4 ms·

1. Decide who you don't like. 2. Create a massive, retroactive tax on something they did. Make sure it's big enough that they can't possibly pay it. 3. Why st

1. Decide who you don't like. 2. Create a massive, retroactive tax on something they did. Make sure it's big enough that they can't possibly pay it. 3. Why stop at retroactive taxes? Add in retroactive penalties and fees for late payment. 4. Confiscate whatever they have to pay the tax bill. 5. Charge them with tax avoidance for not paying those taxes, then throw them in jail. It's pretty insane, but if you're going to allow laws to be changed retroactively then you're already into that territory.

dm2 13y ago
Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? All I'm proposing is a discussion on closing loopholes and how to prevent people from actively trying to take advantage of the United States unreasonably complex tax system. If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. The law says that you have to pay X% when passing money to heirs. If my lawyers and accountants discover a way to reduce that amount because of a technicality, then why should that hold up in court? If there was a loophole in the law that allowed me to murder someone if X conditions are met, should I be allowed to go free? I see your point about why retroactive laws would be a slippery slope.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Yes. At least in the U.S., where the Constitution contains vague language like No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. and No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,.
- sanswork 13y ago
  Given that murder specifically refers to an unlawful killing it's kind of an impossible thing to happen. If we change murder to kill however then there are already conditions that allow you to go free when killing someone.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Yes, of course. That exact thing happens not infrequently. A common condition is "I had the reasonable belief that he was threatening my life". Or even "I had the reasonable belief that he was threatening the life of a third party unknown to me". > Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? This is, to say the least, not a common viewpoint.
- breischl 13y ago
  I don't disagree, but the problem is that writing laws is really damned hard. There is a lot of complexity in the real world, a whole lot of special cases to think about, and also a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money if they can find the holes. Intuitively you would think that writing a really simple law like "each person must pay X% of income in taxes, no exceptions" would work, except that that's how we got the almost-universally-despised Alternative Minimum Tax. This is also why laws also tend to have lots of unintended consequences. >> If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. Just for fun, let's see if I can avoid that tax... 1) What if I transfer the money overseas, put it in a trust, then transfer control of the trust to my heirs? It's not a transaction in the US. 2) What if I create a tiny, worthless company, give my heirs all the stock, pay the miniscule taxes on that value, and then contrive to make the company worth more? eg, lend it a bunch of money at no interest, or buy a bunch of stock, or purchase a lot of whatever it ostensibly makes? 3) How about if I just buy a ton of life insurance on myself with my heirs as the beneficiaries? Sure, it'll cost a lot, but as long as the overhead is less than the tax bill it's a net win. That's off the top of my head. Pay me a few millions bucks to do this and I guarantee I can do better. :)
- sturgill 13y ago
  There is no inherent morality attached to paying taxes. And there is no inherent morality that dictates what amount of tax one should pay. There is a legal obligation to pay taxes, and a moral obligation to follow the law, but there is not a moral obligation to pay more in taxes than what the State requires. Put another way: there is an intrinsic moral responsibility to not murder, but there is not an intrinsic moral responsibility to pay taxes. One could imagine a country in which there were no taxes, and such a state would not be immoral. And those who lived there and did not pay taxes would not be viewed as immoral. But if this same country did not have an explicit statute outlawing murder, we would still call people who murdered others (e.g., killed for pleasure) immoral. Given that we are morally obligated to pay taxes strictly on the virtue that a law exists that says "You must pay this tax", how is it morally problematic to determine what you owe under the legal structure that has imposed the tax? Your moral obligation is to pay the tax as it is defined, it is not your moral obligation to pay more tax than the tax code requires. That seems to me to be an obvious tautology: you owe in taxes what the tax code says you owe. If the tax code allows you to limit your tax responsibility by moving money through trusts, so be it. It doesn't seem any different than parts of the tax code that limit your tax responsibility for buying a home, having kids, or making under a certain threshold of money. Whether or not the tax code, as constituted, is fair, equitable, desirable, or is having its intended effect are fair questions. But calling people immoral because they find legally sanctioned ways to reduce their tax liabilities is troubling. I don't make enough to really worry about these structures, but I can guarantee you that if I did I would do whatever I could to reduce my legal tax responsibility.
jskonhovd 13y ago
I am pretty sure that's what happened to Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
tomp 13y ago
And you're saying that retroactive taxation is the only way to legally "remove" people? With the recent news, I'm not quite convinced...
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Charge them with tax avoidance for not paying those taxes, then throw them in jail. Tax avoidance isn't a crime (or even illegal.) Tax evasion is a crime, but consists of concealing or misrepresenting material facts to avoid an assessment of liability, which isn't what your scenario presents. Willful failure to pay taxes is also a crime, but mere inability isn't willfulness. Your argument that retrospective taxes (which aren't retroactive unless the tax becomes due in the past) being a license for arbitrary imprisonment rests on a misrepresentation of criminal laws associated with taxes (and would require them to be applied in a manner not only inconsistent with existing law, but in a manner which I'm fairly certain has been held unconstitutional as a violation of due process rights even outside the context of retrospective taxation.)

dm2 13y ago

Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? All I'm proposing is a discussion on closing loopholes and how to prevent people from actively trying to take advantage of the United States unreasonably complex tax system. If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. The law says that you have to pay X% when passing money to heirs. If my lawyers and accountants discover a way to reduce that amount because of a technicality, then why should that hold up in court? If there was a loophole in the law that allowed me to murder someone if X conditions are met, should I be allowed to go free? I see your point about why retroactive laws would be a slippery slope.

maxerickson 13y ago
Yes. At least in the U.S., where the Constitution contains vague language like No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. and No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,.
sanswork 13y ago
Given that murder specifically refers to an unlawful killing it's kind of an impossible thing to happen. If we change murder to kill however then there are already conditions that allow you to go free when killing someone.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
Yes, of course. That exact thing happens not infrequently. A common condition is "I had the reasonable belief that he was threatening my life". Or even "I had the reasonable belief that he was threatening the life of a third party unknown to me". > Isn't this why you would hope that congress would be a diverse group of rational and ethical people? This is, to say the least, not a common viewpoint.
breischl 13y ago
I don't disagree, but the problem is that writing laws is really damned hard. There is a lot of complexity in the real world, a whole lot of special cases to think about, and also a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money if they can find the holes. Intuitively you would think that writing a really simple law like "each person must pay X% of income in taxes, no exceptions" would work, except that that's how we got the almost-universally-despised Alternative Minimum Tax. This is also why laws also tend to have lots of unintended consequences. >> If you are suppose to pay X% of the income you make from transactions in the US or money transferred to heirs then you should pay that X%. Just for fun, let's see if I can avoid that tax... 1) What if I transfer the money overseas, put it in a trust, then transfer control of the trust to my heirs? It's not a transaction in the US. 2) What if I create a tiny, worthless company, give my heirs all the stock, pay the miniscule taxes on that value, and then contrive to make the company worth more? eg, lend it a bunch of money at no interest, or buy a bunch of stock, or purchase a lot of whatever it ostensibly makes? 3) How about if I just buy a ton of life insurance on myself with my heirs as the beneficiaries? Sure, it'll cost a lot, but as long as the overhead is less than the tax bill it's a net win. That's off the top of my head. Pay me a few millions bucks to do this and I guarantee I can do better. :)
sturgill 13y ago
There is no inherent morality attached to paying taxes. And there is no inherent morality that dictates what amount of tax one should pay. There is a legal obligation to pay taxes, and a moral obligation to follow the law, but there is not a moral obligation to pay more in taxes than what the State requires. Put another way: there is an intrinsic moral responsibility to not murder, but there is not an intrinsic moral responsibility to pay taxes. One could imagine a country in which there were no taxes, and such a state would not be immoral. And those who lived there and did not pay taxes would not be viewed as immoral. But if this same country did not have an explicit statute outlawing murder, we would still call people who murdered others (e.g., killed for pleasure) immoral. Given that we are morally obligated to pay taxes strictly on the virtue that a law exists that says "You must pay this tax", how is it morally problematic to determine what you owe under the legal structure that has imposed the tax? Your moral obligation is to pay the tax as it is defined, it is not your moral obligation to pay more tax than the tax code requires. That seems to me to be an obvious tautology: you owe in taxes what the tax code says you owe. If the tax code allows you to limit your tax responsibility by moving money through trusts, so be it. It doesn't seem any different than parts of the tax code that limit your tax responsibility for buying a home, having kids, or making under a certain threshold of money. Whether or not the tax code, as constituted, is fair, equitable, desirable, or is having its intended effect are fair questions. But calling people immoral because they find legally sanctioned ways to reduce their tax liabilities is troubling. I don't make enough to really worry about these structures, but I can guarantee you that if I did I would do whatever I could to reduce my legal tax responsibility.

jskonhovd 13y ago

I am pretty sure that's what happened to Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

tomp 13y ago

And you're saying that retroactive taxation is the only way to legally "remove" people? With the recent news, I'm not quite convinced...

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Charge them with tax avoidance for not paying those taxes, then throw them in jail. Tax avoidance isn't a crime (or even illegal.) Tax evasion is a crime, but consists of concealing or misrepresenting material facts to avoid an assessment of liability, which isn't what your scenario presents. Willful failure to pay taxes is also a crime, but mere inability isn't willfulness. Your argument that retrospective taxes (which aren't retroactive unless the tax becomes due in the past) being a license for arbitrary imprisonment rests on a misrepresentation of criminal laws associated with taxes (and would require them to be applied in a manner not only inconsistent with existing law, but in a manner which I'm fairly certain has been held unconstitutional as a violation of due process rights even outside the context of retrospective taxation.)