| HN Mirror

Y	Hacker News new \| ask \| show \| jobs

by MadeThisToReply 1656 days ago

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what words mean. "Tax evasion" is illegal by definition. "Tax avoidance" is legal.

According to Wikipedia, the term "tax noncompliance" (or "tax avoision"... bleargh) can be used as a general term to refer to both of those things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_noncompliance

3 comments

xphx 1656 days ago

Sorry, but Wikipedia also doesn't get to decide what words mean, nor you or I, at least not authoritatively.

Linguistically, tax evasion is: evasion of taxes. I can use the words to describe any action taken to evade paying a tax. The words simply do not imply a state of legality.

That there are domains that overload the terms with extended restrictive meaning is by definition arbitrary and has no priority over natural language.

Usually Wikipedia indicates this by explicitly naming the domain, e.g. "In US tax law, tax evasion is ...", but fails to do so here.

link

jjk166 1656 days ago

According to the oxford dictionary, tax evasion is "the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax." Dictionaries don't decide what words ought to mean, they list what people who use the words mean by them. Yes, taken on its own evasion does not require illegal activity (though it does have a much more nefarious connotation than synonyms like avoidance), but when you put the word tax in front of it, that changes the meaning. When the average person talks about tax evasion, they are talking about the crime, and when someone says something is not tax evasion, it is commonly understood to mean it is not an illegal nonpayment or underpayment of taxes. Similarly the word exploitation can mean a lot of things, many of which are not illegal, but when you put the word sexual in front of it then suddenly it refers to a definitely illegal thing.

link

phendrenad2 1656 days ago

Sorry, linguists don't get to decide what words mean. Yes, you read that right. Words' meanings transcend any given definition, and all of the linguists in the world working 24/7 are insufficient to describe all of what a word means, in all places, at a given instant in time.

This is why the court "reasonable person" standards: Sometimes definitions aren't enough. You need context.

If an accountant, under oath says you committed "tax evasion" and then later says "Oh I meant the LINGUISTIC meaning of the word, silly you, you thought I meant the TRADE TERM that fits my PROFESSION? How silly of you" that won't fly, probably.

link

LinuxBender 1656 days ago

And to help people remember the difference, here is a video of David Mitchell explaining his thoughts on the matter [1]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc [warning, language]

link

dredmorbius 1656 days ago

Curiously, the interests which literally bankroll the making of laws and electing of legislators do get to define what words mean.

"U.S. Policies Favor The Wealthy, Interest Groups, Study Shows"

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,779 policy issues from 1981 to 2002 and compared changes to the preferences of median-income Americans, the top-earning 10 percent, and organized interest groups and industries.

"Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all," the researchers write in the article titled, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens."

Affluent Americans, however, "have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy," Gilens and Page write. Organized interest groups also "have a large, positive, highly significant impact upon public policy."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/government-wealthy-study_n_51...

Though this particular study is specific to the US, the relationship doubtless exists elsewhere.