I'm just saying what's real. Go ahead and deny that legality is what is important when it comes to paying your taxes if you want. It won't make you any more right than you were when we started this conversation. You can say all this other stuf comes into play, but it doesn't.

That's a problem with the law, not with the people trying to figure out how much to pay. If they bend it so far that it breaks then they're breaking the law. Morality isn't a necessary component.

Right. There are many ways to make a pizza too. Is one of them more morally correct than the other? And again... who's morals? I'll accept "societies" as an answer, but even then it follows that different members will think different things and will try to find ways to win others to their own way of thinking.

See the last paragraph. Everyone will have different views of fairness. So why does your view of what's fair matter when it comes to paying your taxes? It doesn't. What about my view of what a fair tax rate would be? Does it matter when I'm figuring out how much to pay? Of course not. What matters is what the law says I have to pay and what you have to pay.

You've changed, it seems, from there being a moral question in how you pay taxes to instead arguing that there is a moral issue involved in the making of the law. Again, you're arguing with no one. Of course morality comes into play in the making of laws, but it's not just YOUR morality or MY morality. I said it earlier. Different zip codes will have different morals / senses of fairness and they'll vote in representatives that should try to get those views worked into the laws.

Maybe looking at this way will make a difference. The morality AND opinions of the society are supposedly "baked into the laws". This means that when someone in the society follows the law they almost have to be acting morally (according to that society). If the laws do not reflect the morals then that's on the representation who make the laws. It's ludicrous to believe that people P should have to worry about whether there is someone S out there who S will disapprove of their P choices due to their S arbitrary morality relating to things where there are existing laws that govern those choices. Someone somewhere will agree with every decision S makes and someone somewhere will disagree. And they'll do it at different times. That's why the law is important. So I can't make you give your money to my charity and you can't make me give my money to Uncle Sam - based on our own particular views of right / wrong.

We have an agreement!

We have an agreement again! (sadly it won't last long)

Not so sure about this one. I think you might have forgotten. It's THE ONLY METRIC when it comes to how much you should pay in taxes. The tax code is supposedly meant to make sure that enough taxes are gathered to cover the spending that those same representatives deem appropriate. It's a legal set of rules. If the rules don't cover a situation then so be it. If the rules explicitly exclude a situation then so be it. How the rules came to be matters not - except come voting season.

Now, the way the electorate decides how they feel about the whole situation is up to them. They can use whatever criteria they want. Their pastor may tell them how to think about it. Their favorite talk show host might push them a little in one direction. Their favorite MTV anchor or comedy show host might. Their favorite late show host might. Their uninformed uncle might go crazy at a family dinner and try to convince everyone. Their news anchor will try to slant things. Their teachers will try for sure, and, god forbid, their parents might even raise them with a particular set of beliefs on which they can base their thoughts.

And guess what?! They're all different. Two zip codes right next to each other will often have vastly different morals and ideas about what is right, what is wrong, and reasons for believing their own way is the "right way" or the "moral way". This is why government should not be legislating morality - nor should they be creating a tax code that actually speaks on behalf of one morality.

How much you should pay in your taxes is not a moral question. It's a legal one. It is CONSTANTLY argued that the tax code itself needs revamping, but even that's not a moral issue any more than my home budgeting that my family and I do at the beginning of each year is a moral issue. In our home when we encounter a money shortage (or project one) we figure out where we can cut spending and where we might be able to actually generate more income. No morality ever enters the picture in these discussions unless someone offers to go be a stripper or something to pay for next year's tuition (joke). But even if that joke happened the morality question would be about the morality of stripping, not about how much we owed or ought to pay.

Quit trying to "leap" and just read what I said. Look, I wish young people would quit having unprotected sex leading to them having babies when they are still babies themselves. That doesn't mean I think it should be made illegal for them and that they should face criminal punishment. Many would argue that their behavior is not unethical... just people having fun and experimenting. I certainly can't blame them for being little hormone bags even though many have been told why it's a bad idea. So if it's not illegal and not unethical then what is it? I'll tell you. It just IS. It's undesirable behavior at the most. If you're religious then it is perhaps immoral, but within the society as a whole it is not unethical. It IS something I WISH wasn't happening. As a parent about all one can do is try to educate and then put all the "controls" (no boys in the bedroom, reasonable curfew, etc) in place possible in order to prevent it from happening, and find ways to encourage different behavior. Still no guarantees..

The representatives have done things that their constituents claim they don't like. The reps should therefore, in theory, be held accountable for doing so by their constituents. I didn't say legally accountable. The problem is that they're not even "job security accountable". They'll get voted right back in. Again for clarity, they didn't necessarily do anything that was illegal or unethical, rather they made decisions that those who voted them into power would disagree with. That's all.

Wrong - you can not assume that. See second paragraph.

I didn't wish for that out loud. I wished out loud for the things that made sense to wish for because they should be a given in terms of human behavior. See first paragraph AND last paragraph for why I didn't wish for that out loud.

There are no ethics of taxes. Stop it.

Finally! You get it!

Almost absolutely.

You haven't bothered showing it was unethical. You leave the onus on me to prove something was ethical when I don't even think it has anything to do with ethics.

Bah. That's just lazy thinking. WHY is there a tax code? Start there. It's sure as hell not about morality. Therefore the morality of the mechanisms and the legality of those mechanisms start off separated - you don't have to separate them as only one actually exists at all. People don't pay taxes through thick and thin because it's morally the right thing to do. They do it because if they don't the government will make their life a living hell. It's not a moral imperative or whatever you're trying to make it. It's a legal one.

The private citizens who actually pay taxes are going to do what they can within the law to minimize their perceived burden. There's no morality here. When the law doesn't fit their desires they'll lobby to get it changed (you ever ask for a later curfew?). They aren't wrong to do so and it would come to an end if the representatives (all the way to big representative himself) would have enough backbone to simply put a stop to it via legal means. They are the one allowing it. And then the people who get mad about it but then vote the same goobs right back in (for some reason or another ) are also complicit. People wanting to keep more of the money they earn isn't going to stop (it shouldn't). People searching for ways to do so isn't going to stop (it shouldn't). What can stop is people who disagree continuing to vote representatives that let it happen.

I'm not blaming anyone. That's what this has been about. You keep trying to get me to cast blame, but in doing so you assume someone did something wrong.

No. We don't agree. If the means are legal then I'd lean towards it being ethical to do so as a rule of thumb. Might there be cases where that's not true, absolutely. But in general, ethics has to do with the moral correctness of something and taxes aren't a moral question. They are a legal question. If you live in a society of laws (whose laws presumably represent the ethics of the society), and you follow the laws when you pay your taxes, then there's not even a question of ethical-ness. You seem to think that the government saying they want your money means that morally you should give it to them and feel all warm and fuzzy about it. Others would say that if the government wants the money they didn't earn but feel like they have a claim on then they need to take the time to create and maintain laws that result in their achieving that goal.

No, we don't necessarily agree here either... That's a broad brush and you won't paint me in to that corner. Be more specific about the exact special interest, amount of money, specified exemption level and we've got something to talk about. Is the group doing something else that relieves stress from government and it therefore should qualify them for some exemptions? The answer that question is very important. Then there's the fact that people define "special interests" differently so you've got to be more precise. And, yes, some exemptions really piss me off and I know they're only their because of lobbying efforts. Sometimes in life we have to take the bad with the good.

I repeat. I'm not the one blaming anyone. You keep trying to get me to cast blame, but in doing so you assume someone did something wrong (unethical according your ethics). I think that often people just act in the system they've got - and then others get mad. You seem to think I should engage in the blame game and hate on big business or rich people. I don't think it's warranted as often as some people. I don't blame someone for taking a legal means of protecting their money from someone else who's taking a legal slant to take, by force if necessary, their money from them. I don't blame someone for requesting a law change - even though the change might be a little sick in others' view. There are crazies out there (and we don't even agree on who they are).

I wish people would hold accountable the representative that goes along with shenanigans and then the rest of the representatives that vote it in. I wish people would quite voting against their own interests even after they've seen they've been duped. None of this continues to happen and it doesn't grow worse if people who understand that they're actually a part of it choose to alter it.

You've had serious comprehension fail when you read my first response. Just read the sentence. Don't read into it. Just read the sentence.

There is nothing about illegal behavior in my statement. Nothing shady. No HIDING of money. I might as well have said "if i could put more money into an investment account like a ROTH and not get it taxed then I'd do it". You twisted that statement into the idea that I want to go an illegal route and hide my money in order to keep the hungry hungry. I find it breathtaking that you have answered in the affirmative and that you want to pay even more money in taxes. That you think your government can handle your money better than you can is a bewildering concept for me. But I'm not really worried about your choice. It's yours to make. It's your money too. I don't care if you just flush it all down the toilet - it IS YOURS. You earned it and who am I to tell you how to manage it? I'm not going to twist it into something that it is not.

I expect the same from you. It is NOT your choice to interpret what I plainly said however you want. I said what I said.

Now, from a purely intellectual perspective regarding the term 'rational':

Decision making speaks to rationality and ethics. And the "rationality score" for any given decision can certainly take ethics into account. Hell, it can take superstition, religion, hair color, whatever into account.


Back to the same quote again. This is where the concept (rational) was introduced:

Someone WOULD HAVE TO make this decision if they are purely rational beings. Done.

Now on to your point about ethics (which is never excluded in anything I said). You're arguing that ethics comes into play at some point, but you're arguing with no one! I never denied ethics a place in the decision making process. Nothing I have said precludes that one's personal ethics should be taken into account when making a decision... doing so is part of being rational. In fact I've stated repeatedly that somethings are technically rational but still scummy when ethics is taken into account. The rationality score, if you will, of those decisions would be vastly different depending on the ethics of the actors involved. Some things might be viewed as irrational to those outside the picture, but still be a good thing to everyone involved. As an example, it might not be rational (excluding an agents specific ethics) to give some food to the needy. But when you take into account the good feelings, the good "karma", the desire to help a fellow, and the possibility of good things coming from it later (maybe when you're down the favor will be repaid) then it becomes rational. If the agent has different ethics / beliefs then it might not be rational. If, for example, one believes you can help the person better by teaching them to fish rather than feeding them then it would be irrational to give them food even though the decision maker may want to do so for a variety of other reasons.

In any case, you started off misinterpreting and just kept on. My response was to the AC who was speaking as if someone would be wrong to go out of their way to take a tax break. As if because someone makes a lot of money they should be begging to pay more in taxes. That AC didn't specify the legality so I asserted that I would minimize my tax burden while keeping as much money as I could too IF IT WAS LEGAL AND AFFORDABLE to do so (check the quote again). I said that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry, friend. The whole discussion is in play even though you think it's cool to try to grab bits and pieces rather than worry about the concepts as a whole. You responded to my original comment where I was talking about rational choices. You then asked me if I thought that the way the system works (the way you see it) was natural and understandable. I responded that it was RATIONAL for people to maximize their gains within that system. I went on to say that I didn't think that it was ideal. I went further on to say that it was not the system, but the people who intentionally twist it (yes, rationally).

I'm saying it as plain as I can. You read correctly that I think handouts are garbage when they come from the government and they are given in such a way that (purposely or not) train a population to be dependent rather than independent. A safety net is important, but when people use it as a hammock there's a problem with the design / implementation.

I shouldn't have to say "I'm responding to bla bla bla... " because it was the next message. You're response was misrepresentation galore and splitting them all up and calling them all out was simply too much to deal at the time. I clearly used your own words (eloquent section) when I responded so you should have known what I was talking about. You wanted to know if I'd go to great lengths to heave the responsibility onto others? I replied. And I stated that there is a whole constituency besides the uber rich that play the same game you felt the need to call the wealthy people who care to keep their dollars from the government (legally) and later spend them as they see fit. You brought up the behavior because you think it's bad behavior. I simply pointed out that it's carried out by more than just those you aimed to vilify. I didn't say it would be "right" for anyone.

So now you're interested in what was said before rather than our immediate discussion? Good. I'm glad you're starting to see that the whole thread is important, not just whether I can spell "weather" correctly or not. If you want to pay extra in taxes then so be it. If you think the government is better able to tell how to spend your money than you are then you go right ahead. As for me, I pay what I'm legally required to pay (and probably more because I don't search for every possible loophole as I don't make enough to worry with it), and then I decide how to allocate my charitable givings. I can give $100 to a local food bank and they can spend it directly on food - or I can pay an extra $100 in taxes and watch maybe a 10 dollars of that actually make it to the food bank (replace food bank with your desired charity).

The short of all of this is that you misinterpreted my meaning nearly everywhere. Tax evasion is not honerable, but keeping as much of your money as legally possible is rational. This thread started based on some AC pointing out that rich people will do all they can to pay a little in taxes as possible. Like that's a bad thing. I pointed out that doing so legally is perfectly reasonable. Then you took off interpreting (badly).

Sometimes people say what they say... no interpretation needed. I don't want to give more money than necessary to government because they aren't very good at spending it efficiently. If you are a believer in big government and a nanny government then you'll disagree and you can pay all the extra taxes you want. That's fine. I'm okay disagreeing. I'll keep on giving in the ways that I think are the most efficient or the most rational for me (depending on my goals).

Read your own questions and your own comments with the post I responded to. We're talking about weather something was rational or not. I responded. I think I was pretty clear that the mindset of the people in system is what is broken and that the actors are simply doing what they can. Whether in spending or in evasion. That's the problem... not richie rich. I think I was also pretty clear that it's not ideal behavior (even though it is rational). You have a reading fail.

Also, you are putting words in my mouth "[anti] spending one nickel to help those down on luck" and you did so several times. I didn't say the things, but somehow you know that "I obviously felt" them. Like I said your comprehension is just poor - either that or you're reading it with too much of a bias. I don't know, but you're obviously not capable of discussing it sanely.

It's funny (and a sign of something I'm sure) that you think that because I'm not out bragging about how much I give to charity you feel like it's within your right to assume I'm giving nothing. Some people have an upbringing and confidence level in themselves to not worry about "showing out" in their charitable deeds. Those who need to see them do - everyone else is just keeping score. For those that are actually interested in doing the right thing, they're not playing a game - and they don't care about the score even if you want to keep one.

When my risks don't pay off - hell when my good choices don't pan out as well as I'd like - I generally eat it. When I was a kid I used to complain about how so-and-so got a cool new toy and I didn't OR how so-and-so got an A for their shitty homework and I didn't. Then at some point in high school I grew up and realized that life's not fair and sometimes you're playing against the odds and you just have to do even better.

Contrast that with a portion of the country that believes that they're entitled to life, liberty, and a guarantee of happiness. That group is the group that wants to, as you so eloquently put it, avoid accountability and stick someone else with the bill. They're the ones voting politicians in who will do nothing but guarantee more and more "free" (paid for with someone else's money). They're the ones who are good at changing laws on their own behalf.

Yes, it could certainly be viewed as rational behavior. It's not ideal in MY view, but it may have been the most rational thing. Rational isn't good or bad. It just is. If you're a con man who makes a living swindling old ladies out of their money and stealing lollipops from little kids then you suck as a citizen. However, I would not call you irrational if you attempted to have the law changed such that it was okay to do so or used some loophole to make the charges not stick legally. You're still a jerk, you're just also rational.

I assume you mean the US constitution and governing systems. That system should certainly not be encouraging it AND IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE it at this time. The people behind the system ALLOW it. The system doesn't ENCOURAGE it any more than me not locking my doors ENCOURAGES someone to rob me.

Companies can't "ensure" that laws are changed on their behalf. They can lobby for it, but they can't ensure it. They also can't ensure that even if their lobbying pays off that the laws will stay that way. Theoretically, the politicians that acted poorly and voted for bad laws can be voted right back out again in favor of someone who will do the will of the people. That's the glory of the US governing systems. It is also the weakness. Our current "way" is what it is because WE make it that way. We make it that way even if many of us are spending all day being too "woe to me" to realize we have a choice and are unwilling to think and act on possible solutions.

The system's not broken - the people behind it are simply mentally weakened and emotionally worn - and the fact that people are more concerned about the "gap between the rich and poor" than they are about the "gap between 3rd world poverty and US poverty ways of life" is a sure sign of it.

Banks (the people that run them) are rational like anyone else. They want to better their own situation in whatever ways they can LEGALLY. Mix that with that fact that some customers fell into greedy / stupid behaviors their grandmother would have never approved of and then when the crap hit the fan some other group of jackass law makers decided that it's cool to push the onus off on the taxpayer. All that together you boil down to "banks push losses to taxpayer when risks don't pay off". Whatever. The banks don't make the law as much as many people like to pretend they do.

You'd be 100% right about what you said if I had only said 50% of what I said. I said legal AND affordable. What you named was affordable, but not legal, so it doesn't count. Look, all I was saying was that people who have money want to keep it and it makes since they'd do all the things they can (within the law) to do so. I said it in direct response the AC who said "Self entitled wealthy bastards go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes".

Mods, you can mod me down again because you don't like what I'm saying, but you're misusing the system and, as is likely to happen when systems are misused, you'll ruin it for everyone except your kind. More power to you I guess.

I use TurboTax each year planning to take every deduction it can find for me to take. I'm certainly not a wealthy bastard, but i don't want to pay any more than I have to. If an accountant would "pay for itself" (they'd save me as much as they would charge) then I'd hire one to do my taxes. I would have employed someone for a day and gotten PAID to do so by the saving on my taxes. Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?

People who work generally prefer to keep their earned money. People who took risks generally prefer to be rewarded when those risks pay off. They'd rather get to spend it on (or give it to) things of their choosing rather than have as much as possible taken from them to be handed out to someone else (government or otherwise).

What hard to understand?

Personally, I like #2 (aptly numbered, by the way). It has nothing to do with the discussion other than it being a "Oh yeah? Well let me tell you this about YOUR guy!" type comment. I'm sure there's a fancy debate name for that sort of fallacy, but 'irrelevant' will do fine. But even though it's irrelevant it definitely tells me a bit about how much thought you put into it.

If you are someone whose income comes from tax free bonds it means what? It means you loaned your money to the f-cking government who NEEDED IT (or so they were convinced) for some reason or another. Once you handed it to the government you did NOT have your money and could not invest it elsewhere where you would have made a higher return (which you would have paid taxes on, but would have probably still come out better). You couldn't BUY FOOD with that money even if you wanted. You couldn't pay rent with it if you fell on hard times. You couldn't even reinvest it. You have incurred an opportunity cost AND taken on risk. You do realize that's why those bonds are tax free right? Because they wouldn't be a good deal if they were paid the less than "market" rates that they pay AND you had to pay taxes on them. The government wants to entice you to put your money with them and making them tax free is one of the ways they can sweeten' the deal... but you seem to be missing that even with that benefit it still doesn't necessarily mean it was a good deal.

Use of the VPNs is not limited to people in a particular repressed country. A given repressed citizen in country C might be part of the intended audience should they want to use it, but it's not ONLY for them nor is it only for citizens of C. That is, it is not TARGETED. Acts of War are targeted. You don't commit an act of war at no one in particular. Invading a country (even to help the populace get out from under an "evil" dictator) may still be an act of war (probably is) - but running a VPN available to whomever is not.

If you're overly concerned about someone declaring something an "act of war" just because they don't like it then life's just going to be tough. There's always going to be some off his/her rocker leader that will claim that if you do X it is an act of war. And the whole rest of the world will be like, "yeah, yeah. Act of war... bla bla... only in your delusional mind". In that case it doesn't matter if crazy leader thinks of it as an "act of war" or not. It's just not even if they try to apply that label. It's at MOST a fart in their general direction, something disrespectful, but calling it an "act of war" doesn't make it one any more so than calling a comment you simply disagree with a "troll".

If someone rearends you while driving it may legally be their fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you get to live with whatever injuries you or your family get out of the deal. If you can't stop safely then it is actually in EVERYONE's best interest that you don't stop... unless of course keeping going is even more dangerous for others. Then you have to make a choice. The only way you can know that and to make good choices is to have a circle of awareness that includes what is going on behind you, to your sides, and in front of you. A sphere of awareness is even better, but most of the time, on the road, a circle will suffice.

You're obviously speaking from a personal experience here, and I hope everyone was okay, but it sounds like you learned the wrong lesson. The lesson you learned should NOT be that you don't need to know what's going on all around you and that you don't need to use your mirrors other than when changing lanes - rather it should be that you shouldn't focus on any ONE area sufficiently long that you fail to notice important things in another area. Who is "legally" at fault only helps you in the courtroom - not in the morgue and not in the operating room... those are where it counts. And yes, you might end up having to defend yourself from a fine (line/red lights) in order to keep yourself out of the morgue.

So, I did some more reading on timezones / DST this weekend. You might want to take a look at http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DST.html as it seems to state outright that DST is a "bad thing" for farmers. The primary issues that DST addresses actually seem to be related to safety and energy consumption. I'm still interested in agricultural examples if you got 'em, but I'm definitely a bit more skeptical now.