Interesting Links for 22-11-2011

[andrewducker]

• The spider that can process things too complex to fit in its brain all at once.
  (tags: intelligence spiders cognition )
• What the recent paper on statistical interpretations of quantum physics means. (I skipped the equations).
  (tags: science physics quantum )
• The cool twists of language
  (tags: language english )
• Should swearing be against the law? (Err, no)
  (tags: swearing language law uk )
• How the automatic transmission almost killed the sperm whale
  (tags: whales cars technology )
• UN General Assembly Votes To Allow Gays To Be Executed Without Cause | The New Civil Rights Movement
  (tags: UnitedNations lgbt execution homophobia africa )
• How SpaceX is revolutionarising space travel.
  (tags: spaceflight paypal business rockets ElonMusk )
• This is how I feel about dress codes.
  (tags: clothing style fancydress )
• 5 Prejudices That Still Show Up in Every Movie
  (tags: film sexism racism prejudice )
• British Columbia court to rule whether polygamy is constitutional
  (tags: polygamy marriage canada law )
• The 12 Most Baffling Genres of Stock Photo, Explained | Cracked.com
  (tags: photographs )
• David Frum on the GOP’s Lost Sense of Reality
  (tags: politics republicans usa )
• Bionic contact lens to project emails before your eyes
  (tags: science technology light interface )
• The Secret World - A Lovecraft meets Illuminati MMO
  (tags: mmorpg hplovecraft ComputerGames illuminati )
• Why the eurozone must change or die (part #1742)
  (tags: euro finance politics )
• The daft hysteria over the EU's ruling on water and dehydration
  (tags: europe journalism media science )
• General tax avoidance prohibition should be introduced
  (tags: tax law uk )
• The Trials and Tribulations of HTML Video in the Post-Flash Era
  (tags: html5 video Flash web )
• Are you a graduate with a child at least 18 months old? Take 5 minutes on a study to help understand autism.
  (tags: psychology autism parents genetics education )
• Can there be party funding consensus? (in the UK. Clearly there won't be in the US)
  (tags: funding money politics uk )

Comments

[andrewducker]

I think that sometimes the intent is pretty clear. When money is being shuffled around in circles so that it never quite hits the taxable point then it's clearly trying to just avoid tax. But I suspect that most cases aren't that clear cut.

The problem is that any system can be gamed (it's one of those logically provable things), and attempts to make a system less gameable by blocking the most common methods of doing so tend to lead to people exploiting the new corner cases, and so on, until you end up with a horribly complex system that's _still_ full of holes.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Is there a tax system out there that's managed to be non-gameable?

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Key word "sometimes".

The way to make the system less gameable (and you make an excellent point in saying that any system can be gamed) is to reduce complexity.

[andrewducker]

You can have simple systems that leak like a massive pipe, as well as complex ones that leak like sieves. I'd love to see some work done on the mathematics done behind tax systems!

[fearmeforiampink]

The other big problem is that 'get tax money' and 'reduce tax avoidance' aren't your only priorities. There's the whole tax-relief/tax-credit/whatever stuff, that governments put in to encourage certain activities they think are good, but which are then themselves gameable, abusable.

[andrewducker]

Exactly. If the only thing was "Take 40% of everyone's money" then tax _would_ be simple. But the second you add in any other factor you make the tax system complex. It goes all fractal, which means that it's not going to exactly map onto any part of real life exactly, leavign holes to steal money through.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I’m a ACMA and not in tax either but my tuppence worth.

I agree the sentiment that if the rules say you can do X and reduce your tax bill then you are morally entitled to do X. If the tax authorities want a different outcome then they should change the rules.

I think the tax system can get complex even without adding another factor.

You could go about making the tax system simpler and this might reduce the areas where the system can be gamed (or it might not). I think one consequence of this is that it might increase the unfairness of the tax system. Tax systems are complex because business and life are complex. When you try and overlay a simple system over a complex system you get areas where it fits badly. People will either feel the unfairness which given that you are taking money off them at gun point is probably less than ideal or they will change the way they operate. I don’t think tax systems should really affect the way people live and work at the gross level unless this is explicitly what you want the system to do.

When you try and adjust the simple system to iron out the unfairness you rapidly arrive at systems that are just as complex as the one you have just simplified used to be.

I suspect that HMRC and co assume a certain amount of gaming and set the base tax rates at a level to compensate. So the contest is not between tax payer and HMRC but between different tax payers to best manage their tax affairs so that they are paying less tax and their competitors are paying more.