7 ms·

That you cannot think of such an argument doesn't mean much. That such possible arguments wouldn't obtain "legitimacy" in your mind explains far more about your

That you cannot think of such an argument doesn't mean much. That such possible arguments wouldn't obtain "legitimacy" in your mind explains far more about your conception of the role of business in society. There are no optional taxes—any company that actively seeks ways to avoid taxes is not dealing justly or ethically with the society in which it exists. The same goes for citizens. A healthy and just society cannot exist when its citizens, and their corporations, seek to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship and the services provided, but simultaneously work diligently to avoid upholding their end of the arrangement to support and perpetuate a healthy and just society.

hueving 10y ago
You are free to overpay on your taxes as well. I assume based on your reasoning that you give the government your entire income minus expenses. Governments have the ability to levy taxes. If they need money they should levy a tax. It's that simple. There is no 'right amount' that a company should be paying that is more than the law requires them to pay.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  You appear to be responding to things I have not said. No suggestion at all of right amounts or paying more than the law requires.
  - hueving 10y ago
    No, your comment quite clearly implies that the corporations should not utilize the tax laws to pay the minimum required amount of taxes. You use words like 'avoid' to imply that it's evasion, but it's 'avoiding' in the same way as someone who 'avoids' taxes by taking a deduction for a dependent.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      No, you've misread and inserted your own ideas as what I meant. The comment I replied to used 'avoid' in describing 'optional taxes'. I reused the word in disagreeing with the notion there are optional taxes, particularly as these allegedly optional taxes were suggested as taxes a corporation took action specifically to avoid. [Edit]: Moreover, you still fail to address how I've suggested any notion of right amounts or paying more than the law requires. I have not. Since the comment I replied to used 'avoid', and you think avoid implies evading taxes, then you seem to assert I should understand the GP to be saying optional taxes are those taxes a company can take action to evade. This is even more problematic. The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether.
      - Pyxl101 10y ago
        > The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether. You've said it's not the same. How is it different? Both ways of reducing tax burden are things that the laws permit, and that have been established as lawful from much precedent.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        What is lawful != what is ethical. Most of my comments in this thread and on this subject engage the ethical responsibilities of citizens and corporations to their societies, and their parts in the establishment and perpetuation of just and healthy societies. Beyond that, there is quite an orders of magnitude difference between electing to take an individual deduction as a citizen and establishing complicated structural entities specifically to avoid or reduce taxes by increasing the complexity of determining tax obligation. If you do not see these things are different, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.
- sbov 10y ago
  I would love to give all my income minus expenses. I could easily make it so I have zero after my expenses. But that's not how things work for individuals... and that's a large part of the difference.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Maybe a better analogy is don't take advantage of the tax relief as laid out in the law. The tax authorities wouldn't stop you if you decided not to deduct your 401k contributions from your income. Or to not deduct your mortgage interest.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html Now you can give all your income as you desire.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >I would love to give all my income minus expenses. I could easily make it so I have zero after my expenses. But that's not how things work for individuals... Of course that's how it works. There is nothing that stops you from donating extra to the government. If you really wanted to you could easily do it.
- ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  Except there's a difference between overpaying and short term tax minimisation. I, for instance, in my country, am relatively conservative on my tax returns. I do not push everything out to the point of maximal complexity & maximal returns. The reason I do this is twofold. If my accountant makes a mistake or a bad call, I am still personally liable for the tax I didn't pay + penalties, even though I sought and obtained professional advice. I know of cases now where people have received "audit shocks" where it turns out the government disagrees with how far they're pushing things, and now they owe money + penalties. Increase that sting and those penalties and watch the risk/return equation change. The other two reasons are: I pay to support local community and infrastructure. I don't mind paying a bit extra to support public transport in my area, for instance, so if I can find a way to make targeted contributions (as opposed, say, my money going to a contractor in Iraq), then I'll put a bit more in. And the third reason I don't pay minimal taxes it's a form of social contract/political insurance. I know that if I'm a total prick, or want to do things in the future, if I haven't paid my share, or if someone wants to audit me and go through my books as a political game or to make a point, I have far more political capital and support from the population of I show I'm a good citizen vs "I basically will fuck you all to the maximum extent and screw you". This also provides me a clean conscience, legitimacy, authenticity, and general good will. Plus if anyone does audit me, for political reasons or otherwise, maybe I'll get a small refund or ruling in my favour, which, at such times, I could really use...
downandout 10y ago
You're entitled to your opinion (even if expressed in an insulting way, as you did here), and I'm certain that there are ways for you to maximize your personal tax bill to help satisfy the social responsibility that you feel others have. Lead by doing. However, I don't think you'll find tax maximization strategies in use at any major corporation, now or at any time in the future, and I'd expect shareholder lawsuits if they were ever utilized.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  You, like your sibling respondent, appear to be replying to things I have not said. No suggestion was made for maximizing taxes or overpaying. Also, I didn't express myself in an insulting way. You've edited this comment a few times now, and it's cool to just stick with the actual topic. I made no insults.
  - downandout 10y ago
    "That you cannot think of such an argument doesn't mean much. That such possible arguments wouldn't obtain "legitimacy" in your mind explains far more about your conception of the role of business in society."
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      That is not an insult.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        It clearly attempts to be.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        It absolutely does not.

hueving 10y ago

You are free to overpay on your taxes as well. I assume based on your reasoning that you give the government your entire income minus expenses. Governments have the ability to levy taxes. If they need money they should levy a tax. It's that simple. There is no 'right amount' that a company should be paying that is more than the law requires them to pay.

bobwaycott 10y ago
You appear to be responding to things I have not said. No suggestion at all of right amounts or paying more than the law requires.
- hueving 10y ago
  No, your comment quite clearly implies that the corporations should not utilize the tax laws to pay the minimum required amount of taxes. You use words like 'avoid' to imply that it's evasion, but it's 'avoiding' in the same way as someone who 'avoids' taxes by taking a deduction for a dependent.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    No, you've misread and inserted your own ideas as what I meant. The comment I replied to used 'avoid' in describing 'optional taxes'. I reused the word in disagreeing with the notion there are optional taxes, particularly as these allegedly optional taxes were suggested as taxes a corporation took action specifically to avoid. [Edit]: Moreover, you still fail to address how I've suggested any notion of right amounts or paying more than the law requires. I have not. Since the comment I replied to used 'avoid', and you think avoid implies evading taxes, then you seem to assert I should understand the GP to be saying optional taxes are those taxes a company can take action to evade. This is even more problematic. The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether.
    - Pyxl101 10y ago
      > The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether. You've said it's not the same. How is it different? Both ways of reducing tax burden are things that the laws permit, and that have been established as lawful from much precedent.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        What is lawful != what is ethical. Most of my comments in this thread and on this subject engage the ethical responsibilities of citizens and corporations to their societies, and their parts in the establishment and perpetuation of just and healthy societies. Beyond that, there is quite an orders of magnitude difference between electing to take an individual deduction as a citizen and establishing complicated structural entities specifically to avoid or reduce taxes by increasing the complexity of determining tax obligation. If you do not see these things are different, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.
sbov 10y ago
I would love to give all my income minus expenses. I could easily make it so I have zero after my expenses. But that's not how things work for individuals... and that's a large part of the difference.
- refurb 10y ago
  Maybe a better analogy is don't take advantage of the tax relief as laid out in the law. The tax authorities wouldn't stop you if you decided not to deduct your 401k contributions from your income. Or to not deduct your mortgage interest.
- Tiksi 10y ago
  http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html Now you can give all your income as you desire.
- hueving 10y ago
  >I would love to give all my income minus expenses. I could easily make it so I have zero after my expenses. But that's not how things work for individuals... Of course that's how it works. There is nothing that stops you from donating extra to the government. If you really wanted to you could easily do it.
ACow_Adonis 10y ago
Except there's a difference between overpaying and short term tax minimisation. I, for instance, in my country, am relatively conservative on my tax returns. I do not push everything out to the point of maximal complexity & maximal returns. The reason I do this is twofold. If my accountant makes a mistake or a bad call, I am still personally liable for the tax I didn't pay + penalties, even though I sought and obtained professional advice. I know of cases now where people have received "audit shocks" where it turns out the government disagrees with how far they're pushing things, and now they owe money + penalties. Increase that sting and those penalties and watch the risk/return equation change. The other two reasons are: I pay to support local community and infrastructure. I don't mind paying a bit extra to support public transport in my area, for instance, so if I can find a way to make targeted contributions (as opposed, say, my money going to a contractor in Iraq), then I'll put a bit more in. And the third reason I don't pay minimal taxes it's a form of social contract/political insurance. I know that if I'm a total prick, or want to do things in the future, if I haven't paid my share, or if someone wants to audit me and go through my books as a political game or to make a point, I have far more political capital and support from the population of I show I'm a good citizen vs "I basically will fuck you all to the maximum extent and screw you". This also provides me a clean conscience, legitimacy, authenticity, and general good will. Plus if anyone does audit me, for political reasons or otherwise, maybe I'll get a small refund or ruling in my favour, which, at such times, I could really use...

downandout 10y ago

You're entitled to your opinion (even if expressed in an insulting way, as you did here), and I'm certain that there are ways for you to maximize your personal tax bill to help satisfy the social responsibility that you feel others have. Lead by doing. However, I don't think you'll find tax maximization strategies in use at any major corporation, now or at any time in the future, and I'd expect shareholder lawsuits if they were ever utilized.

bobwaycott 10y ago
You, like your sibling respondent, appear to be replying to things I have not said. No suggestion was made for maximizing taxes or overpaying. Also, I didn't express myself in an insulting way. You've edited this comment a few times now, and it's cool to just stick with the actual topic. I made no insults.
- downandout 10y ago
  "That you cannot think of such an argument doesn't mean much. That such possible arguments wouldn't obtain "legitimacy" in your mind explains far more about your conception of the role of business in society."
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    That is not an insult.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      It clearly attempts to be.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        It absolutely does not.