6 ms·

Maybe people are mad at their government but more mad at Apple?

by bauerd 9y ago

bdibs 9y ago
More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money, not pay erroneous taxes.
- bauerd 9y ago
  >More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. Arguably yes, governments should be pressured into closing "certain loopholes", but not because this necessarily leads to a better outcome. >Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money Not everyone agrees that companies ought to maximise only shareholder value.
  - xiphias 9y ago
    Shareholder value and making money are not the same thing (and the job of the CEO is to maximize shareholder value, not money). I'm a Tesla shareholder, and I would be quite disappointed if the company would stop caring about scaled sustainability and would just stay as a luxury car brand (which would make it easy for Tesla to not lose money on research).
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. That's the argument against signing global warming treaties, isn't it?
    - bauerd 9y ago
      It's not an argument against closing loopholes.
- r3bl 9y ago
  > More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. If such a loophole exists, and it's blatantly obvious that you're a dick for using that loophole, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean you're not a dick for using it in the first place. To put it in another perspective: If there was a loophole that allowed me to kill someone without facing any consequences, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a dick for using it.
  - baddox 9y ago
    It’s relatively easy to argue that murder is immoral even if there was a legal loophole. It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
    - r3bl 9y ago
      Seems as dead simple to me as to argue about murder. If you're a company that's present in a certain geographic area, you're expected to pay taxes in that area. If you don't pay taxes and you actively work on not paying taxes, you're immoral. Done.
      - baddox 9y ago
        Yes, but the precise amount of taxes you should pay is not some moral principle. If the current tax laws were the “correct” amount, then the government passed a tax cut, are you morally obligated to keep paying the higher amount?
        r3bl 9y ago
        If those tax cuts were given specifically to you (as is the European Commission's conclusion[0]), then yes. It's immoral to pay less. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
      - geomark 9y ago

Maybe people are mad at their government but more mad at Apple?

by bauerd 9y ago

Maybe people are mad at their government but more mad at Apple?

More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money, not pay erroneous taxes.

bauerd 9y ago
>More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. Arguably yes, governments should be pressured into closing "certain loopholes", but not because this necessarily leads to a better outcome. >Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money Not everyone agrees that companies ought to maximise only shareholder value.
- xiphias 9y ago
  Shareholder value and making money are not the same thing (and the job of the CEO is to maximize shareholder value, not money). I'm a Tesla shareholder, and I would be quite disappointed if the company would stop caring about scaled sustainability and would just stay as a luxury car brand (which would make it easy for Tesla to not lose money on research).
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. That's the argument against signing global warming treaties, isn't it?
  - bauerd 9y ago
    It's not an argument against closing loopholes.
r3bl 9y ago
> More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes. If such a loophole exists, and it's blatantly obvious that you're a dick for using that loophole, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean you're not a dick for using it in the first place. To put it in another perspective: If there was a loophole that allowed me to kill someone without facing any consequences, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a dick for using it.
- baddox 9y ago
  It’s relatively easy to argue that murder is immoral even if there was a legal loophole. It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
  - r3bl 9y ago
    Seems as dead simple to me as to argue about murder. If you're a company that's present in a certain geographic area, you're expected to pay taxes in that area. If you don't pay taxes and you actively work on not paying taxes, you're immoral. Done.
    - baddox 9y ago
      Yes, but the precise amount of taxes you should pay is not some moral principle. If the current tax laws were the “correct” amount, then the government passed a tax cut, are you morally obligated to keep paying the higher amount?
      - r3bl 9y ago
        If those tax cuts were given specifically to you (as is the European Commission's conclusion[0]), then yes. It's immoral to pay less. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
    - geomark 9y ago