What went so horribly wrong?
> long is bad!!!
As if you'd ever even read a single statute if it was just 400 pages long
Is there any reason besides decades of building in little loopholes for the supporters of whoever was in power at the time for the tax code to be almost 80k pages?
I don't fucking know, I'm not a tax lawyer or expert. There's probably a lotta horseshit in there, but the length isn't the issue. It could be a million pages long if that's what it takes to get rid of all the loopholes and bullshit for the rich.
“The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.” - Tacitus
Just because Tacitus said that doesn't mean it's true. If you think he's right then explain why.
>Politicians make bills longer to close loopholes
This is absolute delusion, especially in common law systems. If someone is clearly abusing the intention of the law than courts can easily close loopholes via action and judicial precedence. The reason laws are lengthened are to sneak in specific unrelated rulings that should be their own bills or to earmark spending or specifically open loopholes for others. You can’t close a loophole if the ruling specifically opens to loopholes.
We hold these truths to be self-evident
Nothing. All law codes tend toward increasing their complexity over time. It's the natural consequence of new situations requiring new rulings, old loopholes needing to be closed, changes made over time generating new loopholes, etc.
Every so often, a new code is required. Something to rationalize the old material into a more compact, manageable andabove all coherent form, but that's hard hard work, so hard that it's typically regarded as a historic achievement.
Why wasn't it needed for the Titanic?
It allows for a kind of grey authoritarianism where everyone is liable to be violating a law at some point or another when it comes to taxes. So if they really dislike you they can throw the book at you, all 74 thousand pages of it.
The tax code specifically says it has to be knowingly violated. If you violate it by mistake you're not criminally liable. There's a funny supreme court case about this, Cheek v US, where a tax protester claims both that he didn't know he had to pay taxes and also income taxes don't apply to him specifically because he's a sovereign citizen. The supreme court talks about how his supposed lack of knowledge is not a reasonable mistake and contradictory, but if it had been reasonable then he wouldn't be liable.
>If you violate it by mistake you're not criminally liable
Is not always correct because
>but if it had been reasonable then he wouldn't be liable.
women want to complicate things,
so it's bad news when they get involved.
Tax code stopped being solely about raising government revenue. Post WW2, it was increasingly used as a component of Keynsian and later economic models to push the market in certain directions. Want more people to buy homes instead of renting? Cut tax breaks in for mortgage debt.
That's a simple example, but there are a lot more complex ones, especially when you're dealing with insitutitonal actors instead of individual ones. So for instance, part of my job involves pensions and pension law, and the tax consequences for moving the funds in pensions are massively complex to try to allow for some flexibility but at the same time disincentivize companies from just gutting the damn things.
>to try to allow for some flexibility but at the same time disincentivize companies from just gutting the damn things.
I don’t think I’ve seen a single private employer in my adult life which offers a pension.
>I don’t think I’ve seen a single private employer in my adult life which offers a pension.
Considering that the bureau of labor statistics says more than 50% of us companies offer a 401k plan to their employees, you must have had some real shit luck in employers.
Not him, but 401(k)s are not pensions. In fact, they're usually offered in alternative to a pension. The difference between the two is in allocation of risk, a 401(k) has the private individual holding both the risk and any gains from outperformance, whereas in a pension they're held by the employer.
Can someone translate this out of financial babble?
He's saying that a pension is a deal where the company owes you a fixed annuity after you retire, and it's up to the company to administer its money so as to be able to pay you what's owed, so if the pension fund does bad the company loses.
Whereas a 401k is just an investment fund the company puts money into so you can have a nest egg for your old age. Whether the fund does well or not, the company doesn't give a fuck, its duty was fulfilled once the money was put in, if it does bad you lose.
US became the Western superpower between 1939 and 1969
english cant language. terminal disease specie u c
What the fuck is in there that takes up 75,000 pages?
>What the fuck is in there that takes up 75,000 pages?
Rules for an insane amount of possible scenarios, to deal with taxation of every good and service you can think of, each of which has a thousand provisions, exceptions, special rulings, etc to consider.
New shit is constantly added as 300m people keep trying to find a way to israelite the government while the irs tries to israelite them back in a continual arms race.
constantly amending shit instead of doing a comprehensive rewrite
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.