When talking about "tax avoidance", it is important to be fair. There is only one question, "Is this illegal?", and that question has only two answers.
Wait a minute....so it's important to be fair, but not to examine whether the behavior in question is fair? I get that you want to shift consideration to the rules, but as we all know the rules are up for auction by those willing to spend money on lobbying and financing campaigns.
If we're going 'to be fair' - the standard you're asking for - then I think we need to include that factor in our assessment. Otherwise, it seems like you're appealing to people's instinct to support fairness as a diversion from the rather blatant rigging of the rules, and that doesn't seem fair at all.
There's something disturbing about the prevalence of this rhetorical technique by so many posters whenever this subject comes up. Whether it's cynical or reflexive I don't know, but it is misdirection.
Wait a minute....so it's important to be fair, but not to examine whether the behavior in question is fair? I get that you want to shift consideration to the rules, but as we all know the rules are up for auction by those willing to spend money on lobbying and financing campaigns.
If we're going 'to be fair' - the standard you're asking for - then I think we need to include that factor in our assessment. Otherwise, it seems like you're appealing to people's instinct to support fairness as a diversion from the rather blatant rigging of the rules, and that doesn't seem fair at all.
There's something disturbing about the prevalence of this rhetorical technique by so many posters whenever this subject comes up. Whether it's cynical or reflexive I don't know, but it is misdirection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkQPiiLs6U