Imran Khan just announced a great leap towards overriding laws in terms of inviting investors with even "illegal" moneys to contribute to construction-related industries. Apparently, the source of money invested would evade accountability. On individual, legal and moral grounds the move seems and should be held to be reprehensible. But on an aggregate level, should legality and social morality hold a higher preference than the prosperity-inducing growth principle? Being nationally indebted and aided by amoral impulses of the lenders, how moral is this government announcement trying to get waiver of the repayments? How moral is the institution of state itself which is proto-originally and perennially rooted in compulsion and implied violence?
The macro-level super-structures assign legitimacy, morals and legalities to the people. Somebody being corrupt in legal, official and social domains might evade accountability. But in aggregate pool of investable money that can move economy to create opportunities for everyone, it seems there has to be value neutrality in legal and moral terms.Because at that level, it's life-sustaining to treat everyone as (non)guilty. If out there exists an economic value that can help everyone, it is harder and too sententious to not consider the implication of that potential investment.
We have laws to work as justice to save us from justice itself; because justice is tricky, in view of the realities of life being trickier.Thus a valuable profitability should be tempted by assuming potential prosperity to be another function of justice too. Henceforth, it should not be considered immoral that the government gets the so-called illegal money, failing to get the one that is supposed to be legal.
Economic value should be judged on buying power, not on being taxed or not. What is tax in the first place - State taking money from us, not snatching it per se, but not letting it to be snatched by someone else. That much tax is unavoidable, but if tax as a leakage from investable market activity of people is pretended to be spent on the people, thereby increasing peoples' disposable incomes, then why a tax consideration should inhibit the market activity of investors perceiving taxes to be illegal.
Its a cycle that the same moneys and market activity that create the wealth induce and yield taxes to begin with.The growth principle in tax law terms has a structurally implicit promise of making the taxable income grow exponentially. A good part of that income can be consensually agreed for tax by the giver and taker, without hurting the investable pools of moneys and without chasing away the market makers out of the stream of economic activity.
The macro-level super-structures assign legitimacy, morals and legalities to the people. Somebody being corrupt in legal, official and social domains might evade accountability. But in aggregate pool of investable money that can move economy to create opportunities for everyone, it seems there has to be value neutrality in legal and moral terms.Because at that level, it's life-sustaining to treat everyone as (non)guilty. If out there exists an economic value that can help everyone, it is harder and too sententious to not consider the implication of that potential investment.
We have laws to work as justice to save us from justice itself; because justice is tricky, in view of the realities of life being trickier.Thus a valuable profitability should be tempted by assuming potential prosperity to be another function of justice too. Henceforth, it should not be considered immoral that the government gets the so-called illegal money, failing to get the one that is supposed to be legal.
Economic value should be judged on buying power, not on being taxed or not. What is tax in the first place - State taking money from us, not snatching it per se, but not letting it to be snatched by someone else. That much tax is unavoidable, but if tax as a leakage from investable market activity of people is pretended to be spent on the people, thereby increasing peoples' disposable incomes, then why a tax consideration should inhibit the market activity of investors perceiving taxes to be illegal.
Its a cycle that the same moneys and market activity that create the wealth induce and yield taxes to begin with.The growth principle in tax law terms has a structurally implicit promise of making the taxable income grow exponentially. A good part of that income can be consensually agreed for tax by the giver and taker, without hurting the investable pools of moneys and without chasing away the market makers out of the stream of economic activity.