Edit: several commentors have asked why I posted this link. The entire framing of the article and source paper is based on the idea that tax evasion is bad because of its relation to inequality. This book shows that the concept of inequality is misguided and shows a better framework for human flourishing.
If someone is following the letter of the law, how can they be cheating?
Well, they can be cheating if they are violating the ‘spirit’ of the law or some unwritten but generally accepted notion about the law. In this case, that assumption is that taxes should always always be progressive and redistributive, right?
That’s how it’s an alternate view point.
(Personally, I’m in favor of negative income tax, but I think Yaron Brook is a talented thinker and speaker. I did not know this book of his existed, and am glad it was brought up.)
I’m searching but if you find anything on what constitutes ‘hiding’ in Norwegian tax law as it relates to offshore accounts it would be much appreciated.
I have a feeling ‘hiding’ is another one of those spirit of the law / unwritten societal rules sort of thing in this context.
The US is also very unique in which it’s the only country that expects you to pay taxes on money earned overseas as well.
That's as far as I got.
And how can an idea be toxic?
If you consider an idea, evaluate it in its full context, and conclude that it is true, then you can accept it and live a better life. If you reject the idea, you don't have to think about it anymore.
There is no way for an idea, by itself, to harm you.
Totally false. Ask an ex catholic.
> If you consider an idea, evaluate it in its full context,
That's the problem - you can't honestly evaluate an idea in its full context. Ever. You have a limited ability, and there is limited information, and you have biases built in. In my mind, toxic ideas are ones that prey on our frailties - fear, anger, pride, etc. - and cause us to believe socially or personally harmful things. Fascism is a toxic idea. National socialism is a toxic idea. Puritanism is a toxic idea. Etc.
We can study it and... within' reasonable bounds, know that it's a distortion of reality. Of course not all news is 100% accurate, and all news comes with politics attached - why was this reported not that, etc. but calling the new york times "fake news" is just wrong. If we analyze things in a deep and unbiased way we can be fairly sure they are mostly acting in good faith with the goal of telling the truth.
But it's a toxic idea - if we don't have the time, inclination or critical skills to break it down, it can prey on people's mistrust of intellectualism and stereotypes about the media. If you believe it even a little bit it undermines any and all criticism of Trump no matter how valid. Which allows him to dance around the normal check on democracy that the media is supposed to be.
To conclude: I don't know that pride is a frailty that can be exploited by a toxic idea to cause harm, but that's the way the world looks from here so that's how I conduct myself.
As you say, these creators are taking risks. What is their motivation for doing so?
There are two possibilities:
They are motivated by payment in material - money. Taxes take away the earned money, so this becomes less of a motivation.
They are motivated by payment in spirit - thanking them and appreciating their creation. Taxes preclude this type of payment for two reasons. They are taken by force, so it would be like a thug thanking you after taking your wallet. They are morally justified on the basis of altruism, in which case they are merely a corrective action for how the person should have behaved in the first place - we don’t say thank you to the thug who returns your wallet after being caught by the police.