[ SECRET POST #5561 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5561 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #797.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

So wait, using paypal to evade taxes is childish, selfish and immoral, but using a loophole in the law to avoid paying taxes is an upstanding behavior? Maybe you should have donated that tax refund to libraries and schools?

[(Anonymous)]

It's not exactly a loophole if the law doesn't consider a same-sex person your partner. Pretty sure most people in same-sex relationships would have preferred being recognised as legal partners by the law over getting some more taxes back.

[(Anonymous)]

It's also not a loophole to use paypal, which is the standard for artists. And nothing stopping you from donating the entire refund. It's just hypocrisy, that's all.

[(Anonymous)]

Bullshit. These two cases are not even remotely comparable. One is someone earning money without paying taxes on it even though they would have had to, with the payment service only now enforcing it and them whining about it. The other is a group of people being marginalised because they are not legally recognised as a couple and not having to pay certain taxes because of that and after not being marginalised anymore, they're paying it without bitching about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Those marginalized people in your country still benefit from roads don't they?

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Don’t be willfully obtuse, it’s a transparent way of making it clear you’re acting in bad faith.

It’s clear AYRT is for paying taxes in general, and their want for marginalized people to be recognized and treated the same as non-marginalized people is not mutually exclusive to being in favor of paying taxes. Them personally reaping some benefits from a tax loophole that only exists because their relationship isn’t acknowledged, a result of systematic problems that continue to affect marginalized people, isn’t going to lead to societal collapse like roads being left to ruin. And you know that. You’re just a bad faith actor, as I said.

They specifically said, which you conveniently ignored, that they would rather pay taxes than be marginalized. That the small benefit this tax loophole provides isn’t worth being discriminated against.

[(Anonymous)]

Tbh if you go by the moral logic people are using in this thread, it's not clear to me that it could ever be morally right to take an action that reduces the amount of tax you pay, even if you are entirely legally entitled to do so. I don't really get the argument at all.

[(Anonymous)]

This isn't about reducing the amount of taxes though, it's about OP refusing to pay taxes AT ALL.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but I don't see why the same moral logic doesn't apply. And I can't really think what the distinguishing line is (between not paying taxes and taking an action to reduce your tax payments), although obviously there could very well be one that I'm not seeing.

Also - if you consider the case of a billionaire who uses accounting tricks and tax deductions and whatnot to reduce his tax rate to a very low or nominal level, I assume that most people ITT would object to the billionaire doing so, even if the tax-reduction strategies used were entirely legal. Maybe that's an incorrect assumption, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt

Wow. This is some grade A obtuseness.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Nah, that's just you not wanting to practice what you preach when it's not convenient for you.

[(Anonymous)]

That’s a whole lot of nonsense you’re pulling out of your ass. It’s easy to assume anything when you have no idea what you’re talking about. And it’s really easy to argue when you only fight strawmen.

You’re clearly lacking some self-awareness. Getting some might help a lot. And not being disingenuous will help even more.

[(Anonymous)]

Deductions reduce the amount of tax you pay because you're accurately reporting how much money you've actually made as income versus how much you've brought in. There's nothing underhanded or unfair about it - if, for example, you run an online business that brings in $5000 but then you pay $1000 to ship your products to the customers, you deduct that $1000 because that isn't actual income you keep. You didn't actually make $5000 worth of income because $1000 of it went into the shipping.

[(Anonymous)]

But if you know you would normally pay an X amount, but you're actually paying less because of a loophole in the law, you're still contributing less to the society than you otherwise would have and than other people who earn the exact same amount that you do doing the exact same work that you do. So maybe the right thing to do is to pay off that difference in donations?

[(Anonymous)]

How do you know they don’t?

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a loophole, it's literally how the law is designed to work. A person who earns $5000 from an online business and paid $1000 to ship their stuff to the people who bought it didn't actually make $5000, they made $4000. They pay taxes on the $4000 that goes into their pocket but not on the $1000 that they never saw in the first place.