> Taking advantage of your roth, 401k, homestead exemption, writing off losses, etc… absolutely provides value to the tax payer. The value is literally more money for the tax payer who can now further participate in the economy.
But it's zero-sum - every dollar they gained was a dollar taken out of the public purse. And worse, hours of human labour were spent on this moving around rather than something productive.
Tax benefits are (notionally) intended to be positive sum, but that can only happen to the extent that they change actual behaviour. If I put more into a pension fund because it's tax-advantaged, that's (theoretically) win-win - I get more to spend in the long term, the government reduces the risk of having to support a penniless future me. Similarly if I buy a bicycle through the cycle to work scheme, that (on average) reduces the government's medical costs. But claiming a tax writeoff for something I was doing already is zero-sum, and changing my corporate structure so that it pays less tax while doing economically equivalent things is likely to be negative-sum (because the new structure will likely have (marginally) lower real-world productivity - otherwise I'd be doing it that way already).
> The accounting industry employs loads of people. Is that not “value?”
No, quite the opposite - it's taking those people away from things that are real-world productive. Sometimes the costs of accounting might be outweighed by the benefits (e.g. giving companies information they need to make business judgements, or exposing fraud earlier). But often they're not.
I argue that the increase in savings and therefore money spent participating in the economy is inherently valueable.
In addition companies are less likely to fail, and can continue to generate value. Individuals have a bigger safety net and can be more productive for society. You already touched on the fact that government has reduced burden for social services.
Government tax revenue can be poorly allocated and wasteful.
The accountants provide a valuable service navigating the complex tax laws. This allows me to outsource the work and spend more time being “productive” for society.
A great example is Tesla. They may not have survived without the billions in tax credits they received. Lots of people believe they generate tremendous value for society.
> I argue that the increase in savings and therefore money spent participating in the economy is inherently valueable.
> In addition companies are less likely to fail, and can continue to generate value. Individuals have a bigger safety net and can be more productive for society. You already touched on the fact that government has reduced burden for social services.
It's zero-sum though - you've increased individuals' savings but reduced public funds (which can be spent in the economy through e.g. public infrastructure, and/or used to provide a safety net, probably in a more efficient way since the risks are pooled).
> Government tax revenue can be poorly allocated and wasteful.
Sure. So can individual or corporate wealth. Even if you think the tax rate is too high, the most efficient solution would be to change the tax rate, not add a bunch of loopholes.
> The accountants provide a valuable service navigating the complex tax laws.
The argument is that that complexity is largely bullshit.
> A great example is Tesla. They may not have survived without the billions in tax credits they received. Lots of people believe they generate tremendous value for society.
Corporate tax avoidance means the government has less money from which to offer that kind of targeted tax credit.
I appreciate the discourse but I think we’re going in circles. On a slightly related point, you should check out CPG grey’s video “rules for rulers”. That video helped me understand why our tax codes are so complicated in the states.
My (unprofessional) opinion is that the messy tax structure is there by design, and not the result of incompetence or oversight.
I think there are plenty of far more “BS” jobs out there than book keepers. Companies wouldn’t be able to function without them.
But it's zero-sum - every dollar they gained was a dollar taken out of the public purse. And worse, hours of human labour were spent on this moving around rather than something productive.
Tax benefits are (notionally) intended to be positive sum, but that can only happen to the extent that they change actual behaviour. If I put more into a pension fund because it's tax-advantaged, that's (theoretically) win-win - I get more to spend in the long term, the government reduces the risk of having to support a penniless future me. Similarly if I buy a bicycle through the cycle to work scheme, that (on average) reduces the government's medical costs. But claiming a tax writeoff for something I was doing already is zero-sum, and changing my corporate structure so that it pays less tax while doing economically equivalent things is likely to be negative-sum (because the new structure will likely have (marginally) lower real-world productivity - otherwise I'd be doing it that way already).
> The accounting industry employs loads of people. Is that not “value?”
No, quite the opposite - it's taking those people away from things that are real-world productive. Sometimes the costs of accounting might be outweighed by the benefits (e.g. giving companies information they need to make business judgements, or exposing fraud earlier). But often they're not.