Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Who does that?
Generous people living in countries where they know the government will try to spend wisely. I bet if you sent in a cheque for $50 to the IRS they'd cash it. They do for the equivalent over here.
Is Tax Avoidance Morally Reprehensible?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
Generous people living in countries where they know the government will try to spend wisely. I bet if you sent in a cheque for $50 to the IRS they'd cash it. They do for the equivalent over here.
Well, I haven't made over 88k or whatever the personal exemption is, so I've never actually evaded taxes. I've just never filed since moving. It'd be a bit complicated if I ever move back to the US, though any punishment would be along the lines of fines.
It's an issue for expats who work for large firms in Europe. That 88k isn't just net pay. It's benefits, which can include housing. Housing can be quite expensive. I've heard stories of people renouncing their US citizenship over it. It's easier to visit family in the US on a foreign passport than to hire a tax lawyer and pay hand over fist for government services that you aren't using.
cav scout
The Continuum
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,630
+1
What's also morally reprehensible though is our intentionally convoluted tax code.
Does this kind of government exist?
I prefer to give to a local charity that I know and trust over a bloated and wasteful bureaucracy.
amadeus
Serenity now
Fortunately, our generous people know that the government doesn't spend wisely. They know it spends frivolously, too much, and on the wrong things.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
So you are like reverse Robin Hoods then?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
A totally legalistic society would be impossible: the la can always be exploited to unfair advantage (against the original purpose of the laws). Hell, the main reason (or at least the main excuse for) we make more laws now is to close some of those exploits!
If exploiting the law to unfair advantage were not morally condemned, society would collapse into widespread corruption and waste.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
It's not unfair if other people can do it too though.
The people who do do it aren't responsible for people who don't take the time to look at their own spending and see what they too can deduct.
For example: if I deduct a capital loss and someone else doesn't, that's not unfair. I just simply took ten minutes to read up on the fact you can deduct them. They could just as easily do it.
That's just looking at the tax side of exploiting the law though.
amadeus
Serenity now
Imagine if Robin Hood stole from everybody when they weren't looking and then gave half of their stuff back when they were.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try...
It's easy if you try...
Flip-flopping on account ownership to try to get cheaper taxation bands when the actual controller of the accounts remains the same is immoral.
We recently had a large scandal in the UK when it was revealed that politicians kept switching political benefits around in order to pay the least tax possible. People weren't happy at all and it rumbled on for weeks.
We recently had a large scandal in the UK when it was revealed that politicians kept switching political benefits around in order to pay the least tax possible. People weren't happy at all and it rumbled on for weeks.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
My father is only the technical controller; I give all the orders. Any fruits are mine alone.
I am also technically the owner, custodial account or non.
Normally I'd be taxed at 10%... why should that change simply because I'm not 18? Therefore, I see no moral issue with changing the tax on my gains provided it could be done legally.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
If you are a citizen of a country and in any way derive an economic benefit from your citizenship, pay the taxes without fudging the numbers. It's your obligation.
Follow the rules. You benefit, you pay taxes. Not so hard to follow. Campaign all you want for taxes to be lowered, but don't try and squeze around the law in the meantime.
Follow the rules. You benefit, you pay taxes. Not so hard to follow. Campaign all you want for taxes to be lowered, but don't try and squeze around the law in the meantime.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Greed is good. This is why socialism and libertarianism are both pie in the sky visions for society.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Well yes, I'm not saying anything against taxes.
Merely saying that I'd want to take advantage of any reductions if possible (and legal). I also have issues with having to pay taxes at his rate despite having no income. That makes no sense! Does not compute! It overloads my systems!
That and for me, moral taxation would be paying the same rate as everyone else, not more or less. So, 10% would be my target number, since it's the base and everyone pays above that.
I'm not fudging the numbers so much as curious if I could legally tax my gains at 10 rather than 25. If not, well, tough cookies for me. Next year.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
You're 17. You really need to think about something else other than your tax rate.
The only fair income taxation system is one in which taxes are not deducted from paychecks, and each human being pays the exact same sum at year end.
This is also the system which offers maximum freedom. You keep all of your earnings, do what you want with it, then you pay up at year end.
If that per person sum is $1000, then a single person owes $1000 whether he has a job or not, regardless if he is a billionaire or not. An unwed mother with 5 kids owes $6000 whether she has a job or not.
Failing to pay leads to debtor's prison, where you work for the nation until your debt is paid. The lesson here is, contribute to the betterment of your nation or gtfo. Ask what you can do for your country, instead of dropping out of school and contributing NOTHING. (Worse, dragging us down.)
Flat Rate is not fair because it means we do not each contribute equally towards the nation's betterment. It must be a flat sum.
Figure out how much money is needed, divide that by 300,000,000 citizens - there is your dollar amount owed by each citizen. Fairness.
This is also the system which offers maximum freedom. You keep all of your earnings, do what you want with it, then you pay up at year end.
If that per person sum is $1000, then a single person owes $1000 whether he has a job or not, regardless if he is a billionaire or not. An unwed mother with 5 kids owes $6000 whether she has a job or not.
Failing to pay leads to debtor's prison, where you work for the nation until your debt is paid. The lesson here is, contribute to the betterment of your nation or gtfo. Ask what you can do for your country, instead of dropping out of school and contributing NOTHING. (Worse, dragging us down.)
Flat Rate is not fair because it means we do not each contribute equally towards the nation's betterment. It must be a flat sum.
Figure out how much money is needed, divide that by 300,000,000 citizens - there is your dollar amount owed by each citizen. Fairness.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
PS talking sense? Run for the hills!
I resent that! I will seek you out and bumrape you!
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
It's either money or furries with me. Choose and be doomed.
Trying to make citizens meet the needs of the government is a much worse idea than having government meet the needs of the citizens. 1,000 is easy cash even for low income; a government running on 300 billion. Certainly an administrative nightmare, but I wouldn't say impossible. It would mean phasing out pretty much all services though. Contrast to trying to impose an equal burden on each person... it would be in the tens of thousands range at current levels.
A standard fee on each citizen would be good in principle, but not effective in practice, and one can also argue whether it's exactly fair given the different value of the dollar to the poor versus the wealthy.
