Germany’s dividend-stripping tax scandal(zeit.de)
zeit.de
Germany’s dividend-stripping tax scandal
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2017-06/cum-ex-scandal-tax-evasion-dividend-stripping-germany
15 comments
> I mean jesus, aren't many people on here some kind of intellectual elite? And these are the people that argue FOR the ones fucking over the general populace for their personal gain?
Intellectual elite does not have relationship to morals - those properties are quite independent. Moreover, people who consider themselves intellectual elite tend to look down on general populace.
Intellectual elite does not have relationship to morals - those properties are quite independent. Moreover, people who consider themselves intellectual elite tend to look down on general populace.
Sad truth.
One thing that deeply impressed me when reading Robert van Gulik's "Judge Dee mysteries" was that the judges were required to study (and write!) a lot of poetry and literature as well, which IMO increases their emotional intelligence and make them more sympathetic with the populace they are governing and increase their sense of justice without going Hitler-mode.
(The irony of the fact that he was describing a society that didn't have a problem treating women as sub-humans doesn't escape me, of course. I'd argue that outside of that however, the system described by Robert van Gulik had advantages.)
One thing that deeply impressed me when reading Robert van Gulik's "Judge Dee mysteries" was that the judges were required to study (and write!) a lot of poetry and literature as well, which IMO increases their emotional intelligence and make them more sympathetic with the populace they are governing and increase their sense of justice without going Hitler-mode.
(The irony of the fact that he was describing a society that didn't have a problem treating women as sub-humans doesn't escape me, of course. I'd argue that outside of that however, the system described by Robert van Gulik had advantages.)
It's just this easy. If it's legal, it's not theft. I don't like that either but that's how the law is.
I mean, apparently, it wasn't so bad. It only took them 20 years to make that behavior illegal. They would certainly have been faster if it were bad. /sarcasm
People will always try to game the system. But in this case, the politicians failed to act properly after it was obvious that it didn't work out as intended.
I mean, apparently, it wasn't so bad. It only took them 20 years to make that behavior illegal. They would certainly have been faster if it were bad. /sarcasm
People will always try to game the system. But in this case, the politicians failed to act properly after it was obvious that it didn't work out as intended.
I think its lazy to blame politicians for this. Its complex, highly complex, financial horse trading. Its a loophole exploited. Thats probably far more sophisticated than any politician can reasonably be expected to understand deeply, let alone see the bigger destructive picture. (not to mention lobbyists badgering and actively asking for legislation for "loopholes" like this)
A Financial regulator/watchdog is to blame. And of course, Quelle Suprise, lots of countries let the finance sector regulate themselves.
Which is silly, because there are no ethics involved with some of these people. Just profits, at any cost.
A Financial regulator/watchdog is to blame. And of course, Quelle Suprise, lots of countries let the finance sector regulate themselves.
Which is silly, because there are no ethics involved with some of these people. Just profits, at any cost.
Politicians should be experts in many things. Their job is (in the ideal theoretical sense of our political systems) hard and very responsible. What they hell are they doing with their time? Sit in endless pointless meetings? Secret meetings with large business? Faking smiles 13 times a day? WHAT are they doing exactly?
And then -- "we're too busy to know this stuff". In an ideal world such a politician would fly far away from office immediately, and all the people who benefitted from that would have to return the gained money from the loopholes, or live in cozy conditions in the jail. One can dream, right?
So, what are the politicians supposed to know? How to bullshit the general populace on TV?
And then -- "we're too busy to know this stuff". In an ideal world such a politician would fly far away from office immediately, and all the people who benefitted from that would have to return the gained money from the loopholes, or live in cozy conditions in the jail. One can dream, right?
So, what are the politicians supposed to know? How to bullshit the general populace on TV?
The article talks about two different schemes: one is 100% illegal, the other one is abuse of a loophole. So there was clearly theft in the first case.
For the second case, I'd call that theft, too. But theft that involves corrupt lawmakers. When communists confiscate people property, it is theft, no matter what the communists put in their law.
For the second case, I'd call that theft, too. But theft that involves corrupt lawmakers. When communists confiscate people property, it is theft, no matter what the communists put in their law.
Labeling the action that is legal under the law as "theft" makes me very suspicious of both the arguments and findings. The laws should be a set of hard, well defined rules (ideally finalcial rules are even formally interpretable). And if one does not break those rules he is not a criminal.
I think much of the problem is due to tax system complexity. Not sure about Germany, but in the US we have a horribly complicated mess. Thus the spirit and the letter of the law are not the same (at least it is not clear if they are the same).
I think the main argument that I kind of buy is that while the companies described do not break the letter of the tax law, the break the spirit of it. I would agree if the rules were simple and well understood. As it is, what if I got audited by the IRS. If they find me missing a receipt (say, a paper copy got destroyed) my arguments that I am fulfilling the spirit of the law by paying my share of taxes would fall on deaf ears (I think). Broke the letter of the law -- this is your fine. And this approach encourages reciprocity. My 2c.
I think much of the problem is due to tax system complexity. Not sure about Germany, but in the US we have a horribly complicated mess. Thus the spirit and the letter of the law are not the same (at least it is not clear if they are the same).
I think the main argument that I kind of buy is that while the companies described do not break the letter of the tax law, the break the spirit of it. I would agree if the rules were simple and well understood. As it is, what if I got audited by the IRS. If they find me missing a receipt (say, a paper copy got destroyed) my arguments that I am fulfilling the spirit of the law by paying my share of taxes would fall on deaf ears (I think). Broke the letter of the law -- this is your fine. And this approach encourages reciprocity. My 2c.
I'd note that this is also applicable to most legal systems, in that there aren't a set well defined rules which describe legal behaviour.
Vague laws are written and then interpreted by judges and these go on to set precedent. Suddenly you find yourself in the situation that in order to make sure you're not breaking any laws, it's a full-time job.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law....
Vague laws are written and then interpreted by judges and these go on to set precedent. Suddenly you find yourself in the situation that in order to make sure you're not breaking any laws, it's a full-time job.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law....
> If ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's practically impossible to know all the law....
That's sadly very true and assumes guilt by default which is a very broken state of affairs. It's roughly the same as with mass surveillance -- if the government has enough data on you, they will find something to convict you of.
That's sadly very true and assumes guilt by default which is a very broken state of affairs. It's roughly the same as with mass surveillance -- if the government has enough data on you, they will find something to convict you of.
The law system is built and maintained by humans. As such, they can't predict every possible loophole and they adapt over time.
So yes, this behaviour should absolutely be labelled illegal and persecuted. Your comment didn't contribute much to the discussion save for reinforcing the original objection of your parent commenter -- "who cares if it's technically legal when it's very clearly immoral and destructive for the society at large".
So yes, this behaviour should absolutely be labelled illegal and persecuted. Your comment didn't contribute much to the discussion save for reinforcing the original objection of your parent commenter -- "who cares if it's technically legal when it's very clearly immoral and destructive for the society at large".
> I mean jesus, aren't many people on here some kind of intellectual elite?
Instead of debating based on facts and laws (codified morale and ethics) you expect the "intellectual elite" to debate mob style based on gut feelings?
> This kind of shit has to stop
Personally I agree. But some context:
* Germany holds federal elections later this year.
* The business practices where not secret. Not at all. They have been debated publicly for years.
* The business practices have been allowed to go on by the very same who now fake outrage.
* All but the most incompetent players will provide a "Rechtsgutachten" and thus walk free. A "Rechtsgutachten" in German law is basically the testimony of an expert witness [1] that you get before doing something. If later a judge deems your doing wrong, you pull that out and can rightfully claim that someone from the government who is supposed to know more than you told you "it's ok".
[1] in this case someone with actual judicial/legal powers like a judge or a high ranking IRS official
Instead of debating based on facts and laws (codified morale and ethics) you expect the "intellectual elite" to debate mob style based on gut feelings?
> This kind of shit has to stop
Personally I agree. But some context:
* Germany holds federal elections later this year.
* The business practices where not secret. Not at all. They have been debated publicly for years.
* The business practices have been allowed to go on by the very same who now fake outrage.
* All but the most incompetent players will provide a "Rechtsgutachten" and thus walk free. A "Rechtsgutachten" in German law is basically the testimony of an expert witness [1] that you get before doing something. If later a judge deems your doing wrong, you pull that out and can rightfully claim that someone from the government who is supposed to know more than you told you "it's ok".
[1] in this case someone with actual judicial/legal powers like a judge or a high ranking IRS official
> Instead of debating based on facts and laws (codified morale and ethics) you expect the "intellectual elite" to debate mob style based on gut feelings?
Yes, I absolutely expect that. We're not only intellect, we have feelings as well. If we only operated on intellect, one could argue that the black people would forever retain status of sub-humans (which was never true!) and slavery would be perfectly fine since it actually made sense economically from the point of view of the slave owners. At some point somebody emotionally yelled "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, WE HAVE RIGHTS!" and things picked up from there. There were no strict rules of the kind you ask for when it came to rebelling against such a rigid status quo. Does that mean it shouldn't have ever happened?
What are you arguing in favor of? Throw away all gut feelings and emotions out of all politics and lawsuits? I am very sure history knows cases when a judge felt sympathy for a disadvantaged person even though technically the law was on the side of a more powerful person/organization. Then that judge followed a moral code and made an "illogical" decision.
"Justice" isn't well-defined and won't ever be and I think it's time to accept that this is okay.
Rules can be improved and made clearer with time but there's always a case where the gut feelings are a necessary part of the whole picture. Even if a certain set of morals are written down, that set won't ever be precise.
Like damn, sometimes I feel people in HN want to get rid of their bodies and emotions and just become a soulless AI living on a server in a low-orbit. Those kinds of people I won't ever trust with justice though.
Yes, I absolutely expect that. We're not only intellect, we have feelings as well. If we only operated on intellect, one could argue that the black people would forever retain status of sub-humans (which was never true!) and slavery would be perfectly fine since it actually made sense economically from the point of view of the slave owners. At some point somebody emotionally yelled "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, WE HAVE RIGHTS!" and things picked up from there. There were no strict rules of the kind you ask for when it came to rebelling against such a rigid status quo. Does that mean it shouldn't have ever happened?
What are you arguing in favor of? Throw away all gut feelings and emotions out of all politics and lawsuits? I am very sure history knows cases when a judge felt sympathy for a disadvantaged person even though technically the law was on the side of a more powerful person/organization. Then that judge followed a moral code and made an "illogical" decision.
"Justice" isn't well-defined and won't ever be and I think it's time to accept that this is okay.
Rules can be improved and made clearer with time but there's always a case where the gut feelings are a necessary part of the whole picture. Even if a certain set of morals are written down, that set won't ever be precise.
Like damn, sometimes I feel people in HN want to get rid of their bodies and emotions and just become a soulless AI living on a server in a low-orbit. Those kinds of people I won't ever trust with justice though.
>
Yes, you may be able to justify this legally, but it is a morally highly questionable behaviour nonetheless.
Same goes for taxation itself. Many in this thread will argue that it cannot be theft since it is legal, which is absurd.
Same goes for taxation itself. Many in this thread will argue that it cannot be theft since it is legal, which is absurd.
No, not because it's legal - because it's collectively agreed upon to be a necessary thing. That it's legal is a result of that - you're mixing cause and effect.
The idea that collective agreement dictates morals is flawed and dangerous.
And the idea that only individual rights matter, and that people don't have a duty to others, is also flawed and dangerous. As with pretty much everything else, the solution is somewhere in the middle that doesn't suit extremist slogans very well.
The notion that tax is theft is absurd.
HN has a lot of extreme libertarians who are going to automatically applaud any subversion of the tax system. That's why the comments on this article are a trash fire.
> And these are the people that argue FOR the ones fucking over the general populace for their personal gain?
You seem to assume that everybody here has (or should have) more sympathy for 'general populace' or 'little man' than the other side. Why? Have you spend considerable time of your life with 'general populace' and 'little men' at all?
You seem to assume that everybody here has (or should have) more sympathy for 'general populace' or 'little man' than the other side. Why? Have you spend considerable time of your life with 'general populace' and 'little men' at all?
The people involved probably believed they were doing what the government was incentivising them to do. Heck, they probably were. I've invested in a tax-advantaged pension, is that "theft"? I've signed on a patent application that my then-employer probably wouldn't've made if there hadn't been an R&D tax credit for it, is that "theft"?
That's not what they did.
What they did is pseudo-trade around stuff and gave multiple persons checks with tax that was never paid so people could get back tax that they never paid.
There is no moral wiggle-room if you try to get tax returns on tax you didn't pay. If you don't agree, pay me back the money I never gave you. Doesn't make sense at all.
What they did is pseudo-trade around stuff and gave multiple persons checks with tax that was never paid so people could get back tax that they never paid.
There is no moral wiggle-room if you try to get tax returns on tax you didn't pay. If you don't agree, pay me back the money I never gave you. Doesn't make sense at all.
While I do think the rules should be fixed, I don't think it's fair to call it theft. They do have lawyers to make sure it's legal.
There are desks at banks whose entire reason for existence it tax arbitrage. It's not really a great use of people's education and time, but it's real and it's legal. I don't know the specifics of how it's done, but I do know these desks exist.
There was another case in Denmark where the tax department basically neglected to check that the claimants actually owned the shares and just sent them a huge amount of withheld dividend tax.
The underlying issue is that the rules can be gamed, but only by entities who can pay for the professionals who understand them. There's gotta be a smarter way to arrange the tax system.
There are desks at banks whose entire reason for existence it tax arbitrage. It's not really a great use of people's education and time, but it's real and it's legal. I don't know the specifics of how it's done, but I do know these desks exist.
There was another case in Denmark where the tax department basically neglected to check that the claimants actually owned the shares and just sent them a huge amount of withheld dividend tax.
The underlying issue is that the rules can be gamed, but only by entities who can pay for the professionals who understand them. There's gotta be a smarter way to arrange the tax system.
There is something in Law that is the sprit of the law and if you use loopholes you clearly understand the intent of the law and decide to abuse it for you personal gain- and I think of this as theft...
There is a better way probably, but we will never know it, because I'm sure that lobbyists have been paid to buy and pay for the politicians who will never implement it.
The very first number is incorrect isn't it?
€3,100,000,000 != 31.8 billion
€3,100,000,000 != 31.8 billion
Maybe related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
it's actually due to a missing 0 and a misplaced comma.
Great long-form reporting about the case in German (minus gifs) > http://www.zeit.de/2017/24/cum-ex-steuerbetrug-steuererstatt...
[deleted]
I'd like to read the article, but instead I constantly get big animations all over the screen. Very distracting. Apparently this is a frivolous topic rather than something serious?
This should have been an animated video with the explanation narrated. They did 90% of the work, just needs someone for the voice over.
Yeah. I still managed to read the english part. Painfully and slowly, and only because the subject looked really interesting. If they just added a voice over and changed the format they would finally ensure that I wouldn't watch it, what seems to be the goal.
Yeah, it looked cute once, but every time I scrolled down something was animating. It was really distracting. I don't see a good reason behind animating every number from 0.
It is an infographic encompassing an article, which sadly I can't find translated to english on the site.
It's a small crime - the real crime is this web-site! These developers were the same ones who thought combining <blink> and <marquee> was a good idea in the '90s.
Not to mention the discrepancy in the first graphic (which clogged up the screen with dropping money bags for 15 seconds):
> Total amount lost by the state due to the tricks: at least €3,100,000,000 (31.8 billion)
So which is it? 3.1 billion or 31.8 billion? It's not a minor difference!
Also, does anyone else have extreme difficulty reading text while an animated gif taking up 1/4th of the screen constantly loops? I usually scroll until the gif is off-screen so that I can continue reading. In this case it's impossible because there are multiple gifs per page so I can't scroll in any direction.
> Total amount lost by the state due to the tricks: at least €3,100,000,000 (31.8 billion)
So which is it? 3.1 billion or 31.8 billion? It's not a minor difference!
Also, does anyone else have extreme difficulty reading text while an animated gif taking up 1/4th of the screen constantly loops? I usually scroll until the gif is off-screen so that I can continue reading. In this case it's impossible because there are multiple gifs per page so I can't scroll in any direction.
It now says "€31,800,000,000 (31.8 billion)", so presumably the latter.
I thought the 'ka-ching' effect and animations really effective. My sample is small, but people in the office (who are not techies) all found it engaging and actually read the damn thing, and they don't normally read links I forward. Maybe the action keeps them interested? None are German.
> What the state could have done with €31.8 billion
If we start with these sorts of calculations, why not set the tax rate to 100%? Apparently the taxed populace doesn't ever do anything worthwhile with their money.
If we start with these sorts of calculations, why not set the tax rate to 100%? Apparently the taxed populace doesn't ever do anything worthwhile with their money.
Remind me to overcharge you if ever I serve you in a shop. When you complain that with that extra $n you have done some thing, I'll point you back to that comment.
Not a smaller scandal was former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (now President of the European Council) reform to move money saved on privately owned pension accounts called OFE (OFE invested peoples money into obligations and bonds) to the public pension system - circa 151 billion PLN, so around 40 billion USD.
link: http://www.money.pl/gospodarka/raporty/artykul/skok;na;pieni...
link: http://www.money.pl/gospodarka/raporty/artykul/skok;na;pieni...
I don't want to start a political dispute over here, but the private pension funds scheme is a theft by itself. The country transfers money over to these pension funds, and by doing that it raises it's own debt. Now it has to sell bonds to cover that debt. That bonds are being bought by the very same funds. Country will have to buy them back, but with a loss. In the end: the profit on that pension funds is, in fact, funded by the citizens themselves. The only beneficiaries are the funds themselves, as they got the margins, and take a some sickly huge commission.
In short: it was an unpopular but wise decision by the former Polish gov to stop this scam. I believe that the current government is going further into that direction. Also a good move.
In short: it was an unpopular but wise decision by the former Polish gov to stop this scam. I believe that the current government is going further into that direction. Also a good move.
government pension funds are not a smaller scam. Enough to say they constantly raise the age at which you can start collecting your pensions and return you small % before you die. So privately owned funds, even if they have massive commissions, still return back more than the government.
The government introduced this type of investing in Poland in the reform in 1999 and in 2014 just didn't buy back obligations which were bought using peoples money.
The government introduced this type of investing in Poland in the reform in 1999 and in 2014 just didn't buy back obligations which were bought using peoples money.
[deleted]
This article obscures the most important question you can have about this: was it legal, or wasn't it?
You can have as many ethical systems as you want and call it "evil" or not depending on your opinion. But you don't have multiple law systems (in a single country) and call it "theft" or "legal loophole" depending on what mood you're on. It's either one or another.
You can have as many ethical systems as you want and call it "evil" or not depending on your opinion. But you don't have multiple law systems (in a single country) and call it "theft" or "legal loophole" depending on what mood you're on. It's either one or another.
Yet to be determined I guess. Cum-ex wasn't explicitly mentioned as forbidden between 1992 and 2011, cum-cum wasn't forbidden until 2016.
In my absolute layman's opinion cum-cum trickery might have been legal unless forbidden, but cum-ex sounds more like fraud than exploiting loopholes - and the state has sued all the people and organisations involved starting from 2014 - looking for tax evasion and fraud convictions...
In my absolute layman's opinion cum-cum trickery might have been legal unless forbidden, but cum-ex sounds more like fraud than exploiting loopholes - and the state has sued all the people and organisations involved starting from 2014 - looking for tax evasion and fraud convictions...
> BERLIN, June 22 German banks exploited a legal loophole that allowed two parties to claim ownership of the same shares, the financial watchdog will tell lawmakers this week, in schemes that could have cost the state billions of euros in tax over many years.
ZEIT: "The Multibillion Euro Theft". To call it theft then, is a bit ridiculous. It was a loophole. There are loopholes everywhere. If lawmakers would make proper laws (isn't that part of their responsibility?), and took sufficient time to think them through, a lot less loopholes would exist. Unless they're put there by design, of course.
ZEIT: "The Multibillion Euro Theft". To call it theft then, is a bit ridiculous. It was a loophole. There are loopholes everywhere. If lawmakers would make proper laws (isn't that part of their responsibility?), and took sufficient time to think them through, a lot less loopholes would exist. Unless they're put there by design, of course.
Most loopholes allow you simply to pay less tax than you might otherwise owe.
This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place. This is theft.
This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place. This is theft.
Or a tax break. If you get an R&D cash subsidy from the government, is that theft? If it's possible within the boundaries of the law, it isn't theft. It's a design flaw (and one certain politicians should definitely be held accountable for, for sure!)
No, no, no. Fuck that. I cannot understand this kind of sociopathic attitude to morality, even on Hacker News. Theft is a social and moral concept. Right and wrong are not defined purely by what's legal. The law is just a (flawed) attempt to codify a society's moral consensus, not an excuse for individuals or organisations to abdicate all personal moral judgement.
If a child in a nursery grabs away another child's juice box for themselves, they haven't broken any law, but it's still theft. If an autocratic government passes a law allowing it to seize the assets of a minority group, it's still theft. If a bank exploits legal loopholes to take billions of taxpayer's money, it's theft, regardless of whether it's legal.
If a child in a nursery grabs away another child's juice box for themselves, they haven't broken any law, but it's still theft. If an autocratic government passes a law allowing it to seize the assets of a minority group, it's still theft. If a bank exploits legal loopholes to take billions of taxpayer's money, it's theft, regardless of whether it's legal.
If you tried to double count R&D spending with a subsidiary and request both tax credits in excess of your liabilities, then yes... I'd say you still owe taxes, interest and penalties.
That is what the article is about, claiming the same tax rebate for the legal fiction that there are 2 simultaneous owners of a stock due to a short sale.
If you allow that, why not let me sell your short sale short, and then sell that short so that there are 8,16, or 32Billion rebates to be had.
Legal fiction is the key... and yes, they let lobbyists rewrite the law promising they wouldn't exploit the new one, but they were caught doing it again (on the excluded foreign accounts).
That is what the article is about, claiming the same tax rebate for the legal fiction that there are 2 simultaneous owners of a stock due to a short sale.
If you allow that, why not let me sell your short sale short, and then sell that short so that there are 8,16, or 32Billion rebates to be had.
Legal fiction is the key... and yes, they let lobbyists rewrite the law promising they wouldn't exploit the new one, but they were caught doing it again (on the excluded foreign accounts).
Can you please describe in more detail, how do you jump from this:
> This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place.
To this?
> This is theft.
Because by itself, this logic would seem to include all welfare recipients - they also take more than they pay. You probably didn't mean to call them theives though; so, you probably have more precise criteria to calling someone a thief than just "he takes back more than he pays".
> This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place.
To this?
> This is theft.
Because by itself, this logic would seem to include all welfare recipients - they also take more than they pay. You probably didn't mean to call them theives though; so, you probably have more precise criteria to calling someone a thief than just "he takes back more than he pays".
[deleted]
If false statements were made in order to exploit this loophole, I think it would count as theft under this argument.
If, yes, then I totally agree. But that's up to a judge to decide whether it was a false statement and/or claim.
If theft is involuntary taking of other people's money, then tax is theft. Employing every legal trick to minimize taxes is moral and encouraged.
If red is blue, then tax is theft. From a false premise, all conclusions can be drawn.
Theft is not taking involuntarily. Theft is taking illegally which is an important distinction to make. I take your watch. I want to keep it. It's taken from me against my will. That's certainly not theft.
Theft is not taking involuntarily. Theft is taking illegally which is an important distinction to make. I take your watch. I want to keep it. It's taken from me against my will. That's certainly not theft.
Is law arbitrary? Slavery was legal once. Was slavery OK back then?
> Employing every legal trick to minimize taxes is moral and encouraged.
That's your opinion. Many people disagree that minimizing taxes through tricks and borderline "optimization" is moral (see: tax avoidance [0]).
Not everybody shares the same moral compass, as it is linked to many factors, including your political beliefs, country, education, etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion
That's your opinion. Many people disagree that minimizing taxes through tricks and borderline "optimization" is moral (see: tax avoidance [0]).
Not everybody shares the same moral compass, as it is linked to many factors, including your political beliefs, country, education, etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion
Taxation is not theft in a democracy. If you don't like the taxes, campaign to have them changed. Or move to another country. We as a society agree to the taxes we have through our elected officials who represent us.
Your argument is also applicable to slavery or racial segregation.
No, it isn't, my dude. That comparison is not only ridiculous but offensive.
With slavery, the slaves don't get a voice. They can't choose to not be slaves. With taxation in a democracy you can choose to run for office and change the laws yourself if you really wanted. Or you can just work to get someone else who better represents your views elected.
With racial segregation, again, the victims don't get a voice. They are prevented from voting, they are intimidated and oppressed.
You are not being oppressed because we've chosen to pay taxes to fix the roads and take care of the elderly.
With slavery, the slaves don't get a voice. They can't choose to not be slaves. With taxation in a democracy you can choose to run for office and change the laws yourself if you really wanted. Or you can just work to get someone else who better represents your views elected.
With racial segregation, again, the victims don't get a voice. They are prevented from voting, they are intimidated and oppressed.
You are not being oppressed because we've chosen to pay taxes to fix the roads and take care of the elderly.
Not if slaves/segregated are minority.
Theft is defined by law so no Tax is not theft. There isn't an objective definition of theft. No one owns anything by any other definition than what society or the strongest define.
A person owns himself or herself. Slavery is immoral and wrong even where it is legal or was legal.
No they dont own themself there is no such thing in nature as owning yourself. It's something we have agreed upon over thousands of years but you don't actually own yourself.
If you are the strongest you can stand for yourself but there is no natural law that prevents someone from making you a slave of them.
If you are the strongest you can stand for yourself but there is no natural law that prevents someone from making you a slave of them.
No ones saying that in the law of the jungle that isnt the case. It's different rules there for sure. But thats why we have progressed to where we are today.
Since We live in a western democratic civilization, and there are laws against that very thing, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Since We live in a western democratic civilization, and there are laws against that very thing, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
What I am saying is that the theft discussion is defined by society and the laws of society. So you can't claim that Tax is theft.
In th natural/positive law debate, I am strongly on the natural side.
What natural side? Where do you ultimately get the right to ownership from if not purely from your ability to fight for your claim to ownership?
It just doesn't exist "out there"
It just doesn't exist "out there"
Some arbitrary atrocities were made legal at some points in history. Were they morally more acceptable after that?
No. But society functioned better after we agreed to personal ownership. To maintain that though there is a price, that price is taxes.
If you want to not pay taxes you either must take the punishment, fight to become the defining power of said society or move to somewhere you don't have to pay taxes.
If you want to not pay taxes you either must take the punishment, fight to become the defining power of said society or move to somewhere you don't have to pay taxes.
Just like governments have a monopoly on violence, they also (somewhat consequentially) have a monopoly on theft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
basing states' moral rights on the monopoly of violence (instead of secondary concerns like avoiding the tragedy of the commons and establishing a baseline living standard) opens the door to justifying pretty much any violent state action. Governments having a monopoly on violence means they technically have a monopoly on genocide too, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
And just about any violent state action happens various places and nations get away with that all the time.
A lot of people are confusing what reality is with how we want it to be.
A lot of people are confusing what reality is with how we want it to be.
Yes, you may be able to justify this legally, but it is a morally highly questionable behaviour nonetheless.
I mean jesus, aren't many people on here some kind of intellectual elite? And these are the people that argue FOR the ones fucking over the general populace for their personal gain?
This kind of shit has to stop and we should be the people stepping in for the little man. Unless of course you dream of one day profitting from the same anti-social tax-evasion bullshit.