Hacker News Reader

Comment by longerthoughts | Hacker News Reader

I'm never sure what to make of this point.

OP's point implies that it's a predictable byproduct of the system design because people consistently work to minimize their tax burden and the effort scales with their means. Wielding money to influence lawmakers seems bad, but is also a certainty in a system where your lawmakers are willing and able to legally accept it.

If you want to hold people morally responsible, why hold entities designed to maximize profits to a higher standard than lawmakers who are there to represent the interests of the people?

And if you want things to change, why fixate on moral judgements about legal behavior instead of systemic changes that yield better outcomes within the constraints of humanity's natural tendencies?

View on HN

> people consistently work to minimize their tax burden and the effort scales with their means

That's ok. Given the tax burden also scales with your means, I find this an acceptable equilibrium.

> "If you want to hold people morally responsible..."

I reject the premise that it's immoral to minimize your tax burden within legal boundaries. And I find this kind of techno-moralizing completely hypocritical: we all try to minimize our tax burden, whether individuals or corporations.

I agree with your first point. On the morality question I generally don't take moral issue with legal tax avoidance, but "it's legal" and "you would do it too" hardly imply "it's right".

Either way the morality debate seems irresolvable, which is why I wish people would debate tax policy and focus on the system instead of calling people evil and hoping they consistently act against obvious incentives.

I got downvoted, but I don't think its evil to work within the bounds of the law to minimize your tax burden. This is the entire point of "doing your taxes" every year. What I do think is evil is using your wealth and power to corrupt the bounds of the law to enrich yourself. Further, however, I acknowledge that this self-interest is inherent in any person/entity and while I have a moral opposition to it when taken to the degree of bribing lawmakers, I don't just throw up my hands and say the incentives can't/shouldn't be changed. These incentives are an expression of what society finds acceptable.

>What I do think is evil is using your wealth and power to corrupt the bounds of the law to enrich yourself.

I think a lot of people (myself included) would agree on this and fail to agree on what qualifies. For example, if somebody earnestly believes they can do more good with the money than the US government, even if they're wrong, is it evil for them to try to legally influence lawmakers? I'm not sure that's evil, but I don't need that individual to be evil to believe you should reform the laws that let them do it.

It seems way easier and more productive to demonstrate that a law is failing to achieve its intended effect than it is to demonstrate that a group of people are evil so we can all be mean to them on the internet and hope it makes them stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com