Tax Avoidance: Moral or Not?

[vorlon13]

And the value of my land has varied widely.

'Technically', I had a 7 figure loss last year, if you consider the cash value of my assets.

I know I'd be better off to sell out and give all the proceeds to Warren Buffet/BH Class A) but I like it here, other than if there's a bright center to the universe, I'm on the farm that it's farthest from.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd say tax avoidance is amoral but not immoral. I'd say it would be immoral if it were possible to justifiably take action against exploiters of loopholes.

[Aristocatt]

I'd say tax avoidance is amoral but not immoral. I'd say it would be immoral if it were possible to justifiably take action against exploiters of loopholes.

Define "take action".
If I find out that you lied to me about something that I felt was important, the circumstances involved might tell me that what you did was wrong.  I can't do too much in response, but I certainly would have justifiable action to take.  Segregate the individual from my social circle, talk some mad shit, etc.

I don't think this is what you mean though.  It wouldn't make much sense given the context.

I'd say Tax Avoidance isn't necessarily immoral in and of itself.  I think a lot of people that do it are immoral though, and do it for immoral(selfish) reasons.

[Tiberius]

I'd say tax avoidance is amoral but not immoral. I'd say it would be immoral if it were possible to justifiably take action against exploiters of loopholes.

So are you saying that actions are only immoral if they are illegal, or vice versa? Or something else?

Lying is generally seen as immoral, but you can't always take action against people who tell lies, so is lying immoral in your view?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah an action doesn't have to be illegal to be immoral. I'd say that because "ought" implies "can" it only makes sense to call an action immoral if it can be avoided.

I think lying can be avoided. I don't think loopholes can be avoided. I think there's a fundamental infinite regress problem regarding loopholes whereby if exploiting a loophole becomes disallowed then the new loophole becomes almost exploiting it, and if that's disallowed the new loophole becomes almost almost exploiting it, and so on.

[Tiberius]

I don't understand your argument. People don't have to lie, and people don't have to exploit loopholes, even though they may exist.

You seem to be comparing a thing with an action, and "things" are never immoral, but actions can be. The fact that loopholes can't be avoided is irrelevant. "Loopholes" as a thing aren't immoral, but the action of exploiting them is.

[vorlon13]

I'd say it's immoral to pay taxes if they will be spent more irresponsibly than I would have spent the money













maybe . . . .

[Edwardo Piet]

I also think that it's actions themselves that are immoral or moral. But I think it only applies to actions that are definably avoidable.

I think exploiting loopholes is not definably avoidable because the whole concept of loophole exploitation is about almost breaking rules... and so if exploiting a loophole is avoided then the new loophole simply becomes almost exploiting it, and if that's avoided then the new loophole becomes almost almost exploiting it, and so on. The concept of loophole exploitation collapses into an infinite regress. If we deem immoral those who exploit, then the new exploiters become those who almost exploit and the former simply become rule breakers. This infinite regress logically goes on to the point of where people are barely exploiting anything and we don't know where to draw the line to define when an action is exploitative or not. Barely exploiting is still exploiting but if there are no clear lines to be drawn then this is indeed a case where "ought to avoid" implying "knowingly able to avoid" fails to apply. It gets to the point where there's no clear line between skillful behavior and exploitative behavior so even truly moral and decent people's only way to know for sure that they're not exploiting is to intentionally be perhaps over-moderate and not even take what they are entitled to.

I've always seen it this way, lol. I need lines.

[Cecelia]

Yes, I think it's immoral. There's nothing wrong with taking your deductions (my husband and I don't personally itemize, even though it might save us money. It's not even a matter of laziness because a friend of ours does our taxes for us, and she doesn't expect much in return. We just don't do it.) But using loopholes and going above and beyond to avoid taxation is immoral.

Taxes are the price for living in a society where our children are educated, our poor are taken care of, a society that is policed and protected. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are only educated if they can afford it. I'd hope for most others it would be the same.

I also agree that it's time to start taxing churches. Let them write off their charitable acts. It's also time to start taxing charities that spend less than 60% of their money on charitable services. (Fisher House for example spends 91% on their program expenses.) Actually 66%--2/3rds might be a better number. Any lower than that and they shouldn't really be considered a charity imo.

[vorlon13]

Yes, I think it's immoral.  There's nothing wrong with taking your deductions (my husband and I don't personally itemize, even though it might save us money.  It's not even a matter of laziness because a friend of ours does our taxes for us, and she doesn't expect much in return.  We just don't do it.)  But using loopholes and going above and beyond to avoid taxation is immoral.  

Taxes are the price for living in a society where our children are educated, our poor are taken care of, a society that is policed and protected.   Personally I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are only educated if they can afford it.  I'd hope for most others it would be the same.

I also agree that it's time to start taxing churches.  Let them write off their charitable acts.  It's also time to start taxing charities that spend less than 60% of their money on charitable services.  (Fisher House for example spends 91% on their program expenses.)  Actually 66%--2/3rds might be a better number.  Any lower than that and they shouldn't really be considered a charity imo.

(emphasis mine)

-however-

In addition to education alms for the poor, police, etc., what if the government was taxing and spending vast sums of money to dig ENORMOUS holes in the ground, and then to fill them up again, over and over, everywhere ??