How are exotic tax reduction schemes caused by accountants? That's like saying fires are caused by firefighters.
They're a consequence of compulsory taxation.
They're a consequence of compulsory taxation.
They are created by over-financialized MBAs trying to evade their company's obligations to society.
If you have a real plan for to effectively run a complex society without compulsory taxation to implement necessary collective goods (roads, policing, schools, defense, etc., etc, etc), I'm all ears, and I'm sure so are many others.
Until then, your comment is purely specious.
Also, many people have proposed alternatives for funding legitimate Government functions without coercion, and relying on charity for the rest (like education) in cases where people can't afford them.
In what country has a modern complex society been actually run without actual coersive tax?
In what society have complex and costly ventures like an entire modern education, defense road system been done with it? Any real, hard examples?
Abstract ideology is lovely, but is not a practical govt that manages to build the basis for an advanced and advancing society
Coming back to the Objectivist angle, there's a great passage from Atlas Shrugged that covers this:
=====
"Then what on earth do you know about Rearden Metal?"
"That it's the greatest thing ever put on the market."
"Why?"
"Because it's tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence."
"But who says so?"
"Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them."
"What did you see?"
"Rearden's formula and the tests he showed me."
"Well, if it were any good, somebody would have used it, and nobody has." He saw the flash of anger, and went on nervously: "How can you know it's good? How can you be sure? How can you decide?"
"Somebody decides such things, Jim. Who?"
"Well, I don't see why we have to be the first ones. I don't see it at all."
"Do you want to save the Rio Norte Line or not?" He did not answer, "If the road could afford it, I would scrap every piece of rail over the whole system and replace it with Rearden Metal. All of it needs replacing. None of it will last much longer. But we can't afford it. We have to get out of a bad hole, first. Do you want us to pull through or not?"
"We're still the best railroad in the country. The others are doing much worse."
====
In general this feels like a class of logical fallacy, of the form "no-one has attempted to achieve X, so X must be undesirable" but I can't find it in any lists.
edit: To make it clearer, take your post, and substitute slavery for coercive taxation. Your argument immediately appears specious, because with the benefit of hindsight we know that large, complex, modern societies did just fine after abandoning slavery. But people argued against emancipation in just that way at the time.
It is NOT impossible for people to make progress.
It just takes more than a set of half-baked ideas.
The ideas must be fully thought through to their consequences, with second- and third-order consequences, adjusted so that they will actually work with real human nature factored in, tested, adjusted, then rolled out.
In this sense, although I am strongly attracted to Libertarianism and often use it as my default starting point, I recognize that it is like Communism in that it is completely impractical and won't happen in a real world (actually, communism has a better chance with modern tech solcing central planning, blockchain micropayments, smart contracts allocating resources, LOL, bs...).
Ayn Rand's description sounded great when I was a teenager.
Living it for real, I know it is utter bullshit.
Carbon Fiber Composites are far stronger, stiffer, and lighter than any steel, and less expensive in small volumes. It's more expensive in large volumes, but R&D is mitigating that.
Yes, managers and even engineers have a bias against it because it is new and untested, takes more work to include in designs.
Yet, it is being steadily adopted.
--------------- In terms of govt, sure, a small govt with voluntary contributions sounds great. Until you realize (which you haven't) that this is setting up EXACTLY the commons problem: it is in everyone's interest too support the government, but in every individual's interest to freeload or over-use and under-pay. Eventually even the goodest of the do-gooders will be sick & tired of being mooched off of, and you're back to anarchy. If you doubt this, go look at the population of any commercially viable fish; ask how they're doing.
The fact of the matter is that if you ACTUALLY think through any of these ideas, they are hollow. That is the reason they have never been implemented.
They also leave no room for "cheap" campaign promises and new initiatives that politicians can announce and display to the media (repeatedly). We'll give a tax credit for low emissions vehicles to save your children's lungs and the planet! An incentive to finance homes for nurses!
Tax is just code. Poorly architected code with lots of documentation that obfuscates rather than illuminates.
Politicians love to nudge through the tax system as it seems cheap, costs are obscured as, and there's no project to fail like there is if you try to build something. You end up with perpetual scope creep and "minor" additions.
Then you get people politicizing the outcomes - "bad people" are taking advantage of a good program, or a "bad company" isn't paying as much as someone thinks they should in an ideal world. If you are going to live in a nation of laws rather than the whim of some functionary you need to let everyone do what is legal, rather than just preferred individuals or classes.
Yet, it does not follow that similarly elaborate non-payment near-scams (& felonious schemes) are a necessary feature.
An overly complex tax code is a necessary prerequisite, but not a sufficient condition. for that, you also need scheming MBAs & accountants.
You, an accountant or tax lawyer or more likely firm employing both, come up with a scheme for avoiding tax that you think might be legal. You can charge people money for teaching them this scheme and helping execute it. Now, you tell the government about the scheme. The tax man can say "Yup, that's legal, all good" (and maybe tell the government the tax laws need changing if it wants to stop this next year) or they can take your clients to court and if a court agrees, require them to pay the extra taxes. You don't care, you got paid either way - the law doesn't chase you so long as you report the clever scheme.