7 ms·

> So in the comparison to shopping around, you really can't fault this type of corporate action, until they actually go illegal. Watch me. There are many time

> So in the comparison to shopping around, you really can't fault this type of corporate action, until they actually go illegal. Watch me. There are many times when people have incentives to take actions that harm those around them, and yet somehow a lot of us manage to act ethically. There are plenty of behaviors that are legal but unethical. I could, for example, cheat on my significant other. There are some strong biological incentives to do so. But nobody would say, "you can't fault him for cheating on his SO until he actually goes illegal". Laws exist to disincentivize the extremes of unethical behavior. When you consider that the rich have an inordinate influence over what laws are passed, it becomes clear that often behaviors which are unethical enough to be illegal remain legal because the rich benefit from them. The people exposed by the Panama Papers knew they weren't behaving ethically, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths to hide their actions. I have no qualms about faulting them for their actions. In business, "I was just following incentives" is the new "I was just following orders". They're teaching this to business students in college, that the only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. Any person or corporation with this ideology is effectively a sociopath, and society should treat such corporations the same way we treat known sociopaths. I agree with you that we should disincentivize this kind of tax evasion, but any disincentive that assumes that there is no fault for following incentives will simply plug one leak: the rich and corporations will simply find another way to be avoid contributing to society. If you really believe that incentives are the problem then we need to create a real disincentive: jail time for persons and seizure of assets for corporations.

white-flame 10y ago
Finding a deal on taxes is a completely different realm than surreptitiously dumping toxic waste, or whatever else "harm those around them" and "just following orders" tends to imply. The reductio ad absurdum doesn't really mesh here. I agree with the sociopathic judgment of people using such excuses to be predators against society. But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. Tax codes are insanely complex, and there's a bajillion ways to look at them and apply them. Tax breaks are typically done for the government to incentivize people & businesses to engage in behavior, and tax hikes are typically done to dissuade behavior, without specifically outlawing things. The sum total of these is a big mess in which if a few percent matters to you, you can research and optimize. Given how the tax code comes into being, that is exactly the spirit of the law. > the rich and corporations will simply find another way to be avoid contributing to society This is a moot and frankly prejudiced point. People & organizations with more wealth & power have greater flexibility and mobility, regardless of the system they're in.
- devishard 10y ago
  > But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. That's such a massive oversimplification of the truth that it no longer resembles the truth. Place B is the place where these people grew up, learned, and became wealthy and powerful. They used the resources of place B to get to where they are. You don't see the many of the wealthy starting off in obscure islands with permissive tax codes. But suddenly when it's time to pay for all the resources they have used, they're shopping around? Give me a break. What you're proposing is equivalent to me going and stealing the shiny new Porsche I always wanted, then claiming it's okay because I shopped around and found a deal on an old Pinto at the local junkyard. I pay the junkman, I get my Porsche, and we're even, right? The only difference here is that I'm not rich or powerful enough to make that legal. > This is a moot and frankly prejudiced point. People & organizations with more wealth & power have greater flexibility and mobility, regardless of the system they're in. "Prejudice" means I've judged them before having any real information about them. The Panama Papers are far from the first indication that the rich leech off society and don't pay their fair share, but they sure are the most damning and specific. How much evidence so you need before you're willing to admit that I'm being judicial and not just prejudicial?

white-flame 10y ago

Finding a deal on taxes is a completely different realm than surreptitiously dumping toxic waste, or whatever else "harm those around them" and "just following orders" tends to imply. The reductio ad absurdum doesn't really mesh here. I agree with the sociopathic judgment of people using such excuses to be predators against society. But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. Tax codes are insanely complex, and there's a bajillion ways to look at them and apply them. Tax breaks are typically done for the government to incentivize people & businesses to engage in behavior, and tax hikes are typically done to dissuade behavior, without specifically outlawing things. The sum total of these is a big mess in which if a few percent matters to you, you can research and optimize. Given how the tax code comes into being, that is exactly the spirit of the law. > the rich and corporations will simply find another way to be avoid contributing to society This is a moot and frankly prejudiced point. People & organizations with more wealth & power have greater flexibility and mobility, regardless of the system they're in.

devishard 10y ago
> But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. That's such a massive oversimplification of the truth that it no longer resembles the truth. Place B is the place where these people grew up, learned, and became wealthy and powerful. They used the resources of place B to get to where they are. You don't see the many of the wealthy starting off in obscure islands with permissive tax codes. But suddenly when it's time to pay for all the resources they have used, they're shopping around? Give me a break. What you're proposing is equivalent to me going and stealing the shiny new Porsche I always wanted, then claiming it's okay because I shopped around and found a deal on an old Pinto at the local junkyard. I pay the junkman, I get my Porsche, and we're even, right? The only difference here is that I'm not rich or powerful enough to make that legal. > This is a moot and frankly prejudiced point. People & organizations with more wealth & power have greater flexibility and mobility, regardless of the system they're in. "Prejudice" means I've judged them before having any real information about them. The Panama Papers are far from the first indication that the rich leech off society and don't pay their fair share, but they sure are the most damning and specific. How much evidence so you need before you're willing to admit that I'm being judicial and not just prejudicial?