←back to thread

113 points jimhi | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
SoftTalker ◴[] No.44474976[source]
What on earth is wrong with not paying taxes legally? What taxes does anyone pay other than those that they must pay?

If the government wants a tax to be paid they need to make it simple and unconditional. If there are loopholes or ways to legally avoid it, they will be discovered and people will take advantage of them.

replies(17): >>44475058 #>>44475075 #>>44475104 #>>44475113 #>>44475126 #>>44475129 #>>44475185 #>>44475242 #>>44475258 #>>44475259 #>>44475271 #>>44475296 #>>44475450 #>>44475644 #>>44475781 #>>44476190 #>>44476938 #
mcv ◴[] No.44475644[source]
That's what the issue is: there are loopholes, and far too many of them. The fact that some people get to deduct costs or have access to tax avoidance loopholes that most people don't have access to, is wrong. And governments don't do enough to fix this.
replies(1): >>44475779 #
hinterlands ◴[] No.44475779[source]
Because most of the "loopholes" aren't actually loopholes: they are created for a specific reason under some specific economic theory. Most often, to encourage people to make certain types of investments, avoid double- or triple-taxing certain activities, etc.

We just almost never talk about it in neutral terms: why was this policy implemented, what are the pros and cons, etc. Instead, it's just political talking points to get people to the voting booth.

replies(2): >>44475873 #>>44483689 #
1. SpicyLemonZest ◴[] No.44475873[source]
There are some loopholes that aren't actually loopholes, and I can't claim to have counted to know whether it's a majority or not. But programs like the QSBS thing the source article describes are definitely loopholes in the intuitive sense. Politicians wanted millionaire business owners to be somewhat richer, didn't want the political headache of directly giving those business owners our tax money, so they lowered the tax rate on a specific category of income that only millionaire business owners can arrange to receive.

It's true of course that there was an economic theory behind the policy. It's a subsidy; the government thinks it's important for the US to have more small businesses, and hopes that more people will set one up if the financial rewards for doing so are greater. Perhaps you could even find some business owner to explain why they would have stayed in their corporate job if not for the QSBS. But this subsidy could never have gotten majority support if it wasn't obfuscated behind the tax code.