I strongly disagree with this one. It's not that hard to not define loopholes and exceptions. Really, a simplified tax system without such should be the goal, and then the circles so match.
the people with money prefer being able to employ someone to essentially skip paying altogether.
But if they couldn't - because there are no exceptions and loopholes - society would be better off.
If you want to use a the software analogy it's advocating for using a simple monolith you can maintain with <10 people vs a distributed micro service architecture you're working on with hundreds of devs and has countless non essential features which can break the spirit of the system if used in conjunction.
Drafting a simple tax system is easy. The thing that would be borderline impossible is getting it passed into law because of vested interests
I’m actually in favor of removing all charity exemptions too. They are just used by rich people to spend our money (the taxes they owe) on pet projects depriving everybody of that income.
I'm all for removing loopholes where it's possible. However
- It's not "our money". It's money that, we a society, feel validated in taking from members of our society to pay for things that make our society better. But it is, in no way, "our money". We're taking it from people, at force, because we believe it's worth it.
- The only taxes that are "owed" are the ones defined by the rules (laws); pretty much by definition. If the rule doesn't say they owe it, then they don't owe it.
Yes, it should be, because in addition to complex tax systems introducing loopholes and exceptions, they also become more complex to collect.
If taxes were simple and straightforward, you would sink an entire industry in the US. There's a whole money pit around just getting money from people to their government. That's money you could, instead, be getting as taxes.
If you’re going to argue the majority, then I’ll remind you that the majority had no problem with slavary either not too long ago in Western nations.
If you’re goning to argue democratic values, then I’ll remind you that many brutal dictators also rose to power by the same values.
So put another way , by which definition of morality are we drawing this diagram?
If you're only going to pick one thing that a government does, yeah, it's easy to cherrypick something awful. But the alternative is literal anarchy, which is a) much, much worse for the vast majority of people, and b) 100% guaranteed not to last, as the people either organically organize a government from the bottom up, or some violent strongman (gender-neutral) (but let's face it, probably a man in practice) emerges and enforces an authoritarian government from the top down. And in either of those cases, they'll levy taxes very soon, whether it's to make sure that the things that a representative government needs can happen, or just to take as much as they can from everyone else.
The purpose of a mob/mafia/organized crime group is to illegally enrich the people at the top in an organized fashion.
Some governments experience corruption that leads them to act similar to organized crime. It does not change the purpose of government, nor mean that it is inherently no better than the mob.
If you have a better suggestion for how society can be maintained, people can be supported, and the common defense ensured, that does not involve a government that is theoretically vulnerable to corruption, then by all means, propose it. You'd probably win a Nobel Prize.
But you won't, because there isn't such a thing. Once you're doing those things, you are a government. Any government, no matter how many or few people are involved, is at least theoretically vulnerable to corruption, but that vulnerability can be reduced by a variety of measures.
And saying "we just shouldn't do that" is a non-starter, both because it's morally repugnant and for the reasons I described in my previous post.
* The obvious exception here is authoritarian governments established by strongmen, as I described previously. However, I would posit that, over time, these will also transition toward seeking to provide at least some level of stability for the people under them, because the alternative is almost invariably to be overthrown when the people get sick of your shit.
ETA: ....But there are also circumstances where local organized crime is the closest a particular geographic area has to a government, and does, in fact, act the way you describe. In those circumstances, depending on the details, it could very well be moral to support the local mob.
You want to paint government as a concept as being inherently evil? You need to do the work. Don't just expect me to agree or back down because you can use some deliberately-confusing rhetoric.
Show your work. Show your evidence. Show how government as a concept, not just a specific government at a specific point in time, is inherently genocidal/corrupt/evil/whatever it is you're actually trying to do. The burden of proof is on you.
All I’ve gathered is you like governments and believe they are inherently good.
I’ve seen little evidence for that throughout history.
Ask the native Americans or Palestinians.
Governance differs from Nation States.
Sorry, I'm not interested in engaging with someone who just wants me to do all the work when they're the one making extraordinary claims. And if you don't think you're making extraordinary claims...you might want to get out of your bubble.
There are examples throughout history of societies organizing through voluntary associations, mutual aid networks, and decentralized coordination - from indigenous governance systems to modern examples like how communities self-organize after disasters.
You asked me to show how government as a concept is inherently problematic. My point is simpler: the current US system simultaneously funds genuine public goods AND actively harmful policies (military interventions, mass incarceration, etc.). The "all or nothing" framing - that we must accept the whole package or have chaos - seems like a false choice.
My examples of Native Americans and Palestinians weren't cherry-picking bad outcomes - they illustrate systematic patterns of how states expand and maintain power. These aren't unfortunate side effects but core features of how territorial states operate.
I'm genuinely curious about your view: do you think there are any legitimate limits to what a government can do in the name of providing stability and services? Or is any critique of fundamental structures just "extraordinary claims"?
While I agree that taxes provide for a lot of useful, wonderful things, taxes also provide for things I find morally repugnant.
So yes, we should all pay our taxes. But at the same time, I'm fine taking advantage of any legal methods available to me to reduce my tax burden.
The only thing that sucks about that is that tax avoidance generally becomes easier as you get wealthier, which is unfair.
Is it moral to pay your taxes? I’m somewhat playing devil’s advocate here, but what if I feel that paying taxes is immoral when so much of it goes towards our Department of ~War~ Defense?
In a good and just society there is a large overlap between them, and in others there is less overlap.
But it's impossible to build a legal system where there is a 100% overlap, and it would most likely be a broken society in other ways.
I totally agree with your second paragraph, that the government needs to remove loopholes and other ways for people to weasel out of contributing to society. But there will always be some corruption and a lot of money to be earned by only taking from our shared resources and never contributing back.