4 ms·

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

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 11y 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?

devishard 11y 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?