This is a good point, actually. Attributing the blame to an extreme minority of people (billionaires) is counter-productive. The problem is not their individual moral failings (however numerous) but the system that permits them to exist and incentivizes their parasitic and exploitative practices.
That extreme minority of people have a lot more power to influence the system than the common man. It makes one wonder how the system got to be the way it is in the first place.
I don't mean to diminish their effect on the world. What I'm saying is that if we take down Epstein and lapidate Bezos and whatnot, some other unscrupulous person will take their place.
That's a bridge to cross when it's arrived at. As it is impossible to foresee every eventuality we can only deal with the problems at hand taking reasonable precautions in the process.
'The system that permits them' is far too passive a voice, because the rich have aggressively gamed the system and rigged it to their advantage. The IRS is badly outgunned by armies of accountants and lawyers playing shell games and at best exploiting quasi-legal loopholes, or committing outright fraud.
Should we, as a society, permit a select few to shift their wealth to tax havens or should those folks also join in with everyone else? Are those sheltering their taxes more privileged that they deserve being able skirt the rules others can't, even if others would do so given the same circumstances?
Yes. We should allow free competition between tax jurisdictions. If another state is willing to provide better services in any regard, people should be free to decide what suits them best.
What is the meaning of private property if individuals can not move it abroad as they wish?
A more productive line of inquiry might be an examination of what tax authorities can do to make their schemes more palatable.
Perhaps the experiment of liberalism (as suggested in the 18th century) has failed if government has reached the point where it is trying to optimize and maximize revenue. It seems that liberalism has arrived at the same place that inspired the guillotine and the Boston tea party.
I think this theory has been discredited as Reaganism propaganda. The fact that its wikipedia page does not account for criticism makes it even more dubious.
Maybe you could flesh out the substance of your assertion?
I fail to see why individuals and corporations would not pay if it were cheaper to comply than to evade taxes. Part of the expense of compliance is the staffing of lawyers and accountants. On the other end perhaps increased value could be added in the form of incentives for tax-payers.
Resentment seems to be running high (rhetoric about the 1%) in regards to the guillotine observation. Similarly many are frustrated and looking for a way to escape tax obligations.
More and more individuals are choosing to go through the inconvenience of renouncing their US citizenship.
Might be interesting if you could use something like a pooled earnings fund secured and collateralized by some kind of smart contract, thereby achieving sufficient economies of scale to allow for the "non-hyperrich" to get some of these tax savings.
Someone should pitch this to the Mossack Fonseca guys.
More than 40% when you remove their stigmas around discussing money topics, as it only perpetuates ignorance
“Ah this person aware of the rules is playing by a more effective set of rules than we are, there are more of us so lets change the rules so our worse strategy is the only strategy, ah but we don't know which rules they are using!”
And more than 40% of all citizens would decline jail time if convicted of murder. You talk as if tragedy of the commons/prisoner's dilemma is something new and unknown.
