this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
217 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
84828 readers
5539 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't have to be rich to register your vehicle in Montanna. It happens all the time in California to avoid smog and taxes.
Also, just because the rich are a small percentage of the population obviously doesn't mean they should be taxed less, that's a wild statement.
That is a wild statement. That's not even remotely close to what I said.
Yeah, lots of military folk take advantage of service friendly laws to get their DLs and register their vehicles in Arizona and pay their income taxes in Texas or Washington.
That wasn't his statement, though. He was saying that the super-rich are a tiny outlier group, so even a infrastructure personal tax that they manage to avoid will have minimal impact on the system at large, because they are so small that even heavy abuse in this scenario is a rounding error.
I think he is insinuating that a system that works but allows tiny groups to fall through the cracks would still be acceptable for this, which I tend to agree with.
It is much like in the past when welfare recipients were vilified because a tiny number of its users found a way to qualify even though they made a bit too much money for it, or managed to double dip somehow to get more than was intended. The system still fills a need and more or less works (its grievous underfunding and paperwork hell notwithstanding) and is far better than nothing, so the statistically insignificant amount of fraud or evasion is an acceptable cost to people that understand statistics and are speaking in good faith.