The problem is what it is. Redefining the problem so it’s simple is not a solution to the fucking problem.
“You should strive to have a simple problem”. Fuckin hell kind of MBA babble is that. Yeah maybe in business where you can make money by inventing “problems” and then inventing solutions to them, but not when it comes to real-life social issues.
The problem exists. It is complex. We need to fix it.
a simple solution is a solution to the problem, it’s redefining the problem in such a manner, to make the solution possible. It’s called compromise. A thing that exists in either one of these situations. In complex solutions you compromise by making a shitty solution mostly cover a shitty problem, in a simple solution you make it comprehensively cover the problem, and in a simple manner, but it doesn’t cover the whole problem, because the problem is simple.
The problem here is that tax is overwhelmingly complex, we just need to forcibly simplify it in a manner that makes it more functional, and more apt, while not losing too much control. It’s absolutely possible. It’s just scope control.
well no, see that’s where you’re mistaken. Tax is currently overwhelming complex BECAUSE of the tax law.
Simple tax law makes taxes simpler, complex tax law makes tax more complex. Much like a simple solution solves a simple problem, and a complex solution solves a complex problem.
You can generally force a simple solution on a complex problem by simply altering what the problem is. You might argue that tax is inherently complex due to the fact that it’s applied both to individuals and corporations/companies, however i would argue that it should only apply to one of those, making it vastly simpler, because it only has to focus on the one group. Repeat ad nauseam and boom simple tax law.
You think tax was just as complicated back in the days of pre industrialization? It sure as hell wasn’t.
The problem is what it is. Redefining the problem so it’s simple is not a solution to the fucking problem.
“You should strive to have a simple problem”. Fuckin hell kind of MBA babble is that. Yeah maybe in business where you can make money by inventing “problems” and then inventing solutions to them, but not when it comes to real-life social issues.
The problem exists. It is complex. We need to fix it.
a simple solution is a solution to the problem, it’s redefining the problem in such a manner, to make the solution possible. It’s called compromise. A thing that exists in either one of these situations. In complex solutions you compromise by making a shitty solution mostly cover a shitty problem, in a simple solution you make it comprehensively cover the problem, and in a simple manner, but it doesn’t cover the whole problem, because the problem is simple.
The problem here is that tax is overwhelmingly complex, we just need to forcibly simplify it in a manner that makes it more functional, and more apt, while not losing too much control. It’s absolutely possible. It’s just scope control.
That’s called a complex solution
well no, see that’s where you’re mistaken. Tax is currently overwhelming complex BECAUSE of the tax law.
Simple tax law makes taxes simpler, complex tax law makes tax more complex. Much like a simple solution solves a simple problem, and a complex solution solves a complex problem.
You can generally force a simple solution on a complex problem by simply altering what the problem is. You might argue that tax is inherently complex due to the fact that it’s applied both to individuals and corporations/companies, however i would argue that it should only apply to one of those, making it vastly simpler, because it only has to focus on the one group. Repeat ad nauseam and boom simple tax law.
You think tax was just as complicated back in the days of pre industrialization? It sure as hell wasn’t.