Draft: Evasion or Avoidance?

[Panageadom]

Draft: Evasion or Avoidance

Description: After a recent newspaper exposé revealing that a large number of corporations in @@NAME@@ have been using obscure segments of the tax code to avoid large amounts of tax was published, an army of proletarian protesters marched on the companies involved. Naturally, the corporations sent out their own troop of crack lawyers, and they have met in the only conceivable middle ground...your office.

Validity: Valid for all market-orientated nations

[option] "Let's look at the legal facts here, shall we?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a sharp-suited lawyer opening a manilla folder filled with a seemingly unending stack of papers, "The organisation I represent acted within the strict letter of the law and structured its assets as anybody would - in a manner to avoid the maximum amount of tax paid. Taxes are designed to reward certain behaviours over others, by offering a scheme of incentives and disincentives to those behaviours - the mere idea that a change in which behaviours to reward, and that my organisation should finance that change retroactively, amounts to legislative tyranny. After all, any goof could see that the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon should be untaxed."
[effect]corporate lawyers claim "making shedloads of cash" as an charitable endeavour
[stats] economic freedoms rise, taxes rise [to account for shortfalls], income equality falls, basket-weaving industry grows slightly

[option] "That's bloody ridiculous!" puffs red-faced protestor, blowing spittle all over their supercilious counterpart, "They're trying to paint all of this as something that any reasonable person would do - but it just isn't! I don't know every inch of the tax code, and it's not like I can get all these smug big-shots to hang around the flat and tell me how to "structure my assets", or some other rubbish. They knew what they did was against the spirit of the law, if nothing else - take them for all they've got. It's only fair."
[effect] companies flee as the taxman takes whatever he deems "reasonable"
[stats] economic freedoms fall, taxes fall, income equality rises

[option] "Erm, @@LEADER@@?" whispers conflict-fearing treasury official, @@RANDOMNAME@@, cowering under a desk, "I think there's a way out of this. Surely we can just change the law now to take out the biggest loopholes, without asking companies for any back payments for laws they didn't break at the time? It won't please the protestors, and we won't be getting as much cash as we'd planned, but, well...at least the lawyers will be happy?"
[effect] lawyers scurry joyfully to their desks to examine the tax code for all the new loopholes created in attempt to get rid of the old
[stats] taxes fall slightly, income equality rises slightly

Draft: Evasion or Avoidance

Description: After a recent newspaper exposé revealing that a large number of corporations in @@NAME@@ have been using obscure segments of the tax code to avoid large amounts of tax was published, an army of proletarian protesters marched on the companies involved. Naturally, the corporations sent out their own troop of crack lawyers, and they have met in the only conceivable middle ground...your office.

Validity: Valid for all market-orientated nations

[option] "Let's look at the legal facts here, shall we?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a sharp-suited lawyer opening a manilla folder filled with a seemingly unending stack of papers, "The organisation I represent acted within the strict letter of the law and structured its assets as anybody would - in a manner to avoid the maximum amount of tax paid. Taxes are designed to reward certain behaviours over others, by offering a scheme of incentives and disincentives to those behaviours - the mere idea that a change in which behaviours to reward, and that my organisation should finance that change retroactively, amounts to legislative tyranny. After all, any goof could see that the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon should be untaxed."
[effect]corporate lawyers claim "making shedloads of cash" as an charitable endeavour
[stats] economic freedoms rise, taxes rise [to account for shortfalls], income equality falls, basket-weaving industry grows slightly

[option] "Nyaw, that ain't the case, buster, and you know it," shouts protester @@RANDOMNAME@@ at their supercilious counterpart, "They're all painting this as something that all reasonable folks would do - but they can't! I can't keep all them lawyers floating around the house just to tell me to put the chicken outside the fence, or whatever. They knew what they were doin' was against the spirit of the law, if nothin' else. Take them for all they've got - else it's cheatin', pure and simple."
[effect] companies flee as the taxman takes whatever he deems "reasonable"
[stats] economic freedoms fall, taxes fall, income equality rises

[option] "Erm, @@LEADER@@?" whispers conflict-fearing treasury official, @@RANDOMNAME@@, cowering under a desk, "I think there's a way out of this. Surely we can just change the law now to take out the biggest loopholes, without asking companies for any back payments for laws they didn't break at the time? It won't please the protestors, and we won't be getting as much cash as we'd planned, but, well...at least the lawyers will be happy?"
[effect] lawyers scurry joyfully to their desks to examine the tax code for all the new loopholes created in attempt to get rid of the old
[stats] taxes fall slightly, income equality rises slightly

[Lenyo]

I love this drat. Props for using the word proletarian in the description. I'm easy to please/amuse.

After all, any goof could see that the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon should be untaxed.

Oh my god, I laughed so much.

The effect for option 1 is a bit confusing. Maybe you could say all corporations register as charities? There's a huge problem in the US of corporate entities registering for tax breaks as charities.

For a proletarian, the speaker in option 2 seems extremely rural. Also I find opt2's voice difficult to read.

Surely we can just change the law now to take out all of the loopholes

I think the protesters would be pleased by that result. Instead, change all to most. That way it's a compromise that both sides dislike.

[Helltank]

I like this issue. Lenyo, voice of a person being difficult to read isn't a problem. Just look at the issue about Piracy. There's a gangster inserting "dang" and "dawg" randomly and lots of environment issues have hippie dudes as options and they ALWAYS speak hippily.

[Panageadom]

Tweaks made in line with Lenyo's comments.

Is the proletariat necessarily urban? I thought they were just poor. (Woops...) And yeah, the voiced writing isn't my best. I'll take another run at it in a bit.

[Lenyo]

several large corporations in @@NAME@@ have been using obscure segments of the tax code to avoid large amounts of tax

Several isn't a strong enough word. Here's a list of big corporations that paid negative corporate taxes in the US. Change several to most.

Why is the entire description in the present perfect tense? Maybe simple present or simple past would be easier to read.

The organisation I represent acted to within the strict letter of the law

I'm no expert on English grammar, but I'm not sure if that prepositional phrase is proper English. If it's formal English, then that's absolutely appropriate; the lawyer's purpose is to obfuscate. But if you're not sure, could you please look that up somewhere? A corporate attorney shouldn't make grammar mistakes.

The organisation I represent acted to within the strict letter of the law, and structured its assets as anybody would

No comma

corporate lawyers claim "making shedloads of cash" as a charitable research-and-development ethical investment

Too wordy. Change the underlined portion to endeavor. Thanks for changing option 1's effect.

It won't please the protestors, and we'll be short on cash for a bit, but, well...at least the lawyers will be happy?

Closing any number of loopholes would bring in more tax, so I say nix that phrase.

This is an excellently written issue, and it will make a fine addition to NS. However, I personally don't like the text of option 2 at all. I find it hard to read and unfunny, so I'd suggest completely redoing the text for option 2. If you think the text in option 2 is good, then ignore my suggestion. There's probably people that will find it clear and funny as is. But that's just my two cents.

[Panageadom]

Tweaked for in description, language in options one and three.

I agree on the phrasing of option two. I need to go back to the table and rewrite it at some point, but that point may not be soon...

[Lenyo]

After a recent newspaper exposé revealing that a large number of corporations in @@NAME@@ have been using obscure segments of the tax code to avoid large amounts of tax was published

Change revealing to revealed. The article's publication happened in the past. Change the ending to "evade taxes." That'll be easier to read.

Naturally, the corporations sent out their own troop of crack lawyers[COMMA PLEASE] and they have met in the only conceivable middle ground...your office.

a sharp-suited lawyer opening a manilla folder of filled with a seemingly unending stack of papers

Yeah, just rewrite the text of opt2. I don't like it as is.

The draft is shaping up. Keep up the good work.

[Singpu]

Why does the basket weaving industry rise?

[Shadow Afforess]

Very delightful. I like this issue.

[Singpu]

Oh I see, the wickercone leafs to it. I hwewby name it the Wickercone Conundrum.

[Panageadom]

After a recent newspaper exposé revealing that a large number of corporations in @@NAME@@ have been using obscure segments of the tax code to avoid large amounts of tax was published

Change revealing to revealed. The article's publication happened in the past. Change the ending to "evade taxes." That'll be easier to read.

The reason I'm not doing this is because "evade" implies illegality, whereas "avoid" is neutral (legally speaking). If what the corporations did was actually illegal, the premise of the issue collapses.

I've put up a new draft, changing the language in the second option. Still not totally happy with it, and it's hard to write in that voice without swearing, but I think it's an improvement over before.