Ethics of tax planning

[crazy canuck]

Ultimately, I think the reason people think the way you do is because they want, desperately, to feel morally superior to other people, and have no objective basis for doing so.*

I often wonder if this is Grumbler's true self and he hides it (I hope) in the classroom or if he has just been trolling us all these years - as I assume Marti has been doing.

  Wow, now there's a reading comprehension fail!  No wonder you fall for thse Onion stories all the time:  you can't tell a spoof even when it is explicitly labelled as one!

I am beginning to think it is your true self.

[crazy canuck]

I am challenging the assumption that the reason that companies plan around taxes is because they are too high. If the company is making millions it seems hard to conceive of a rate where it would just not make sense to do so. Even if it was 1% surely that is worth hiring a few tax attorneys.

Now some tax rates are so burdensome that companies will just get out of dodge but I have yet to see that federal taxes are high enough to have that sort of impact. Sometimes the states drive them away though.

Generally speaking, a tax strategy isn't just an arrangement of words and numbers in a tax filing--it needs real world actions to implement. That might mean moving production to another country, opening an office somewhere obscure, or having your supply chain organized in a way it wouldn't otherwise. There are costs to those things, and the benefit is tied to the tax rate. Lower the rate, you lower the benefit, and reduce tax driven decisions.

But it can be form over substance which is what I think Berkut, Tyr et al are referring to.

[grumbler]

  Wow, now there's a reading comprehension fail!  No wonder you fall for thse Onion stories all the time:  you can't tell a spoof even when it is explicitly labelled as one!

I am beginning to think it is your true self.

I'm guessing that this was some failed attempt at an ad hom argument?

[dps]

I think we need to re-evaluate our entire tax structure. It is just a mess.

I don't think we should go to some flat tax bullshit, but I do think a radical simplifying is in order, and a much simpler understanding of how we want to collect revenue, and from whom.

This won't happen, of course. Probably can't happen, even.

Yes, I think part of the reason that corporations spend so much money planning around taxes is because the tax code is too complex.  I'm not sure that corporate taxes really can be made fairly simple, but personal income taxes could easily be made very simple if we had the political will to do so.

[Berkut]

I think we need to re-evaluate our entire tax structure. It is just a mess.

I don't think we should go to some flat tax bullshit, but I do think a radical simplifying is in order, and a much simpler understanding of how we want to collect revenue, and from whom.

This won't happen, of course. Probably can't happen, even.

Yes, I think part of the reason that corporations spend so much money planning around taxes is because the tax code is too complex.  I'm not sure that corporate taxes really can be made fairly simple, but personal income taxes could easily be made very simple if we had the political will to do so.

While I do think simplifying it would be nice, I am more thinking of just starting over from scratch from some foundational principles.

Like, what percentage of total revenue should come from these groups, and what percent from these, and what percent from those.

Then, after you've done that - THEN proceed to formulate an actual set of tax law to realize those particular foundational ideas. Right now, we have let the tax system evolve so much I don't think it has much relationship anymore to any kind of core principles.

[DGuller]

  Wow, now there's a reading comprehension fail!  No wonder you fall for thse Onion stories all the time:  you can't tell a spoof even when it is explicitly labelled as one!

I am beginning to think it is your true self.

I'm guessing that this was some failed attempt at an ad hom argument?

Does every piece of communication have to be an argument?  Isn't there some room for communication that aims to simply inform the other person about how the communicator perceives them?  It seems like CC is just expressing his own opinion, other people may disagree (in theory).

[grumbler]

Does every piece of communication have to be an argument?  Isn't there some room for communication that aims to simply inform the other person about how the communicator perceives them?  It seems like CC is just expressing his own opinion, other people may disagree (in theory).

Well, either "I am beginning to think it is your true self" is either an argument, or it is gibberish.  The utter failure to even give a clue as to whatever "it" is that CC is "beginning to think" is my "true self" is enough to make the rest of the statement a failure, and the fact that CC is even considering the possibility that he can truthfully say anything about the "true self" of someone he has never met nor, even, talked to, is egotism of the highest order.  Hell, he didn't even look into my eyes!

That's my opinion.  You may (in theory) disagree.

[DGuller]

Does every piece of communication have to be an argument?  Isn't there some room for communication that aims to simply inform the other person about how the communicator perceives them?  It seems like CC is just expressing his own opinion, other people may disagree (in theory).

Well, either "I am beginning to think it is your true self" is either an argument, or it is gibberish.  The utter failure to even give a clue as to whatever "it" is that CC is "beginning to think" is my "true self" is enough to make the rest of the statement a failure, and the fact that CC is even considering the possibility that he can truthfully say anything about the "true self" of someone he has never met nor, even, talked to, is egotism of the highest order.  Hell, he didn't even look into my eyes!

That's my opinion.  You may (in theory) disagree.

People filter themselves a lot less online than they do in person.  I think that fact is not in dispute.  To suggest that an in-person meeting or two will give CC a better glimpse into your soul than 10+ year posting history is what's gibberish.

[grumbler]

People filter themselves a lot less online than they do in person.  I think that fact is not in dispute.  To suggest that an in-person meeting or two will give CC a better glimpse into your soul than 10+ year posting history is what's gibberish.

I wonder if you are making up the "fact" that is "not in dispute," or whether you read it online somewhere and swallowed it as not only the truth, but so true as to be "not in dispute."  Either way, it is cute to see an adult so gullible.

I can guarantee you that even 10+ years of reading some posts on highly selective topics doesn't give anyone here a clue as to my "true self."  Some here are friends, and know more about me from exchanges outside of here, but neither CC nor yourself are in that category.  For either of you to proclaim that you know some mysterious "it" that is my true self is preening beyond belief.

[mongers]

I find this thread taxing.

[DGuller]

People filter themselves a lot less online than they do in person.  I think that fact is not in dispute.  To suggest that an in-person meeting or two will give CC a better glimpse into your soul than 10+ year posting history is what's gibberish.

I wonder if you are making up the "fact" that is "not in dispute," or whether you read it online somewhere and swallowed it as not only the truth, but so true as to be "not in dispute."  Either way, it is cute to see an adult so gullible.

I can guarantee you that even 10+ years of reading some posts on highly selective topics doesn't give anyone here a clue as to my "true self."  Some here are friends, and know more about me from exchanges outside of here, but neither CC nor yourself are in that category.  For either of you to proclaim that you know some mysterious "it" that is my true self is preening beyond belief.

If someone is consistently, thoroughly, and unapologetically abusive towards other people in a certain setting, then yes, I do think this tells me something about them as a person.  I'm peculiar that way.

[grumbler]

If someone is consistently, thoroughly, and unapologetically abusive towards other people in a certain setting, then yes, I do think this tells me something about them as a person.  I'm peculiar that way.

I think that you are too harsh on yourself.

[Eddie Teach]

I can guarantee you that even 10+ years of reading some posts on highly selective topics doesn't give anyone here a clue as to my "true self."  Some here are friends, and know more about me from exchanges outside of here, but neither CC nor yourself are in that category.  For either of you to proclaim that you know some mysterious "it" that is my true self is preening beyond belief.

Grumbler is a mystery shrouded in an enigma wrapped up in an ancient Egyptian mummy.

[Ed Anger]

I wish Grumbles, CC and DG would just fuck and get it over with. I'd assume it would be DG getting the Eiffel Tower treatment.

[DGuller]

Do I want to find out what that is?