4 ms·

There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. From Judge Learned Hand: "Anyone may arrange his affairs

There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. From Judge Learned Hand: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands"

falcolas 9y ago
Aah, yes, those crafty poor with their Dutch sandwiches, accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland, and their tax-shelter charities. This quote sounds almost ironically similar to this quip from Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  Well there's an income spectrum in society beyond 'the rich' and 'the poor' but certainly our poorest citizens reduce their tax burden as much as possible as well. When was the last time someone working for cash under the table declared their income?
alistairSH 9y ago
While that's true, it's also a simplistic take on taxes. The mega-rich, including corporations, work with the government (bribery, oops, I mean campaign donations) to ensure there are loopholes in place to avoid taxes. While the average citizen can attempt to minimize his obligation, he has very little opportunity to do so. In the US, most people (about 60%) do better taking the standard deduction vs itemizing their deductions.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  If we continue down the path with this logic, shouldn't citizens who don't find themselves below or near the poverty line and support increasing the role of the government skip the standard deduction to increase the rate of tax they pay? After all the standard deduction was only added to garner middle class votes and is thusly "immortal lobbying" of a sort.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    Possibly. But, the size of government, and the relative tax rates needed to fund it, is a different discussion than tax breaks that are only available to the wealthy.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
noelwelsh 9y ago
I agree and disagree. For the individual, looking only after their own affairs, it is fine to reduce one's tax burden as far as legally possible. The citizen, looking the health of their society, has to take a wider view and consider if the existing tax laws and enforcement is contributing to a better or worse society. The specific ruling that was posted seems to be that Amazon and Apple acted illegally and hence are liable for back taxes. The wider point is what OP was making, by my reading, and which the comment I replied to was refuting.
- bonesss 9y ago
  > The citizen, looking the health of their society, has to take a wider view and consider if the existing tax laws and enforcement is contributing to a better or worse society. This is very important in deciding to pay taxes at all, and highly salient for people trying to impact tax legislation. In terms of tax _burden_, though, it's quite odd to do anything but minimize taxation, and the extent of minimization cannot be extrapolated to social health or social costs. The primary mechanism the government has to shape the economy is through taxation. It's not just transferring cash to the collective public coffers, there are specific reasons the government wants or doesn't want certain kinds of spending and certain kinds of economic relationships. You get a mortgage deduction because house ownership has perceived social benefits, for example. You get write offs for specific programs, or kinds of spending the gov wants to encourage. By ignoring the relevant tax-regime you are also ignoring the economic directives of your elected government. At the same time: overpaying on your taxes is a highly inefficient way to do just about anything. Send post-tax cash to the DOD, NHS, charities, political parties, or to Lockheed-Martin directly, if you're so inclined. This will always yield more direct impact then indirect funding through government taxes. Legal tax minimization is good for the economy and lets capital move 'intelligently' towards desired outcomes. It lets legislators shape the cradle-to-grave picture while maintaining representational control. Illegal tax minimization is criminal :)
andrepd 9y ago
>There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. Yes there is. It may not be legally wrong, but it sure is morally wrong. What matters is the spirit of the law. The fact that big corporations can hire squads of lawyers and search and identify loopholes that allow them to pay outrageously low taxes on outrageously high revenues doesn't make it morally acceptable, even if they technically are following the letter of the law. Add to that the fact that these loopholes and exploits are kept in place by fierce (and expensive) lobbying efforts from those very same companies and people.
- Y_Y 9y ago
  > It may not be legally wrong, but it sure is morally wrong. Ah now. Governments don't just use taxes to raise revenue, but also for incentives. If they tax moving cash abroad to help with the balance of payments and you restructure your company to avoid doing this then everyone is happy. It doesn't excuse manipulating the government to make favourable tax laws however.
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  For it to be morally wrong to reduce one's tax burden, I suppose you believe that corporations, big or otherwise, are morally obligated to pay higher taxes than legally required. Why?
ionised 9y ago
> There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. Disagree. Legality does not equate to morality.

falcolas 9y ago

Aah, yes, those crafty poor with their Dutch sandwiches, accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland, and their tax-shelter charities. This quote sounds almost ironically similar to this quip from Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

bmmayer1 9y ago
Well there's an income spectrum in society beyond 'the rich' and 'the poor' but certainly our poorest citizens reduce their tax burden as much as possible as well. When was the last time someone working for cash under the table declared their income?

alistairSH 9y ago

While that's true, it's also a simplistic take on taxes. The mega-rich, including corporations, work with the government (bribery, oops, I mean campaign donations) to ensure there are loopholes in place to avoid taxes. While the average citizen can attempt to minimize his obligation, he has very little opportunity to do so. In the US, most people (about 60%) do better taking the standard deduction vs itemizing their deductions.

KekDemaga 9y ago
If we continue down the path with this logic, shouldn't citizens who don't find themselves below or near the poverty line and support increasing the role of the government skip the standard deduction to increase the rate of tax they pay? After all the standard deduction was only added to garner middle class votes and is thusly "immortal lobbying" of a sort.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Possibly. But, the size of government, and the relative tax rates needed to fund it, is a different discussion than tax breaks that are only available to the wealthy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

noelwelsh 9y ago

I agree and disagree. For the individual, looking only after their own affairs, it is fine to reduce one's tax burden as far as legally possible. The citizen, looking the health of their society, has to take a wider view and consider if the existing tax laws and enforcement is contributing to a better or worse society. The specific ruling that was posted seems to be that Amazon and Apple acted illegally and hence are liable for back taxes. The wider point is what OP was making, by my reading, and which the comment I replied to was refuting.

bonesss 9y ago
> The citizen, looking the health of their society, has to take a wider view and consider if the existing tax laws and enforcement is contributing to a better or worse society. This is very important in deciding to pay taxes at all, and highly salient for people trying to impact tax legislation. In terms of tax _burden_, though, it's quite odd to do anything but minimize taxation, and the extent of minimization cannot be extrapolated to social health or social costs. The primary mechanism the government has to shape the economy is through taxation. It's not just transferring cash to the collective public coffers, there are specific reasons the government wants or doesn't want certain kinds of spending and certain kinds of economic relationships. You get a mortgage deduction because house ownership has perceived social benefits, for example. You get write offs for specific programs, or kinds of spending the gov wants to encourage. By ignoring the relevant tax-regime you are also ignoring the economic directives of your elected government. At the same time: overpaying on your taxes is a highly inefficient way to do just about anything. Send post-tax cash to the DOD, NHS, charities, political parties, or to Lockheed-Martin directly, if you're so inclined. This will always yield more direct impact then indirect funding through government taxes. Legal tax minimization is good for the economy and lets capital move 'intelligently' towards desired outcomes. It lets legislators shape the cradle-to-grave picture while maintaining representational control. Illegal tax minimization is criminal :)

andrepd 9y ago

>There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. Yes there is. It may not be legally wrong, but it sure is morally wrong. What matters is the spirit of the law. The fact that big corporations can hire squads of lawyers and search and identify loopholes that allow them to pay outrageously low taxes on outrageously high revenues doesn't make it morally acceptable, even if they technically are following the letter of the law. Add to that the fact that these loopholes and exploits are kept in place by fierce (and expensive) lobbying efforts from those very same companies and people.

Y_Y 9y ago
> It may not be legally wrong, but it sure is morally wrong. Ah now. Governments don't just use taxes to raise revenue, but also for incentives. If they tax moving cash abroad to help with the balance of payments and you restructure your company to avoid doing this then everyone is happy. It doesn't excuse manipulating the government to make favourable tax laws however.
bmmayer1 9y ago
For it to be morally wrong to reduce one's tax burden, I suppose you believe that corporations, big or otherwise, are morally obligated to pay higher taxes than legally required. Why?

ionised 9y ago

> There's nothing morally wrong with reducing one's tax burden to the extent that is legally permissible. Disagree. Legality does not equate to morality.