4 ms·

Well, you said it yourself. The companies do lobby for loopholes, knowing they will be better off than other. As a results, the companies in question have at le

by Aoyagi 11y ago

Well, you said it yourself. The companies do lobby for loopholes, knowing they will be better off than other. As a results, the companies in question have at least the same share of blame as the politicians.

crusso 11y ago
Blaming lobbyists for lobbying is like blaming ants for finding piles of sugar that are carelessly left around. The government is supposed to consist of our better angels that act in a more ethical manner to a higher standard than the cogs just functioning in the system that the government creates. If the government doesn't consist of these better angels, why do we give it such vast and sweeping powers to invade and control our lives?
- Aoyagi 11y ago
  That's like saying "don't blame the murderer, blame police for not saving you while you were being continuously stabbed for two hours"...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    If the police actively helped the murderers, I'd certainly blame them.
  - crusso 11y ago
    That's a poor analogy since murder is illegal. What Google is doing is within the law and a part of the framework created by the government.
    - Aoyagi 11y ago
      Tax dodging is also against the spirit of the law, which is a direct result of companies lobbying for loopholes they can use. Said companies are the initiators, not the corrupt/dumb politicians (who are, of course, also to blame).
      - crusso 11y ago
        It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance", since what they've done is not only legal, but it's the expected and allowed behavior under tax law adjudication in the USA. You misunderstand how tax laws work to think that there is some "spirit of the law" that individuals or corporate entities should be attempting to follow. There are simply the rules that must be followed and some wiggle room in how those rules are interpreted. A "spirit" implies that there is some sort of equality between parties and a mutual understanding of something not quite written down. That's not the way that a judge views tax law. If the IRS can't clearly show how rules have been broken, then the IRS has no claim. The government/IRS write the rules and they're expected to write rules in a watertight fashion, not some vague "spirit of the agreement" fashion. If the government or IRS fails to do so, it's not viewed as the tax avoider's problem. At the end of the day, tax accountants and tax attorneys are trained and paid to ensure that you (or your company) don't pay a penny more of taxes than are explicitly required by the law and it would be unethical for them to do otherwise.
        Aoyagi 11y ago
        >It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance" Ah, I see why someone like you would think it's completely acceptable. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge >dodge >1 - Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement: ... I know the US judiciary system works with the laws by the letter. And I know that examples like this prove again and again that it's not always the optimal way to do things. Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries.
        crusso 11y ago
        Go for a dictionary that defines dodge wrt to taxation: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/tax-dodge http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ta... It's a technique that can be illegal. That's not what Google has done. Google has used tax avoidance. More info on Tax Avoidance vs Evasion (which is what a Tax Dodge commonly refers to): https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidance https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidan... Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries. You're confused about the greater ethical question here. The ethical question of whether or not a company should pay its "fair share" of taxes is below the ethical question of "How should laws be enforced by a Government that can use deadly force and incarceration to achieve its aims?" The Government writes the laws and has all the power. It is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to make the laws clear and not try to enforce their whims based upon flimsy unwritten "spirit of the law" arguments.
- afarrell 11y ago
  As someone who is intensely interested in how regional differences in people's education affect their political outlook, I sincerely want to ask you where you went to high school. I realize that response sounds condescending and I'm trying to think off a way to make it sound not condescending, but I am failing. Your statement so strongly contradicts what I learned growing up that blinked in surprise and had to take a step back and reconsider a belief that I didn't realize I'd never questioned. I went to high school near Albany, New York and we were taught that the framers of the constitution started their design from the premise that humans are flawed and corruptible and that they needed to build a system to counter that. Hence, checks and balances. I guess all of the reading I've done since then on the founding of the country has agreed with this, but I suspect if there was some that disagreed with it, I would have missed that.

by Aoyagi 11y ago

crusso 11y ago

Blaming lobbyists for lobbying is like blaming ants for finding piles of sugar that are carelessly left around. The government is supposed to consist of our better angels that act in a more ethical manner to a higher standard than the cogs just functioning in the system that the government creates. If the government doesn't consist of these better angels, why do we give it such vast and sweeping powers to invade and control our lives?

Aoyagi 11y ago
That's like saying "don't blame the murderer, blame police for not saving you while you were being continuously stabbed for two hours"...
- icebraining 11y ago
  If the police actively helped the murderers, I'd certainly blame them.
- crusso 11y ago
  That's a poor analogy since murder is illegal. What Google is doing is within the law and a part of the framework created by the government.
  - Aoyagi 11y ago
    Tax dodging is also against the spirit of the law, which is a direct result of companies lobbying for loopholes they can use. Said companies are the initiators, not the corrupt/dumb politicians (who are, of course, also to blame).
    - crusso 11y ago
      It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance", since what they've done is not only legal, but it's the expected and allowed behavior under tax law adjudication in the USA. You misunderstand how tax laws work to think that there is some "spirit of the law" that individuals or corporate entities should be attempting to follow. There are simply the rules that must be followed and some wiggle room in how those rules are interpreted. A "spirit" implies that there is some sort of equality between parties and a mutual understanding of something not quite written down. That's not the way that a judge views tax law. If the IRS can't clearly show how rules have been broken, then the IRS has no claim. The government/IRS write the rules and they're expected to write rules in a watertight fashion, not some vague "spirit of the agreement" fashion. If the government or IRS fails to do so, it's not viewed as the tax avoider's problem. At the end of the day, tax accountants and tax attorneys are trained and paid to ensure that you (or your company) don't pay a penny more of taxes than are explicitly required by the law and it would be unethical for them to do otherwise.
      - Aoyagi 11y ago
        >It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance" Ah, I see why someone like you would think it's completely acceptable. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge >dodge >1 - Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement: ... I know the US judiciary system works with the laws by the letter. And I know that examples like this prove again and again that it's not always the optimal way to do things. Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries.
        crusso 11y ago
        Go for a dictionary that defines dodge wrt to taxation: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/tax-dodge http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ta... It's a technique that can be illegal. That's not what Google has done. Google has used tax avoidance. More info on Tax Avoidance vs Evasion (which is what a Tax Dodge commonly refers to): https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidance https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidan... Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries. You're confused about the greater ethical question here. The ethical question of whether or not a company should pay its "fair share" of taxes is below the ethical question of "How should laws be enforced by a Government that can use deadly force and incarceration to achieve its aims?" The Government writes the laws and has all the power. It is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to make the laws clear and not try to enforce their whims based upon flimsy unwritten "spirit of the law" arguments.
afarrell 11y ago
As someone who is intensely interested in how regional differences in people's education affect their political outlook, I sincerely want to ask you where you went to high school. I realize that response sounds condescending and I'm trying to think off a way to make it sound not condescending, but I am failing. Your statement so strongly contradicts what I learned growing up that blinked in surprise and had to take a step back and reconsider a belief that I didn't realize I'd never questioned. I went to high school near Albany, New York and we were taught that the framers of the constitution started their design from the premise that humans are flawed and corruptible and that they needed to build a system to counter that. Hence, checks and balances. I guess all of the reading I've done since then on the founding of the country has agreed with this, but I suspect if there was some that disagreed with it, I would have missed that.