5 ms·

You could also see it as paying your dues, or even as doing your part in maintaining your society. My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally oblig

You could also see it as paying your dues, or even as doing your part in maintaining your society. My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally obliged to pay. Not one cent more. Well, that's the point of having a state. That is only one point of view. Some people feel the purpose of the state is to protect us from ourselves. I subscribe to the belief that the purpose of the state is to protect us from each other. Namely, if I want to knowingly ingest poison (tobacco, alcohol, heroin or even drain cleaner), it's my decision to make. If someone wants to surreptitiously lace wine with antifreeze and distribute it to others, the purpose of the state is to stop/punish them.

Coding_Cat 11y ago
>My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally obliged to pay. Not one cent more. You have a legal and a moral duty. Would you say it is moral of Facebook to pay (virtually) no corporation tax in the UK whilst benefiting from things like the NHS providing healthcare for its workers?
- bprieto 11y ago
  Facebook pays for the NHS healthcare and pensions of all its workers. It's separate from corporation tax, wich goes to fund the UK government. Facebook also collects VAT and pays VAT in every country where it is generated, including UK. And I don't know about UK corporate building taxes, but in Spain every company pays local taxes depending on the size of their buildings. So little corporation tax is quite different from no tax.
- LordKano 11y ago
  I have no moral duty to provide anything to the government. I have legal duties. Do those employees, who are based in the UK, pay taxes on their income?
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally obliged to pay. Not one cent more. How much you are obligated to pay is the point of contention. Ideally, everyone pays taxes proportional to the amount of benefit they get from public services, programs and infrastructure, so that those things can be maintained. The issue with tax-dodging is that it sidesteps this moral imperative by taking advantage of a legal loophole.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Taxes are not a moral matter. Taxes are a legal matter. Governments are amoral entities. I'll clarify because the last time I said this, it was misinterpreted... Governments pass, enforce and obey laws. It is beyond the scope of government to determine morality. It's not legal for a group of us to say "Give us $X percentage of your income, under these rules, or else we'll send men with guns to take you away." but it's perfectly legal for a government to do it. Morality isn't the concern here, legality is.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>Taxes are not a moral matter. Taxes are a legal matter. Correct, but paying the appropriate amount for the services and programs you benefit from IS a moral matter. Taxes simply happen to be the avenue through which this is accomplished. If you consume X dollars of government services and infrastructure, you should pay X dollars in taxes, regardless of whether loopholes exist through which you can pay less. Because if you pay less, you are doing two things: passing the tax burden on others, AND causing harm to the services and programs. Both of these are immoral. Therefore, not paying your fair share (note that I didn't say "legal share") is immoral. You know how there are certain actions that aren't illegal, but are clearly against what's called "the spirit of the law"? This is one of those situations. Tax breaks are always created to encourage certain actions or facilitate certain results (e.g. Growth in a certain sector) but others figure out how to take advantage of them through creative accounting practices. That's when a tax break becomes a loophole. It's basically hacking the system.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Both of these are immoral. Therefore, not paying your fair share (note that I didn't say "legal share") is immoral. Fairness is subjective. Morality is subjective. Legality is objective. It's not "fair" that 51% of people get to decide which services to provide, how much to pay for them, under which conditions to provide them, then use force and the threat of force to compel the other 49% of people to pay for it. I didn't ask for these services. I have no moral obligation to pay anything for them and I have no legal obligation to pay anything more than the law requires. We don't legislate morality. It's basically hacking the system. Agreed and it's not immoral to hack the system. The state has every advantage. The state can write the laws. The state can interpret the laws. The state has men with guns to enforce the laws. Even with all of these advantages over the individual, sometimes the state doesn't come out on top. That's a failure of the state, not the individual. If you write the rules in your favor, interpret the rules in your favor and enforce the rules in your favor, it rings hollow when you cry that it wasn't fair that the little guy beat you using the rules that you wrote, interpreted and enforced.

Coding_Cat 11y ago

>My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally obliged to pay. Not one cent more. You have a legal and a moral duty. Would you say it is moral of Facebook to pay (virtually) no corporation tax in the UK whilst benefiting from things like the NHS providing healthcare for its workers?

bprieto 11y ago
Facebook pays for the NHS healthcare and pensions of all its workers. It's separate from corporation tax, wich goes to fund the UK government. Facebook also collects VAT and pays VAT in every country where it is generated, including UK. And I don't know about UK corporate building taxes, but in Spain every company pays local taxes depending on the size of their buildings. So little corporation tax is quite different from no tax.
LordKano 11y ago
I have no moral duty to provide anything to the government. I have legal duties. Do those employees, who are based in the UK, pay taxes on their income?

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>My duty is only to pay the minimum amount I am legally obliged to pay. Not one cent more. How much you are obligated to pay is the point of contention. Ideally, everyone pays taxes proportional to the amount of benefit they get from public services, programs and infrastructure, so that those things can be maintained. The issue with tax-dodging is that it sidesteps this moral imperative by taking advantage of a legal loophole.

LordKano 11y ago
Taxes are not a moral matter. Taxes are a legal matter. Governments are amoral entities. I'll clarify because the last time I said this, it was misinterpreted... Governments pass, enforce and obey laws. It is beyond the scope of government to determine morality. It's not legal for a group of us to say "Give us $X percentage of your income, under these rules, or else we'll send men with guns to take you away." but it's perfectly legal for a government to do it. Morality isn't the concern here, legality is.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  >>Taxes are not a moral matter. Taxes are a legal matter. Correct, but paying the appropriate amount for the services and programs you benefit from IS a moral matter. Taxes simply happen to be the avenue through which this is accomplished. If you consume X dollars of government services and infrastructure, you should pay X dollars in taxes, regardless of whether loopholes exist through which you can pay less. Because if you pay less, you are doing two things: passing the tax burden on others, AND causing harm to the services and programs. Both of these are immoral. Therefore, not paying your fair share (note that I didn't say "legal share") is immoral. You know how there are certain actions that aren't illegal, but are clearly against what's called "the spirit of the law"? This is one of those situations. Tax breaks are always created to encourage certain actions or facilitate certain results (e.g. Growth in a certain sector) but others figure out how to take advantage of them through creative accounting practices. That's when a tax break becomes a loophole. It's basically hacking the system.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Both of these are immoral. Therefore, not paying your fair share (note that I didn't say "legal share") is immoral. Fairness is subjective. Morality is subjective. Legality is objective. It's not "fair" that 51% of people get to decide which services to provide, how much to pay for them, under which conditions to provide them, then use force and the threat of force to compel the other 49% of people to pay for it. I didn't ask for these services. I have no moral obligation to pay anything for them and I have no legal obligation to pay anything more than the law requires. We don't legislate morality. It's basically hacking the system. Agreed and it's not immoral to hack the system. The state has every advantage. The state can write the laws. The state can interpret the laws. The state has men with guns to enforce the laws. Even with all of these advantages over the individual, sometimes the state doesn't come out on top. That's a failure of the state, not the individual. If you write the rules in your favor, interpret the rules in your favor and enforce the rules in your favor, it rings hollow when you cry that it wasn't fair that the little guy beat you using the rules that you wrote, interpreted and enforced.