5 ms·

Obviously the law should be changed. But your comments are otherwise incorrect. > Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in tax

Obviously the law should be changed. But your comments are otherwise incorrect. > Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in taxes than they should? What do you mean, 'should'? They 'should' pay the amount that is expected of them - the amount proportional to their profits. Each corporation should pay what is expected of them in full. This would produce is vastly more stable economy which would then let those corporations earn more money. It would benefit the shareholders of every corporation to have a stronger and stabler US consumer base than to have a crippled middle class like they create by not paying their taxes. Yes, of course Google should have paid that $19.2B. > Would an individual pay $500 more in taxes than they are required to out of the goodness of their heart and belief in the American government? Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes.

monktastic1 9y ago
> What do you mean, 'should'? I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' > Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes. I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes. > I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that? If you have more money than necessary, and you know that others don't, and you know that a good portion of your taxes goes to helping others, the rational thing to do could be to help out and not attempt to claim every tax break and benefit you could. I'm not saying that's always right, I'm saying it can be rational for people to do it. Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. This is a classic tragedy of the commons: if people and companies paid taxes as due, we would all be better off for it. The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes, not use offshore secret hideouts to avoid improving your own country.
  - cantrip 9y ago
    I have never paid more taxes (that I'm aware of) than I am legally obligated to and I never will. Your list of conditions for rationally paying more taxes hinges on so many assumptions that it's a moot point. You might as well say it's rational to burn money in a fire. If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly, and you know that corporations will keep it instead of paying higher wages to workers, and you know that non profits will eat the majority of it in overhead before it helps people, and you know that decreasing the amount of money in circulation will cause the value of all money to increase, you should rationally set fire to your extra cash.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly You don't pay taxes so that governments can spend money. Governments can spend as much money as they like - they print the damn stuff. The economy would function precisely as it does now if every dollar paid in tax were burned and every dollar spent by the government were printed. Taxes paid to extinguish money. It is supposed to be deflationary - a transfer of wealth to everybody else spending money in the economy.
      - cantrip 9y ago
        None of that is remotely true. Even discounting local and state governments, which use tax dollars to fund themselves and can't print money like you describe, even the federal government doesn't work like that.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. Of course it is, and then both individuals and companies have the option to make voluntary payments as charitable contributions or to support local institutions--as many universities to to their municipalities.

monktastic1 9y ago

> What do you mean, 'should'? I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' > Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes. I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

cryptoz 9y ago
> I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes. > I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that? If you have more money than necessary, and you know that others don't, and you know that a good portion of your taxes goes to helping others, the rational thing to do could be to help out and not attempt to claim every tax break and benefit you could. I'm not saying that's always right, I'm saying it can be rational for people to do it. Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. This is a classic tragedy of the commons: if people and companies paid taxes as due, we would all be better off for it. The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes, not use offshore secret hideouts to avoid improving your own country.
- cantrip 9y ago
  I have never paid more taxes (that I'm aware of) than I am legally obligated to and I never will. Your list of conditions for rationally paying more taxes hinges on so many assumptions that it's a moot point. You might as well say it's rational to burn money in a fire. If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly, and you know that corporations will keep it instead of paying higher wages to workers, and you know that non profits will eat the majority of it in overhead before it helps people, and you know that decreasing the amount of money in circulation will cause the value of all money to increase, you should rationally set fire to your extra cash.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly You don't pay taxes so that governments can spend money. Governments can spend as much money as they like - they print the damn stuff. The economy would function precisely as it does now if every dollar paid in tax were burned and every dollar spent by the government were printed. Taxes paid to extinguish money. It is supposed to be deflationary - a transfer of wealth to everybody else spending money in the economy.
    - cantrip 9y ago
      None of that is remotely true. Even discounting local and state governments, which use tax dollars to fund themselves and can't print money like you describe, even the federal government doesn't work like that.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. Of course it is, and then both individuals and companies have the option to make voluntary payments as charitable contributions or to support local institutions--as many universities to to their municipalities.