7 ms·

Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's okay, from a values and ethics perspective. This is precisely why so many people are frustrated with the

Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's okay, from a values and ethics perspective. This is precisely why so many people are frustrated with the very notion of a corporation; it has most of the rights and none of the moral compass of a human. I find it troubling that so many folks here are quick to argue what distills to, "if it won't land you in prison and it's better for your shareholders, you pretty much have a responsibility to behave in an antisocial manner". Antisocial as in: short term profits over societally accretive goals for the future. I feel comfortable in my position because corporations benefit directly and indirectly from infrastructure provided by all three levels of government; everything from roads to schools for their employees kids. A smart player would put money back into the public coffers so that people could be taken care of, not hoard it for the already-wealthy. Why? Because there needs to be a functioning middle class to buy your products (and click on your ads). I'm reminded of Penn Jillette talking about how he rapes and murders exactly as much as he wants (eg. not at all) without needing a divine entity to tell him not to do those horrible things.

gaius 11y ago
The metaphor I like is that these companies convert common social capital into their own financial capital.
olalonde 11y ago
For what it's worth, Penn Jillette would most likely disagree that giving more money to the government is the way towards "societally accretive goals for the future". I don't want to start a political debate on HN but let's say things are not as black and white as you paint them to be and that it is possible to hold an opinion different than yours without being already-wealthy.
austerity 11y ago
> Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's okay, from a values and ethics perspective. Exactly. And taxation is a prime example of that. Just because a racket gang decides to spend some of their proceedings for the betterment of society (in their or your definition of it) doesn't make their activities morally justified and certainly doesn't make anyone (be it person or corporation) morally obliged to pay up.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's a part of the social contract, and in most countries you can voice your opinion about the magnitude of the taxes. But you can also look at it as a free market choice - after all, this is a voluntary transaction, you buy services from the government (like schools, medical care, internal and external security, water treatment, electricity, and many others) and you pay for them with taxes. You can always refuse the deal if you don't like it - by renouncing your citizenship. ;).
  - mseebach 11y ago
    You're Polish, right? So obviously, having voiced your opinion, you are now going to make an honest best effort to abide, not just by the letter of the law as laid down by PiS, but by the full spirit of it too? Either that, or renouncing your citizenship? Or do you feel there is room for subversion and disobedience in, say, social, law enforcement and immigration policies that just doesn't apply to tax policy?
modeless 11y ago
> none of the moral compass of a human I find this notion laughable, that a "moral compass" prevents individuals from attempting to lower their tax burden as much as corporations. Individuals are no different than corporations in the desire to avoid paying taxes. The difference is that the amounts are smaller, so they can't afford as many lawyers, and the tax laws are less complex, so generally fewer loopholes are available. If it was advantageous for individuals to set up European subsidiaries for tax purposes, I guarantee everyone would be doing it, "moral compass" be damned.
- ownagefool 11y ago
  The problem is if your moral compass does prevent you from taking advantage of tax breaks, you're suddenly disadvantaged against those who do thus leading to pretty much any pragmatist to reconsider. Given game theory logic, I'll pretty much abuse any loopholes I think I can, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should change the rules of the game.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And that's why we can't have nice things. Yes, if you refrain from defecting, you lose to others. That's why it's in everyone's best interest to severly punish anyone who games the system. That's why society developed customs and laws against theft and murder. The "if it's legal, it's ok, morality be damned" attitude is antisocial - it's a danger to civilized world. Therefore everyone who wants to follow their moral code or at least likes civilization should not only refrain from abusing the rules, but actively shun people who game them. Cooperation is a superior solution, but a one that is unstable by itself and needs maintenance (i.e. enforcing the rules and setting up the expectation that defectors will be penalized).
    - csallen 11y ago
      People already do follow their own moral codes. However, morality is subjective. What's "right" to you isn't necessarily "right" to someone else. Additionally, it's part of human nature to act in our own self-interest. Call it antisocial if you want, but it's part of us. We're people, not ants. Trying to fight against that desire is a losing battle. Instead, the focus should be entirely on the system itself to create such tremendous disincentives for crime/cheating/etc that it's in our self interest to follow the law (e.g. the laws against theft and murder that you pointed out).
jonathansizz 11y ago
> A smart player would put money back into the public coffers so that people could be taken care of, not hoard it for the already-wealthy. No, a smart player would let others do that, and avoid doing it themselves. Exactly what Google is doing. I think you should be directing your ire at the overly-complex, full-of-holes tax code.
geomark 11y ago
What's the ratio of new roads to drone strikes that kill civilians? Cost of pervasive surveillance versus cost of quality schools? Etc, etc. My opinion is that, given the vast and expanding evil of an already huge and highly immoral government, advocating paying more taxes makes one also highly immoral.
- gizmo 11y ago
  The US is leading in child poverty, with 16 million kids (20%) on food stamps. Poverty alleviation requires government action. Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense. Some of the money flows just get redirected and millions of people get lifted out of poverty. This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power. We should of course oppose Drone strikes (and all other forms of aggression). But don't use Drone strikes as a boogeyman to oppose all taxes. Without sufficient taxation government becomes underfunded and incapable of providing the services needed for the country to function. Where government falls short other groups will take over. When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off. It's a permanent struggle to keep the powers that be in check. However when it comes to the government there are many checks and balances in place, and there is a lot of transparency so the citizenry can figure out what the government is doing if they care enough. All things considered, that's pretty good.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    > Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense Huh, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one - big time. All civilised countries need a welfare state. But it's hard to argue that this is not "big government" because unless you have a basic income (which nowhere does), all welfare systems require enormous bureaucracies to manage the flow of money, find and fight fraudulent claims, try to get people who are on welfare back off it again, follow up individual cases, gather statistics on the systems performance and so on. They need this because "people who clearly need it" is an unusably vague standard. In practice, the standard figures I've seen for overheads of welfare spending are about 5-20%. According to this article, the USA Medicaid program has overheads of about 5% and food stamps is closer to 17%: http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramatically-overstated-administrative/133859 http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramati... > This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power. The welfare state is pretty much the embodiment of unaccountable and unchecked power! The only time you can ever hold it to account is during elections and then it's competing with many other issues. The rest of the time it's run by unelected and often rather opaque bureaucracies! Look, I am not arguing that welfare is bad. All countries need a safety net (although I note that most welfare spending, in the UK at least, is actually on pensions and not the safety net). But just because we may like having such a thing doesn't mean we should be blind to its costs. Final comment: > When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off. The vast majority of organisations I deal with in my daily life are for-profit organisations held to account through market power. Most things in my life (food, home, water, energy, heat, furniture, internet, etc) are provided by such organisations. There have been countries that tried it the other way around - all such things were provided by the state. That was called communism and it collapsed.
kyleblarson 11y ago
Simple solution: you should stop using any GOOG products and convince others to do so as well.
eloff 11y ago
NO! You are not morally obligated to pay one more penny in taxes than what you legally are required to! It's got nothing to do with morals. If the system is broken, then abuse it until the law makers are forced to fix it. Hate the game, not the player.
- DanBC 11y ago
  English authorities tried light touch regulation, and companies like Google and Vodaphone a used the fuck out of it. Google's illegal (because that's what it was) scheme got shut down, and the light touch regulation means it's hard to fine them, or even take them through court. Too many people in this thread are claiming that what Google was doing is legal - it wasn't, which is why they've stopped doing it and repaid (albeit a tiny amount of) tax.

gaius 11y ago

The metaphor I like is that these companies convert common social capital into their own financial capital.

olalonde 11y ago

For what it's worth, Penn Jillette would most likely disagree that giving more money to the government is the way towards "societally accretive goals for the future". I don't want to start a political debate on HN but let's say things are not as black and white as you paint them to be and that it is possible to hold an opinion different than yours without being already-wealthy.

austerity 11y ago

> Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's okay, from a values and ethics perspective. Exactly. And taxation is a prime example of that. Just because a racket gang decides to spend some of their proceedings for the betterment of society (in their or your definition of it) doesn't make their activities morally justified and certainly doesn't make anyone (be it person or corporation) morally obliged to pay up.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's a part of the social contract, and in most countries you can voice your opinion about the magnitude of the taxes. But you can also look at it as a free market choice - after all, this is a voluntary transaction, you buy services from the government (like schools, medical care, internal and external security, water treatment, electricity, and many others) and you pay for them with taxes. You can always refuse the deal if you don't like it - by renouncing your citizenship. ;).
- mseebach 11y ago
  You're Polish, right? So obviously, having voiced your opinion, you are now going to make an honest best effort to abide, not just by the letter of the law as laid down by PiS, but by the full spirit of it too? Either that, or renouncing your citizenship? Or do you feel there is room for subversion and disobedience in, say, social, law enforcement and immigration policies that just doesn't apply to tax policy?

modeless 11y ago

> none of the moral compass of a human I find this notion laughable, that a "moral compass" prevents individuals from attempting to lower their tax burden as much as corporations. Individuals are no different than corporations in the desire to avoid paying taxes. The difference is that the amounts are smaller, so they can't afford as many lawyers, and the tax laws are less complex, so generally fewer loopholes are available. If it was advantageous for individuals to set up European subsidiaries for tax purposes, I guarantee everyone would be doing it, "moral compass" be damned.

ownagefool 11y ago
The problem is if your moral compass does prevent you from taking advantage of tax breaks, you're suddenly disadvantaged against those who do thus leading to pretty much any pragmatist to reconsider. Given game theory logic, I'll pretty much abuse any loopholes I think I can, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should change the rules of the game.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And that's why we can't have nice things. Yes, if you refrain from defecting, you lose to others. That's why it's in everyone's best interest to severly punish anyone who games the system. That's why society developed customs and laws against theft and murder. The "if it's legal, it's ok, morality be damned" attitude is antisocial - it's a danger to civilized world. Therefore everyone who wants to follow their moral code or at least likes civilization should not only refrain from abusing the rules, but actively shun people who game them. Cooperation is a superior solution, but a one that is unstable by itself and needs maintenance (i.e. enforcing the rules and setting up the expectation that defectors will be penalized).
  - csallen 11y ago
    People already do follow their own moral codes. However, morality is subjective. What's "right" to you isn't necessarily "right" to someone else. Additionally, it's part of human nature to act in our own self-interest. Call it antisocial if you want, but it's part of us. We're people, not ants. Trying to fight against that desire is a losing battle. Instead, the focus should be entirely on the system itself to create such tremendous disincentives for crime/cheating/etc that it's in our self interest to follow the law (e.g. the laws against theft and murder that you pointed out).

jonathansizz 11y ago

> A smart player would put money back into the public coffers so that people could be taken care of, not hoard it for the already-wealthy. No, a smart player would let others do that, and avoid doing it themselves. Exactly what Google is doing. I think you should be directing your ire at the overly-complex, full-of-holes tax code.

geomark 11y ago

What's the ratio of new roads to drone strikes that kill civilians? Cost of pervasive surveillance versus cost of quality schools? Etc, etc. My opinion is that, given the vast and expanding evil of an already huge and highly immoral government, advocating paying more taxes makes one also highly immoral.

gizmo 11y ago
The US is leading in child poverty, with 16 million kids (20%) on food stamps. Poverty alleviation requires government action. Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense. Some of the money flows just get redirected and millions of people get lifted out of poverty. This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power. We should of course oppose Drone strikes (and all other forms of aggression). But don't use Drone strikes as a boogeyman to oppose all taxes. Without sufficient taxation government becomes underfunded and incapable of providing the services needed for the country to function. Where government falls short other groups will take over. When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off. It's a permanent struggle to keep the powers that be in check. However when it comes to the government there are many checks and balances in place, and there is a lot of transparency so the citizenry can figure out what the government is doing if they care enough. All things considered, that's pretty good.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  > Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense Huh, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one - big time. All civilised countries need a welfare state. But it's hard to argue that this is not "big government" because unless you have a basic income (which nowhere does), all welfare systems require enormous bureaucracies to manage the flow of money, find and fight fraudulent claims, try to get people who are on welfare back off it again, follow up individual cases, gather statistics on the systems performance and so on. They need this because "people who clearly need it" is an unusably vague standard. In practice, the standard figures I've seen for overheads of welfare spending are about 5-20%. According to this article, the USA Medicaid program has overheads of about 5% and food stamps is closer to 17%: http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramatically-overstated-administrative/133859 http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramati... > This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power. The welfare state is pretty much the embodiment of unaccountable and unchecked power! The only time you can ever hold it to account is during elections and then it's competing with many other issues. The rest of the time it's run by unelected and often rather opaque bureaucracies! Look, I am not arguing that welfare is bad. All countries need a safety net (although I note that most welfare spending, in the UK at least, is actually on pensions and not the safety net). But just because we may like having such a thing doesn't mean we should be blind to its costs. Final comment: > When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off. The vast majority of organisations I deal with in my daily life are for-profit organisations held to account through market power. Most things in my life (food, home, water, energy, heat, furniture, internet, etc) are provided by such organisations. There have been countries that tried it the other way around - all such things were provided by the state. That was called communism and it collapsed.

kyleblarson 11y ago

Simple solution: you should stop using any GOOG products and convince others to do so as well.

eloff 11y ago

NO! You are not morally obligated to pay one more penny in taxes than what you legally are required to! It's got nothing to do with morals. If the system is broken, then abuse it until the law makers are forced to fix it. Hate the game, not the player.

DanBC 11y ago
English authorities tried light touch regulation, and companies like Google and Vodaphone a used the fuck out of it. Google's illegal (because that's what it was) scheme got shut down, and the light touch regulation means it's hard to fine them, or even take them through court. Too many people in this thread are claiming that what Google was doing is legal - it wasn't, which is why they've stopped doing it and repaid (albeit a tiny amount of) tax.