Re: Privatization ad absurdum

[Leigh Meyers <the.buffalo.in.the.midst@xxxxxxxxx>]

Maf lawyers are good at tax law too!  Why not let them help write the
tax laws too?

Democracy as I understand it (Republican democracy, not 'American
democracy') shouldn't let the "fox into the henhouse", and as far as
"...unnecessary ambiguity...", that IS a lawyer's bread & butter,
otherwise tax law would be something the layman could understand and
deal with themselves.

Criminal & Tort law has the same problem, and it's aided and abetted
by court systems where in one jurisdiction the paperwork is done
notebook style, in other districts it's notepad style (flip over), but
WAIT, in some jurisdictions that notepad has to read contiguously
downward and in other places not.

If you do it wrong, JUST THAT SIMPLE THING, you will either delay or
lose your case.

So you have to hire a lawyer familiar with that specific jurisdiction or else.

It's specifics like that, and allowing lawyers to help write the laws
(as opposed to deriving court decisions that modify laws), that allow
lawyers to eat (at five star restaurants) and have a place to sleep
(The weekend home in the Hamptons), something which I  oppose.

lcm

On 3/9/07, David B. Shemano <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael Perelman writes:
>
> >> David Cay Johnston, who does a masterful job covering the IRS, reports that the IRS
> >> is letting tax lawyers craft tax laws.  Why not leave the insurgency help to write
> >> the rules of engagement in Iraq; or the narco trafficers write the drug laws; or if
> >> you really want to turn matters over to scoundrels, let Congress write rules to
> >> cover its own behavior ....  Wait a minute.  They already do that.
> >>
> >> Johnston, David Cay. 2007. "I.R.S. Letting Tax Lawyers Write Rules." (9 March): p. C
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> "The Internal Revenue Service is asking tax lawyers and accountants who create tax
> >> shelters and exploit loopholes to take the lead in writing some of its new tax
> >> rules.  The pilot project represents a further expansion of the increasingly common
> >> federal government practice of asking outsiders to do more of its work."
>
> Isn't this how legislation should be written in a democracy-- as a collaborative process between the rulers and the ruled?  Since the tax lawyers are the ones who will have to interpret and apply the tax rules, doesn't it make sense to involve them in the drafting process to avoid unnecessary ambiguity?  I don't get what appears to be a reflexive emotional response to some unidentified impropriety.
>
> David Shemano