> But it's impossible to build a legal system where there is a 100% overlap, and it would most likely be a broken society in other ways.
I strongly disagree with this one.
It's not that hard to not define loopholes and exceptions. Really, a simplified tax system without such should be the goal, and then the circles so match.
I think it's about as easy as writing bug-free software. And I can count the number of non-trivial pieces of software that are likely to be bug-free on one hand.
I would agree and it’s what we should be aiming for. As it is people are just throwing up their hands “what can you do”. Well close all the loopholes for one.
I would go as far as to say the vast majority of the loopholes are just grift in one form or another. Some pork barrel BS is the rest (and I think these should be gotten rid of too).
I’m actually in favor of removing all charity exemptions too. They are just used by rich people to spend our money (the taxes they owe) on pet projects depriving everybody of that income.
I'm all for removing loopholes where it's possible. However
- It's not "our money". It's money that, we a society, feel validated in taking from members of our society to pay for things that make our society better. But it is, in no way, "our money". We're taking it from people, at force, because we believe it's worth it.
- The only taxes that are "owed" are the ones defined by the rules (laws); pretty much by definition. If the rule doesn't say they owe it, then they don't owe it.
Although you could argue that all money is our money, if "our" means our society and government and collectively all of us. It exists by social agreement, as do all the rules around it that mean some have more and some have less.
> Really, a simplified tax system without such should be the goal
Yes, it should be, because in addition to complex tax systems introducing loopholes and exceptions, they also become more complex to collect.
If taxes were simple and straightforward, you would sink an entire industry in the US. There's a whole money pit around just getting money from people to their government. That's money you could, instead, be getting as taxes.
To have a tax sytem with no loopholes would almost certainly require having no credits or deductions. I actually think there's something to that idea, but politically it's an absolute non-starter: taxpayers love the credits and deductions they have now and don't want to give them up, and governments love using them to shape policy and don't want to give up that particular tool in the toolchest.
One of the quirks of the current system is that subsidies are pitched as decreases to what one owes in taxes. There would be more transparency (but more overhead) if everyone paid full sticker price for taxes and then the govt separately gave money to the groups whose behaviors it wanted to encourage or whose challenges it wanted to help with (or fined the ones whose behaviors it wanted to discourage).
This would not be feasible either politically. But it would bring transparency and clarity.
I strongly disagree with this one. It's not that hard to not define loopholes and exceptions. Really, a simplified tax system without such should be the goal, and then the circles so match.