Ethics of tax planning

[Hamilcar]

And a cheetos like complexion.

Get well soon. 

[The Brain]

Ed's already nailed everything that moves.

I imagine that there's a dead zone around Casa Ed similar to the forests around Chernobyl.

Wildlife is thriving.

[Ed Anger]

Thank you.

Also,this thread was raped and left behind a dumpster.

[DGuller]

It's not unethical, unless you had a hand in influencing the system to make it easier to abuse, but it is unfortunate.  It is unreasonable to expect people to counter bad policy with individual sacrifice.

That said, my view of tax planners who specialize in tax avoidance schemes is similar to my view of the tobacco marketing people.  It's not illegal to do that job, and someone will probably do it, but you are still a disgusting human being who deserves the worst kind of karma for being the one to do it.

[Martinus]

"Legally available" how?
It's there and clearly highlighted and well known, designed to b a way to reduce taxes for valid reasons?
Or it's a shady loop hole that requires jumping through a bunch of hoops that nobody would ever use for legitimate reasons?

This type of response shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how tax planning works.

What's a "shady loop hole"?

I assume he is referring to the fact that there is often a fine line between effective tax planning and non compliant structures.  Of such things tax litigators make their living.

Yeah but that the latter would be illegal, wouldn't they?

I also believe that laymen like him do not appreciate the amount of intellectual effort that goes into developing an effective tax structure. I mean, in what other industry it is unethical to use an idea unless it is "clearly highlighted and well known"? All innovation and development is based on coming up with ideas nobody else has thought of. It does not make them "shady".

[Martinus]

It's not unethical, unless you had a hand in influencing the system to make it easier to abuse, but it is unfortunate.  It is unreasonable to expect people to counter bad policy with individual sacrifice.

That said, my view of tax planners who specialize in tax avoidance schemes is similar to my view of the tobacco marketing people.  It's not illegal to do that job, and someone will probably do it, but you are still a disgusting human being who deserves the worst kind of karma for being the one to do it.

I disagree. Tobacco marketing actually leads to deaths. I don't think you can see it as equivalent to tax planning.

Hunting for example is to me much much worse than tax planning.

[The Brain]

It's not unethical, unless you had a hand in influencing the system to make it easier to abuse, but it is unfortunate.  It is unreasonable to expect people to counter bad policy with individual sacrifice.

That said, my view of tax planners who specialize in tax avoidance schemes is similar to my view of the tobacco marketing people.  It's not illegal to do that job, and someone will probably do it, but you are still a disgusting human being who deserves the worst kind of karma for being the one to do it.

I disagree. Tobacco marketing actually leads to deaths. I don't think you can see it as equivalent to tax planning.

Hunting for example is to me much much worse than tax planning.

Hunting has accidents just like almost all human activities. BFD.

[CountDeMoney]

Thank you.

Also,this thread was raped and left behind a dumpster.

Blame Concrete Boy.

[crazy canuck]

"Legally available" how?
It's there and clearly highlighted and well known, designed to b a way to reduce taxes for valid reasons?
Or it's a shady loop hole that requires jumping through a bunch of hoops that nobody would ever use for legitimate reasons?

This type of response shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how tax planning works.

What's a "shady loop hole"?

I assume he is referring to the fact that there is often a fine line between effective tax planning and non compliant structures.  Of such things tax litigators make their living.

Yeah but that the latter would be illegal, wouldn't they?

I also believe that laymen like him do not appreciate the amount of intellectual effort that goes into developing an effective tax structure. I mean, in what other industry it is unethical to use an idea unless it is "clearly highlighted and well known"? All innovation and development is based on coming up with ideas nobody else has thought of. It does not make them "shady".

No, it is only illegal if the intent was tax evasion.  He was talking about shady dealings.  Exactly the sort of thing that is taking up the kind of intellectual effort you referred to - how close to the line can one come by exploiting the tax code.  And how well can your lawyers defend against the tax authority when the structure is challenged.  I don't think "laymen" are particularly far off when they view the whole thing with some skepticism.

[Admiral Yi]

Dorsey: does US global taxation of US citizens and residents apply to earned and unearned income, or just earned?

[Hamilcar]

Dorsey: does US global taxation of US citizens and residents apply to earned and unearned income, or just earned?

I am pretty sure the reporting requirements are extensive. It's extremely difficult for Americans in Switzerland to even open a bank account. The banks require total and ongoing proof of tax compliance.

[mongers]

So what have we learnt from this thread?

Marty apparently does tax avoidance/evasion for Hami and the proceeds are siphoned through some Icelandic banks belonging to Legbiter's relatives.

[crazy canuck]

Dorsey: does US global taxation of US citizens and residents apply to earned and unearned income, or just earned?

I know you prefer not to respond to my posts but the US taxes on all income.

[Josquius]

"Legally available" how?
It's there and clearly highlighted and well known, designed to b a way to reduce taxes for valid reasons?
Or it's a shady loop hole that requires jumping through a bunch of hoops that nobody would ever use for legitimate reasons?

This type of response shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how tax planning works.

What's a "shady loop hole"?

I assume he is referring to the fact that there is often a fine line between effective tax planning and non compliant structures.  Of such things tax litigators make their living.

Yeah but that the latter would be illegal, wouldn't they?

I also believe that laymen like him do not appreciate the amount of intellectual effort that goes into developing an effective tax structure. I mean, in what other industry it is unethical to use an idea unless it is "clearly highlighted and well known"? All innovation and development is based on coming up with ideas nobody else has thought of. It does not make them "shady".

Hi Grumbler.

[grumbler]

Unethical, but given the burden it can place on lower incomes, it does also beg the question of how ethical our current tax structure is.  No vote because none of the options allow for that level of nuance (unethical, but necessary to deal with an already-unethical system).

No, it doesn't "beg the question" at all.  Your answer begs the question of how unethical the current tax structure is.