From what I understand there are two different viewpoints on taxes. Specifically, rebates, incentives.
Is it ethical for me to take advantage of lowering my tax burden? Having them take as little of my money as possible.
But, what if I ran a business? Would it be ethical for me to try to lower my taxes as much as possible. Like for example, if I was BP, if the government let me keep more of my money if I drilled in deep water? The tax credits would cover any economic disincentive, but the state would not allow the company to drill unless it made money off it.
However, is taking tax rebates, credits, like stealing from society, even though you payed more in taxes than you get in credits?
Thanks for the link! My main focus was on businesses though. Lobbying government for tax subsedies. The government will always take more money from the company than it exempts the company from paying. For example, the government telling BP to deep sea drill and offer tax incentives to do so. Why fault someone from trying to get back the money that was taken from them?
I am confused on what sort of stance makes ethical sense? Perhaps there might be strings attached to the subsedy. I am questioning, the milk the government approach. Because everyone is doing it. It’s like a supply and demand issue. The more people taking money from the gov, the more they give out. but the more they tax. I am afraid by creating such spending black hole, given limited options in addressing the raising of taxes, that it might be self defeating.
I am confused on what sort of stance makes ethical sense? Perhaps there might be strings attached to the subsedy. I am questioning, the milk the government approach. Because everyone is doing it. It’s like a supply and demand issue. The more people taking money from the gov, the more they give out. but the more they tax. I am afraid by creating such spending black hole, given limited options in addressing the raising of taxes, that it might be self defeating. Thanks for the link! My main focus was on businesses though. Lobbying government for tax subsedies. The government will always take more money from the company than it exempts the company from paying. For example, the government telling BP to deep sea drill and offer tax incentives to do so.
I am confused on what sort of stance makes ethical sense? Perhaps there might be strings attached to the subsedy. I am questioning, the milk the government approach. Because everyone is doing it. It’s like a supply and demand issue. The more people taking money from the gov, the more they give out. but the more they tax. I am afraid by creating such spending black hole, given limited options in addressing the raising of taxes, that it might be self defeating.
I would do anything in the world I could to stop my taxes from being taken. You should too. You could lobby government officials to help your cause, but it only gives other companies a reason to do the same. The less you give and take from the government, the less they’ll have. And, in the end, without any money, they’ll only use it for the necessities. Never in the world would a government end it’s military in order to spend on welfare.
Conclusion, since that rambled a bit: instead of lobbying for tax incentives, just hide most of your money.
I think you made a really good point in there without realizing it. “The less you give and take from the government, the less they’ll have.” By accepting government money, it is giving government a purpose, a wealth redistribution purpose.
A bit OT, I was claiming single-6 on my payroll tax form. I changed it to single-1 since I heard that I could take so little of my money that way, that they might try to confiscate it before April. It’s funny, my Fed income tax went up 1200% after I made that change.
“Is it ethical for me to take advantage of lowering my tax burden?”
It depends, do you consider this an “ethical act”?
I would consider both actions ethical (insofar as the term actually exists) but I would consider the second example somewhat despicable and weak in some cases. Unless you agree with whatever cause the state is attempting to fulfill (yes it is possible for that to happen just because you don’t agree with the means does not mean that you don’t agree witht he ends) then I consider it somewhat despicable and weak, to surrender to the state in such a way. It is however, understandable.
A bit OT, I was claiming single-6 on my payroll tax form. I changed it to single-1 since I heard that I could take so little of my money that way, that they might try to confiscate it before April. It’s funny, my Fed income tax went up 1200% after I made that change.
Do you mean your deductions (or whatever you call it I am really tired). Like where you do a little worksheet… I always did Zero. Otherwise you are just giving an interest-free loan to the government.
Single- zero is the interest free loan option. The more dependants you add. The less money the government takes from you during the year. Someone told me if I “owe” too much money to the government during the year, I would have to mail them a check.
It is not surrendering, the government is giving you the money. You are doing what the government wants by accepting the money. I totally agree that I should get as much money back from the government as possible, but from a business point of view. It leads to lobbying and unfair advantages, (government allowing one company to keep more of it’s money than another).
“It is not surrendering, the government is giving you the money. You are doing what the government wants by accepting the money.”
You are doing what the state wants despite the fact that you oppose it. You are cooperating with that institution which you proclaim yourself an enemy of. Perhaps you are right and that surrender is not the correct term, it would appear that treachery to your own stated values would be more correct
You sir, are incorrect on so many grounds. It is you who would be performing treachery. Giving the state a reason to take more of my money because the government stole from you.
It seems you’re trying to ask whether actively lobbying for government favors - which are ultimately paid out of the public’s pocket - is unethical? I think the answer generally “no” but it’s still a bad idea (for your own welfare). The State, as a whole, is evil. The ends of the State are evil and the means the State employs to attain its ends are evil. Nevertheless, my refraining from taking the favors offered by the State will not make the State go away. The State is no less evil if I do not participate in it. Hence, my participation - or lack thereof - makes no difference. So, claiming the “Earned Income Credit”, for example, and getting cash back from the Federal government at the end of the year (essentially, Federal welfare) is not evil. Filing for Pell Grants to go to college is not evil.
However, since the State is an artifice, any benefits or favors you receive from the State distort your own ability to calculate. That is, if you get $1000 from the government in the form of Pell Grants or through some other benefit you qualify for, it will appear that you are doing $1000/yr. better than you really are. You will live at a higher standard of living than you can actually afford. When your benefits are coming to an end, you only have two options: go deeper into the system or accept a reduced standard of living. Of course, no one wants to accept a lower standard of living. And this is how many people get sucked into the political rent-seeking machine. It starts off with a small amount of subsidy for their business or lifestyle but then when it’s coming to an end they realize they have to get more deeply involved in the political apparatus. At the end of the road, they are a paid pundit shill or Washington lobbyist for some faceless corporation building bombs that will be dropped on Afghani children or oozing toxic waste into some remote paradise populated by people too poor and ignorant to stop it.