4 ms·

> the rational thing to do could be to help out Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities. > The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes The

> the rational thing to do could be to help out Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities. > The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes The difficulty is in defining "expected." If the tax authorities give your return the green light, in what sense did they "expect" more? If your definition of expectation isn't about the letter of the law but the spirit, then whose spirit (amongst the many lawyers, accountants, and executives) should be followed? This doesn't even touch the issue of fiduciary responsibility, covered elsewhere in the thread.

cryptoz 9y ago
The definition of 'expected' comes from the tax code and the government. The article itself states that the governments are expecting more revenue than they are receiving from these companies. Why are they expecting more? Because the companies spend more money finding ways to stash it offshore than the current employees at the government offices can spend to find and estimate the losses that will incur from a company creating its own loopholes for the future. It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company. It's clear cut. > Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities. Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  >It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company. >It's clear cut. See, that's the thing; it's obviously not clear cut to other people. There's a very reasonable (IMO) position that a taxpayer is merely obligated to comply with the law, but is not similarly obligated to structure their affairs in such a way as to maximize the government's take.
- monktastic1 9y ago
  > Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale. Also, charities don't bomb the living shit out of strangers around the world.

cryptoz 9y ago

The definition of 'expected' comes from the tax code and the government. The article itself states that the governments are expecting more revenue than they are receiving from these companies. Why are they expecting more? Because the companies spend more money finding ways to stash it offshore than the current employees at the government offices can spend to find and estimate the losses that will incur from a company creating its own loopholes for the future. It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company. It's clear cut. > Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities. Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.

sokoloff 9y ago
>It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company. >It's clear cut. See, that's the thing; it's obviously not clear cut to other people. There's a very reasonable (IMO) position that a taxpayer is merely obligated to comply with the law, but is not similarly obligated to structure their affairs in such a way as to maximize the government's take.
monktastic1 9y ago
> Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale. Also, charities don't bomb the living shit out of strangers around the world.