[fennecfoxen]

Taxpayers are "on the hook" for this in the same way that taxpayers are "on the hook" if I decide to take an early retirement and support myself by gardening rather than earning $300k a year in a Silicon Valley tech job, and paying income taxes on that, and the same way that society is on the hook because I have stopped producing any meaningful contributions to its well-being.

That is to say, it's a sliiiightly entitled way to look at the matter.

[rapind]

What? Help me connect the dots here.

[dboreham]

There are rules about what is taxed. If a rule says that something is not taxed is that the same thing as "taxpayers are footing the bill for that thing"?

[rapind]

Yes obviously.

Let’s say Bob and Sue make up their own society. Both make 100k each and agree to a tax rate of 50% to build roads they will both benefit from.

However Bob gets a 30k tax exemption because his name begins with “B”. Therefore the tax burden on Sue is greater and she’s subsidizing Bob’s road usage (and potentially having crappier roads).

There are legitimate reasons for tax exemptions, but as tax payers we should always be critical of them.

So does a business dropping the ball on security mean everyone else who pays taxes should subsidize their screw up? Maybe… but it seems like a stretch to me and worthy of criticism.

[f-securus]

If knowing the business will not incur a cost due to writing off ransom payments as tax deductions, would that become a new strategy for corrupt CEOs to funnel money to themselves? Double dipping at the tax payer's expense?