Like taxes.
Should we, as a society, permit a select few to shift their wealth to tax havens or should those folks also join in with everyone else? Are those sheltering their taxes more privileged that they deserve being able skirt the rules others can't, even if others would do so given the same circumstances?
What is the meaning of private property if individuals can not move it abroad as they wish?
A more productive line of inquiry might be an examination of what tax authorities can do to make their schemes more palatable.
Perhaps the experiment of liberalism (as suggested in the 18th century) has failed if government has reached the point where it is trying to optimize and maximize revenue. It seems that liberalism has arrived at the same place that inspired the guillotine and the Boston tea party.
Move your money wherever you want, after you paid your taxes.
I fail to see why individuals and corporations would not pay if it were cheaper to comply than to evade taxes. Part of the expense of compliance is the staffing of lawyers and accountants. On the other end perhaps increased value could be added in the form of incentives for tax-payers.
Resentment seems to be running high (rhetoric about the 1%) in regards to the guillotine observation. Similarly many are frustrated and looking for a way to escape tax obligations.
More and more individuals are choosing to go through the inconvenience of renouncing their US citizenship.
https://www.americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/131-u-s-final...
https://www.americanexpatfinance.com/images/Renunciations_20...
Someone should pitch this to the Mossack Fonseca guys.
Middle class is seriously squeezed and we're not getting much back from government "services".
“Ah this person aware of the rules is playing by a more effective set of rules than we are, there are more of us so lets change the rules so our worse strategy is the only strategy, ah but we don't know which rules they are using!”
Same with tax deducting 5 seater commercial 4x4 pickups as work expenses and using mostly for family and recreation.
(What's even worse, US citizens (US "persons" even, you don't have to be a citizen for this) that live and work abroad and have nothing to do with the US, still have to pay their taxes there. And also in the country where they actually work and live. People get treated the exact opposite of corporations in this way. Though the US is the only country in the world that does this. Perhaps they're the only one with the power to enforce this world wide; any bank that wants to do business with the US has to report on these "US persons" and play by US rules.)
I'd be happy to pay the amount of taxes I'm currently paying in California if tax dollars were used well, but as it stands the public schools are underfunded, the highways are full of litter on the side, higher education isn't free, healthcare isn't universal, social security is underfunded, public transportation is dysfunctional, and so on.
I guess it's possible that large companies have outgrown the need for US Government support internationally and figure its cheaper and more effective to lobby the leadership of countries directly. The problem is that this approach opens up Western nations to a new form of neo-colonialism. When Western "democracies" are controlled by large corporations, the door is open for the state-owned companies of China or Saudi Arabia to acquire these companies, and thus, their influence over Western nations.
That just makes it worse: people pay taxes but don't get value for their money, while corporations pay no taxes but get lots of value for other people's money.
In other words, the morality of paying taxes is directly dependent on the legitimacy of the government demanding payment. And that legitimacy in part derives from their very actions, for which in an ideal wold they would be held accountable.
That’s the price you pay to have the most powerful country in the world as a destination to which you can always retreat.
[1] https://taxfoundation.org/how-countries-define-their-income-...
It also isn't a just concept if you think about it. Why should France (for example) get more tax just because Ireland made it possible to produce things cheaper? If they feel you should pay for access to the market tax that. It's really is not your business how much I spend in my country to produce goods I sell in yours. Trying to police that across borders, varying accounting regulations, labor laws etc. is just insanity.
That's exactly my point: you tax the economic activity only in your country: the revenue minus the profits in your country. What the company does in a different country is irrelevant to this.
Note: this is my tax proposal. Not how I claim things currently work, but what I think they should be changed to.
Although on a different level, I think what happens across borders absolutely does matter: I think countries should not import products created through slavery, child labour or other forms of oppression. Companies and countries should take more responsibility for the entire supply chain and not just the bits inside their own border.
All of that costs money, and paying taxes is more or less funding my lifestyle as it is now. If you want to not pay taxes, then stop paying taxes and give up everything you purchase with them. Go subsistence farm in the woods or something, or deal with bartering instead of money (which itself is only useful because there is some regulation to keep it useful).
[0]: If you feel the need to point out the difference between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion then please watch this first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc
I currently spend a little over 30% of my income as the sticker price to living in a first world country. Compared to the price of renting an apartment in my city, I think this is a steal.
People who never set foot in any type of public school or university benefit from everyone else being educated, because everyone else designs their clothes, their cars, their planes, their buildings, roads, computing devices, etc.
No one is self sufficient in the society I live in. It's totally possible to go and be self sufficient. This reduces your income so you don't pay taxes, since you're not interacting with government-protected, government-manipulated currency. Seems reasonable to me.
Consumption tax is also easier to be set to a geographic location, and harder to shift to different tax jurisdiction.
Harder to play games in comparison to an income tax.
But nobody wants it. Very unpopular in a vote because, people rather have someone else pay such as rich people and corporations.
Certain items can be excempt from sales tax, such as groceries.
> Likely to hurt businesses
Since when is the HN crowd worried about hurting businesses. Most people here want higher taxes for corporations.
[0] They're not wrong of course; everything claimed in that comment is entirely (or 'mostly', at least) correct. I'd love to see you try to refute any of it.
- Make sure the area I live in is clean, safe, accessible - Paid for my college, allowing me and my siblings to end up with a higher education and (in my case) earning more than my parents did. Social mobility, something my parents could not have afforded on their own. - Paid my dad when he lost his job - Paid my brother who never managed to land a job
And of course if it wasn't for taxes / a functioning government, half my country would be underwater.
Taxes are non-consensual. I think that is all that needs to be said. If you want to pay them, that's your perogative but forcing anyone to do something under threat of jail or death cannot be justified.