't want money involved in politics then I don't know how you start to fix that with money.
- santoshalper 2y ago
  Definitely not.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Me? No. My goals are fairly simple. Rent is just a distraction from that goal.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  whether you intentionally or accidentally put a kink in my garden hose the end result is I can't water my lawn until the kink's out.
- maeil 2y ago
  > If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? Not for my own benefit, no. Just like I don't base my votes in elections particularly on my own benefit, and never have.
smsm42 2y ago
How the proposed schema distorts the society? Sure, the federal government will have a little less money, but they still have trillions and are not exactly frugal with it. Between two worlds, one having that tax loophole and one not having it, I can't identify any societal difference that could be attributable to that loophole. Can you name one?

It’s more than tax minimization. It’s buying politicians and distorting society so they pay less.

by lokar 2y ago

It’s more than tax minimization. It’s buying politicians and distorting society so they pay less.

> It’s buying politicians and distorting society so they pay less. If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? It's not fundamentally any different than showing up to your city council meeting to get housing developments approved/blocked, for instance. Moreover, most people don't think of themselves as bad people, so they probably legitimately think they're doing the Right Thing™, rather than being some sort of cartoonishly evil villain trying to ruin society by starving government of funding.

photonthug 2y ago
> If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? This is going to be hard for the politically inclined to understand, but no, it's simply not the case that everyone everywhere is preoccupied with finding/creating legal ways to push their will/preferences onto other people.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  This is going to be hard for the ideologically blind to understand, but not every rich person everywhere keeps politicians in their back pockets. Some don't even have their own PAC!
  - photonthug 2y ago
    I'm not making any comment on whether rich people are more or less likely to be politically inclined than average people, draw your own conclusions. I'm also not sure who you're suggesting is ideologically blind. All I'm saying is that given resources like a huge pile of money, many would not wish to use that money to coerce others or otherwise change their local political situation to better suit them. Instead they'd use those resources to increase their own resilience, i.e. simply choosing to leave the neighborhood or situation that was bothering them instead of trying to change it and assuming their own interests are the best and most appropriate ones for everyone. As the parent is pointing out, everyone thinks they are doing TheRightThing(tm) when they collect/use power to force their views on others. Instead you could have power/wealth and just choose to not fuck with other people. That's not being ideologically blind, it's just an ideology that says, you know what, even my strongly held opinions could be wrongheaded, and maybe I shouldn't be using my arbitrarily acquired wealth/power to steer anything besides my own life.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      If only corporations weren't (technically) people, or at least stayed in their lane instead of capturing regulators and buying politicians.
- pnut 2y ago
  That choice does come with the consequence of having to abide by the agendas of people who are trying to push their will onto other people though. It's only a viable option if you trust your political system to function when your back is turned.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    If we're assuming the kind of time/resources that it requires to affect political change, then no, you don't really have to abide by anything. You can either opt out, or you can wade into a corrupt system and start finally enjoying your ability to join in on all the corruption. In the 2nd case, what's the plan moving forward for an ethical actor really? Using money to bribe politicians into stop accepting bribes? Should we bribe citizens to stop electing politicians that accept bribes? If you don't want money involved in politics then I don't know how you start to fix that with money.
santoshalper 2y ago
Definitely not.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Me? No. My goals are fairly simple. Rent is just a distraction from that goal.
forgetfreeman 2y ago
whether you intentionally or accidentally put a kink in my garden hose the end result is I can't water my lawn until the kink's out.
maeil 2y ago
> If you had the time and resources, wouldn't you try to affect change in government? Not for my own benefit, no. Just like I don't base my votes in elections particularly on my own benefit, and never have.

smsm42 2y ago

How the proposed schema distorts the society? Sure, the federal government will have a little less money, but they still have trillions and are not exactly frugal with it. Between two worlds, one having that tax loophole and one not having it, I can't identify any societal difference that could be attributable to that loophole. Can you name one?