[coopdog]

As much as I dislike the idea of new government departments, it sounds like they do need some kind of 'evil' department who's only job is to think up ways to abuse proposed new laws and regulations before they go into effect.

Similar to how generals have the intelligence section of their staff put on only the enemy hat and poke holes in their plans.

[rndmize]

I don't think you need a new department for that. Take the tax code. Who knows how to exploit the tax code the best? The accountants at the IRS. Have the IRS give an employee a bonus each time they find an exploit and write a report on how it works and recommendations on fixing it. It shouldn't be that different from the way major software vendors pay rewards for reported bugs/exploits.

You could provide similar incentives for reports on efficiency improvements (and to prevent exploitation of a system like this, you could have the bonus provided only if the improvement/fix is actually implemented, or based on how significant it is, or something.) Prize and crowd-sourcing systems have worked pretty well when it comes to a lot of things, so why not apply them to improving government bureaucracy?

As it stands, our system does the opposite - it rewards people for finding and abusing exploits in the system instead of fixing them (see - every corporate scandal and stock market crash ever.)

[DeepDuh]

Traditional incentives are often not as effective as you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

The best way to have motivated employees for creative tasks is to give them a high base salary, good working conditions and hire suiting ones in the first place. For repetitive jobs the incentives might work, but these are also the jobs where you should think about automation.

[ams6110]

So "exploit" == legal way to keep MY money. Interesting.

[CaveTech]

Exploit because it's based on a loophole. Lots of things are legally excusable because they are worded poorly or too vaguely, but it's usually easy to see the /intention/ of such wording. Taking advantage of the difference between the intention and the defined is most certainly an exploit by definition.

[mtgx]

Sure, you can see it that way, but that also means that you consider all taxes to be taking your money - i.e. taxes are illegitimate. Otherwise, if you think taxes have their purpose, then everyone should play by the same rules, and not try to "cheat the system".

[simonh]

That argument works for individuals who are only responsible for their own finances and moral conduct, but companies have legal obligations to their shareholders to maximise shareholder value. Arguably that means if they find a legal way to reduce their tax costs they are obligated to do so. It's an interesting and non-trivial ethical question.

[GauntletWizard]

I wish we'd stop that. There's the concept of a [Benefit Corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation) which is sadly underused. It's a corporation that, while not non-profit, exists to create something other than pure wealth/shareholder profit.

More immediately, I'd like to see several rulings at once that state that future sustainable profits are more important than immediate ones, and that the suing shareholders can be held liable for court fees and damages for negative press if they sue the company/board an lose. Companies and their executives should be allowed fairly broad strokes to make a company valuable, including value of goodwill and paying attention to/not exploiting loopholes in the law.

[DeepDuh]

While I'm not your commenter parent I do share his sentiment: The way a 'liberal' (in the European sense) republic is supposed to work is that the people choose to support it by their own will. This is a direct extension of the idea that the people rule (democracy). The government is nothing but an employee of the collective and - ideally - everyone agrees with its goals at least so much that they pay the taxes thought to be necessary to accomplish them.

Background: I'm Swiss and this is more or less how the relationship between government and people works here. Besides the people's right to take down / create any law collectively, the tax system also works in a way that tax evasions are not regarded as illegal the same way you do. People are obligated to 'list their stuff' every year - if it turns out they 'forgot' something, it is simply paid later - only some minor monetary punishment involved, never jailtime. It only becomes a crime if someone forges documents - which is hardly ever done. The banking secrecy plays a big role in this - it's basically the Swiss government saying 'we will never directly look into your books and trust the informations you give us'. It's the behavior of a subordinate who trusts that he's fairly compensated by his employer.

Interestingly, Swiss tax moral is said to be very high, despite this lax system.

[bdunbar]

"The government is nothing but an employee of the collective and - ideally - everyone agrees with its goals at least so much that they pay the taxes thought to be necessary to accomplish them."

I would love to live in a country where this is actually practiced. Perhaps immigration is in my future - do you have a preferred locale in Switzerland?

In the States we _say_ this is the way things should be, but in _practice_ the people in D.C. are a horde of bandits looting the bank.

Those guys don't like people like me, they don't _trust_ people like me, there is no reason why I should pretend I trust or like them back.

[kyrriana]

Your chances of emigrating to Switzerland are virtually nil. That's why their system works.

[mtgx]

Or how cryptographers use threat models (from what I've seen).