Hacker News Reader

Comment by viraptor | Hacker News Reader

As a friend accountant/layer said: there will always be people coming to us, spending 51k to avoid paying 50k of taxes, and we'll help them arrange that. Legal isn't the same as moral, so sometimes the legal limit becomes meaningless.

View on HN

51k going to an accountant in your community is probably a more moral way to spend your money than 50k going to fund a war.

If one is going to judge a client's morality by his eagerness to spend more money than his tax bill in order to avoid paying that bill, that same moral lens needs to be applied to the accountant knowingly charging his client more than the client would save in taxes.

Sure, part of the taxes goes to crap. But a part is spent for things that your local community will benefit from. Your accountant may spend some of the money locally which is great, (mostly necessities - lots will be spent with global companies/online) but it's unlikely any of it would make it to the larger projects which require gov-level coordination.

Giving that money to your accountant on one hand side you avoid funding the military, on the other you avoid funding things like NOAA, NAA, VA, food safety, and many others.

That $51,000 to the accountant covers payroll for at least a couple accountants and a secretary, the taxes and rent those individuals pay personally, the rent the business pays locally, food spent at local restaurants and grocery stores, and the taxes and rent those businesses pay. Rent and food make up anywhere from 30-50% of most modest income household budgets, so it's reasonable to believe 30-50% of that $51,000 stays in the community.

The impact the NOAA, VA, etc has on a local community of 100,000 is, barring a local employment center, 100,000/330,000,000*$51,000. It's not even close how much more of an impact paying your taxes to your local accountant instead of the government would have on where you live.

OTOH, the fervor with which some people avoid taxes evidences a lack of civic responsibility. If people don't feel invested in their government to the point of spitefully taking a loss just to avoid paying a tax it makes it easier for ethically bankrupt people to assume the reigns of power. That kind of leadership is how we get into wars in the first place.

I don't think it's much evidence, if any, that civic responsibility is lacking. It's hilarious to think the contrapositive -- that not doing any inspection or effort or money-spending to validate and potentially legally 'avoid' what the authorities say is due and just paying the bill, evidences presence of civic responsibility. You can't just buy such things.

By fervor I was referring to spending $51k in fees just to avoid $50k in taxes, which is a net loss. If intentional (or intentionally risking such a net loss), that's just spiteful. I don't see how such an ethos could lead to anything but a self-fulfilling prophecy about government.

That's a very broad generalization without any evidence to back it up as being anything more than an assumption. Considering one of the top ways the vast majority of the population avoids taxes is by writing off charitable donations, I'd say the truth is opposite of what you purport.

This. I'd pay $120 to a lawyer to get a $100 traffic ticket dropped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com