[Lionsion]

> That sounds interesting but would probably be a paradise for tax lawyers. You just create a network of companies, one for each income band. That way, an employee never makes more than the average. Of course only large corperations can afford that so that smaller companies will have a harder time hiring talent.

You could probably define company, for the purposes of such a law, that excluded those kinds of structural shenanigans. Basically, define it in terms of its qualities rather than in terms of legal instruments.

I'd also guess that the IRS has already authored those definitions, or it at least a good distance of the way there.

[sethgecko]

This way you are adding more complexity which in turn adds more loopholes. A good tax framework should be as simple as possible to avoid this type of shenanigans.

[Lionsion]

> This way you are adding more complexity which in turn adds more loopholes.

I don't agree. Simple but dumb rules lead to easy to exploit loopholes. Saying they shouldn't be fixed in the name of "simplicity" is like saying a particular unhanded-case bug shouldn't be fixed because the extra case adds "complexity."

> A good tax framework should be as simple as possible to avoid this type of shenanigans.

The idea we're discussing is one where the tax framework is used as an instrument of regulation. If a behavior is found to be detrimental to society, I think society should rise to the task of regulating it rather than shirk that responsibility because of a fear of "complexity."