3 ms·

I expect it is _much_ harder than you think it is.

ffsm8 1y ago
I didn't think it's easy in practice at all. Frankly, I don't think it's politically feasible, even. the people with money prefer being able to employ someone to essentially skip paying altogether. But if they couldn't - because there are no exceptions and loopholes - society would be better off.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  I think it's about as easy as writing bug-free software. And I can count the number of non-trivial pieces of software that are likely to be bug-free on one hand.
  - ffsm8 1y ago
    I don't agree with that whatsoever. If you want to use a the software analogy it's advocating for using a simple monolith you can maintain with <10 people vs a distributed micro service architecture you're working on with hundreds of devs and has countless non essential features which can break the spirit of the system if used in conjunction. Drafting a simple tax system is easy. The thing that would be borderline impossible is getting it passed into law because of vested interests
- reillyse 1y ago
  I would agree and it’s what we should be aiming for. As it is people are just throwing up their hands “what can you do”. Well close all the loopholes for one. I would go as far as to say the vast majority of the loopholes are just grift in one form or another. Some pork barrel BS is the rest (and I think these should be gotten rid of too). I’m actually in favor of removing all charity exemptions too. They are just used by rich people to spend our money (the taxes they owe) on pet projects depriving everybody of that income.
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    > our money (the taxes they owe) I'm all for removing loopholes where it's possible. However - It's not "our money". It's money that, we a society, feel validated in taking from members of our society to pay for things that make our society better. But it is, in no way, "our money". We're taking it from people, at force, because we believe it's worth it. - The only taxes that are "owed" are the ones defined by the rules (laws); pretty much by definition. If the rule doesn't say they owe it, then they don't owe it.
    - jemmyw 1y ago
      Although you could argue that all money is our money, if "our" means our society and government and collectively all of us. It exists by social agreement, as do all the rules around it that mean some have more and some have less.

I didn't think it's easy in practice at all. Frankly, I don't think it's politically feasible, even. the people with money prefer being able to employ someone to essentially skip paying altogether. But if they couldn't - because there are no exceptions and loopholes - society would be better off.

RHSeeger 1y ago
I think it's about as easy as writing bug-free software. And I can count the number of non-trivial pieces of software that are likely to be bug-free on one hand.
- ffsm8 1y ago
  I don't agree with that whatsoever. If you want to use a the software analogy it's advocating for using a simple monolith you can maintain with <10 people vs a distributed micro service architecture you're working on with hundreds of devs and has countless non essential features which can break the spirit of the system if used in conjunction. Drafting a simple tax system is easy. The thing that would be borderline impossible is getting it passed into law because of vested interests
reillyse 1y ago
I would agree and it’s what we should be aiming for. As it is people are just throwing up their hands “what can you do”. Well close all the loopholes for one. I would go as far as to say the vast majority of the loopholes are just grift in one form or another. Some pork barrel BS is the rest (and I think these should be gotten rid of too). I’m actually in favor of removing all charity exemptions too. They are just used by rich people to spend our money (the taxes they owe) on pet projects depriving everybody of that income.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  > our money (the taxes they owe) I'm all for removing loopholes where it's possible. However - It's not "our money". It's money that, we a society, feel validated in taking from members of our society to pay for things that make our society better. But it is, in no way, "our money". We're taking it from people, at force, because we believe it's worth it. - The only taxes that are "owed" are the ones defined by the rules (laws); pretty much by definition. If the rule doesn't say they owe it, then they don't owe it.
  - jemmyw 1y ago
    Although you could argue that all money is our money, if "our" means our society and government and collectively all of us. It exists by social agreement, as do all the rules around it that mean some have more and some have less.