"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did you read the last line of what I wrote?

I read it. I'm simply pointing out that if you have a vote, you have a vote. Even if you don't like what Congress is doing, you still have the option of working to change enough peoples' minds to put in representatives who will act more in line with you interests.

Democracy gives you a chance to participate. It doesn't give you the choice of opting out if you don't get your way.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did you read the last line of what I wrote?

Are you not making that leap?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's not quite accurate. Our revolution stemmed from our opposition to being taxed and not having a say in the democratic process. Unless they've suspended suffrage in Pennsylvania, you're still off the cliff with nothing to stand on.

Let me get something straight... You think:

1. It is moral to exploit the tax law so long as the exploitation is technically deemed "legal" (an issue often unclear until opinion letters are written, which would make tax specialists the deciders of morality in this realm, but I'll leave that alone for now).

2. It is immoral to "cheat" the rules, even if such cheating would result in a tax avoidance many times smaller than many of the "legal" avoidance structures utilized in 1.

3. 1 is okay while 2 is not because 1 is sanctioned by law while 2 is prohibited.

If you agree with 1-3 then you have placed law in morality's shoes (You've also elevated black letter above the spirit of the law, but that's another issue).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


3. 1 is okay while 2 is not because 1 is sanctioned by law while 2 is prohibited.

If you agree with 1-3 then you have placed law in morality's shoes (You've also elevated black letter above the spirit of the law, but that's another issue).

You see no distinction between a good faith argument and a bad faith argument?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you not making that leap?

I am very much making that leap. The process is so busted, as proven by voter apathy, and so rife with disiniformation and abuses by special interests on both sides of the aisle that you and I as voters have very limited ability to ever stop the behemoth that is our ever growing govt sector. The govt is becoming one of the biggest customers of every industry in the country. Granted, that's to be expected in some regards, but lately, the private sector reliance on revenue from govt, growth of pork and wild support for entitlements and calls for more govt interference in what ought to be private industry shows that there is no way to stop the thing. Both parties are now the parties of big govt, and the only people who profit from big govt are those who learn to cream its wonderfully lucrative contracts and those who work for it. We should not be in the business of taxing people so that we can turn around and gift the money back to the chosen politically wired in the private sector or hand it out in entitlements to maintain future loyal voting blocs. Privatization of govt should be the govt leaving certain industries, not a fucking three year RFP process for federal contracts and a swinging door in DC where tax revenues can be handed at a rate of $28 million to a person like John Ashcroft (look it up) for "consulting services."

No one can clean this up, so I don't besmirch anyone for saying "Fuck you. Not with my money."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You see no distinction between a good faith argument and a bad faith argument?

Yes. I do. But if you're referring to what I think you are, that won't support the totality of the anticipated reply.

In other words, good point, but that's for another discussion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes. I do. But if you're referring to what I think you are, that won't support the totality of the anticipated reply.

If the tax code says "Pay X if A, B, and C", your argument is there is no difference between the following:

(1) Not paying X despite A, B, and C being true.

(2) Not paying X because you believe at least one of A, B, and C are not true.

I see a world of difference between Wonk counseling clients to comply with the law in a way that minimizes their tax liability and the counselors to Snipes saying although it says your tax liability is X, it in fact isn't because the flag has gold fringes, and you really owe nothing.

Sure, if wonk gives his client advice that turns out to be incorrect and that a provision (not dealing with the fringe on flags) was interpreted incorrectly in light of the facts, his client is formally no better off than Snipes. But there still seems to be a moral distinction between the person who doesn't pay taxes because of a reasonable interpretation of what the IRC requires and one who doesn't pay taxes because of an unreasonable interpretation.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I am very much making that leap. The process is so busted, as proven by voter apathy, and so rife with disiniformation and abuses by special interests on both sides of the aisle that you and I as voters have very limited ability to ever stop the behemoth that is our ever growing govt sector. The govt is becoming one of the biggest customers of every industry in the country. Granted, that's to be expected in some regards, but lately, the private sector reliance on revenue from govt, growth of pork and wild support for entitlements and calls for more govt interference in what ought to be private industry shows that there is no way to stop the thing. Both parties are now the parties of big govt, and the only people who profit from big govt are those who learn to cream its wonderfully lucrative contracts and those who work for it. We should not be in the business of taxing people so that we can turn around and gift the money back to the chosen politically wired in the private sector or hand it out in entitlements to maintain future loyal voting blocs. Privatization of govt should be the govt leaving certain industries, not a fucking three year RFP process for federal contracts and a swinging door in DC where tax revenues can be handed at a rate of $28 million to a person like John Ashcroft (look it up) for "consulting services."

No one can clean this up, so I don't besmirch anyone for saying "Fuck you. Not with my money."

I agree with everything but the first sentence and the last paragraph. The reason for the sprawling federal government isbecause deep down that's what people want and what they vote for. No pol. takes on social security and medicade because it's a political third rail. No one takes on entitlements for the same reason. all the pork? we get that because the voters in Alaska actually want a bridge to nowhere. It's a joke that anyone outside of Anchorage should be paying for that bridge, but someone does actually want it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If the tax code says "Pay X if A, B, and C", your argument is there is no difference between the following:

(1) Not paying X despite A, B, and C being true.

(2) Not paying X because you believe at least one of A, B, and C are not true.

I see a world of difference between Wonk counseling clients to comply with the law in a way that minimizes their tax liability and the counselors to Snipes saying although it says your tax liability is X, it in fact isn't because the flag has gold fringes, and you really owe nothing.

Sure, if wonk gives his client advice that turns out to be incorrect and that a provision (not dealing with the fringe on flags) was interpreted incorrectly in light of the facts, his client is formally no better off than Snipes. But there still seems to be a moral distinction between the person who doesn't pay taxes because of a reasonable interpretation of what the IRC requires and one who doesn't pay taxes because of an unreasonable interpretation.

No. You've missed my point. Or raised an entirely different issue.

Wonk would be acting flagrantly illegally if he counseled someone to break the law, while he would be acting negligently, arguably, if he counseled someone to do something aggressive which later turned out to be in violation of the law.

My point was that morality is an issue apart from law, and the matter of whether something is illegal or not alone, intentional or non-intentional, does not prove immorality. I used the A, B, C hypo to corner Wonk into saying that intentional breaking of the law is necessarily immoral, which it is not. I used the hypo where a person does something legal to completely avoid the spirit of the law to show how absurd it was to use the law as a bright line test for morality, particularly in regard to an area as grey as taxes.

You've put the rabbit in the hat at the end of your post, assuming law and morality are interchangeable. If a person knowingly breaks a law but believes he is justified in doing so he is not acting immorally. If a person complies with the law and exploits a loophole to great advantage he internally feels is unfair he may be acting immorally.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've put the rabbit in the hat at the end of your post, assuming law and morality are interchangeable. If a person knowingly breaks a law but believes he is justified in doing so he is not acting immorally. If a person complies with the law and exploits a loophole to great advantage he internally feels is unfair he may be acting immorally.

Fair enough, although I suspect we're talking past each other with loopholes versus aggressive tax compliance. Not being a tax lawyer, I'm not aware how many true "loopholes" there are. And, for that matter, in everyday life how many "loopholes" there are that allow people to avoid compliance with the spirit of the law while still remaining true to its terms. Quite often "loopholes" are intentional--sometimes misguided, but intentional nonetheless.


ETA: As for morality/legality, it seems to me that in the vast majority of instances the two are the same. Sure, there are instances where something illegal may nonetheless be moral, and probably fewer instances where something legal is immoral (putting aside those things that no statute has yet addressed). With respect to taxation in general, while I don't like the high levels of taxation we generally face in this country, I don't think they're at a level that could be considered immoral in and of itself--they simply aren't confiscatory enough (now the 90% tax rate from the mid-century might reach that point). I just can't see a moral difference between, say, 20% overall tax rate and a 30% overall tax rate. For sure I prefer the former, but if I'm outvoted, so be it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agree with everything but the first sentence and the last paragraph. The reason for the sprawling federal government isbecause deep down that's what people want and what they vote for. No pol. takes on social security and medicade because it's a political third rail. No one takes on entitlements for the same reason. all the pork? we get that because the voters in Alaska actually want a bridge to nowhere. It's a joke that anyone outside of Anchorage should be paying for that bridge, but someone does actually want it.

I personally feel no obligation to those people and their programs. I comply with tax law because if I don't I'll get in trouble.

Were it possible for me to instead give the taxes I pay to charity, at a rate in excess of what I presently pay, I would do that. I have no objection to helping people who need it. I have every imaginable objection to supporting a bloated, irresponsible govt apparatus which has become a society and country unto itself. In that realm, I am very morally comfortable cheering for people like Wesley Snipes and Ron Paul, as ludicrous as they are. May their ideas gain traction far in excess of anything they could hope.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough, although I suspect we're talking past each other with loopholes versus aggressive tax compliance. Not being a tax lawyer, I'm not aware how many true "loopholes" there are. And, for that matter, in everyday life how many "loopholes" there are that allow people to avoid compliance with the spirit of the law while still remaining true to its terms. Quite often "loopholes" are intentional--sometimes misguided, but intentional nonetheless.

Good point. I tend to see "loopholes" through a litigator's eyes, which is to find them everywhere. It goes without saying I am jaded on these issues, as I have yet to find a statute or common law issue that could not be manipulated to stand for what it doesn't in the realm of litigation, and even more perverted or avoided at trial.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Let me get something straight... You think:

1. It is moral to exploit the tax law so long as the exploitation is technically deemed "legal" (an issue often unclear until opinion letters are written, which would make tax specialists the deciders of morality in this realm, but I'll leave that alone for now).

2. It is immoral to "cheat" the rules, even if such cheating would result in a tax avoidance many times smaller than many of the "legal" avoidance structures utilized in 1.

3. 1 is okay while 2 is not because 1 is sanctioned by law while 2 is prohibited.

If you agree with 1-3 then you have placed law in morality's shoes (You've also elevated black letter above the spirit of the law, but that's another issue).

No.

I think it is moral and legal to minimize one's taxes under the law, including making a good faith argument for the extension of or a change in the interpretation of law, provided the latter is disclosed.

I think it is immoral and illegal to engage in acts of fraud or deception, including the willful and knowing concealment of income, to evade the payment of taxes on one's income.

I think the latter is not only illegal but also immoral because it (i) imposes upon others the cost of making up for the lost revenue; (ii) violates the social compact that we all live in a democratic society and we agree to bear the costs of that society for the mutual and interdepndent benefit of society as a whole; and (iii) every criminal act undertaken because one feels one is above a particular law because it is "wrong" weakens the system of laws that holds our society together in an orderly and predictable fashion.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No.

I think it is moral and legal to minimize one's taxes under the law, including making a good faith argument for the extension of or a change in the interpretation of law, provided the latter is disclosed.

I think it is immoral and illegal to engage in acts of fraud or deception, including the willful and knowing concealment of income, to evade the payment of taxes on one's income.

I think the latter is not only illegal but also immoral because it (i) imposes upon others the cost of making up for the lost revenue; (ii) violates the social compact that we all live in a democratic society and we agree to bear the costs of that society for the mutual and interdepndent benefit of society as a whole; and (iii) every criminal act undertaken because one feels one is above a particular law because it is "wrong" weakens the system of laws that holds our society together in an orderly and predictable fashion.

Are you saying your position is based on each of i, ii, and iii being fulfilled, or would anyone one of those criteria or combination of two be sufficient? Because if iii alone is sufficient, you have found 90% of society immoral for a variety of smaller crimes, from speeding to getting baked.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I smoke dope. Am I immoral?

How does smoking dope actually affect anyone else? And by "affect" I include "force others to pay more for your failure to pay taxes".