7 ms·

Bloomberg likes to write about how "tech companies do this" whenever it's something bad. The fact is all companies do this... it's well-known every industry is

Bloomberg likes to write about how "tech companies do this" whenever it's something bad. The fact is all companies do this... it's well-known every industry is doing the same. Walmart, Exxon and Pfizer are just a few companies that tax-dodge just as much as Google. It's estimated $700 billion in taxes are dodged so singling out Google's $19 billion seems strange. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook-how-corporations-rig-the-rules-to-dodge-the-taxes-they-owe/ https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook-...

dkural 9y ago
Yes, but they don't have the "don't be evil" motto, or executives claiming some vague moral superiority to rest of the corporate world in "making the world a better place".
- chillacy 9y ago
  Morality isn't really absolute, so I could see people justifying it. One line of reasoning could go: 1. The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) 2. You disagree with what the government spends tax money on 3. You think AI progress is a form of "doing good"
  - peteretep 9y ago
    > The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Simply flouting the law for private profit is hard to tie back to a sense of morality > You disagree with what the government spends tax money on Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal
    - Rescis 9y ago
      >And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. This is rather often criticized however. >Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal Are you conflating Google avoiding taxes as theft? If so, why is there a governmental right to corporate earnings, especially considering tax shelters are using legal loopholes? Further, how is it morally correct for me to donate money to a government that I fundamentally disagree with, as by giving them money I am atleast financially supporting their acts?
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        > Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. Larger corporations don't have much choice, they have to do it just to keep from getting run over by politicians.
        dkural 9y ago
        By "run over", you surely mean getting to serve in the best interest of citizens, who elect those politicians. Instead of doing what's democratically decided, they'd rather legally bribe politicians to get the laws written to benefit their narrow interests. This is the very definition of private interest overriding and buying their way over public good.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Power corrupts. Politicians are powerful. Large corporations are big targets; everyone wants a piece of that action.
        xenomachina 9y ago
        > Instead of doing what's democratically decided Did you mean "instead of doing what's decided by competing lobbyists"? I completely agree that lobbying should not exist, but in a system where it does, trying to get by without doing it yourself might be disastrous if you're going up against those who have no such qualms.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      > Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal The fact that people can disagree with that might hint that morality is a bit more complex than absolute.. unless we talk to philosophy departments which like to push absolute morality, which seems to me like a scheme to create never ending debate ;) I could see an argument that robin hood was a moral figure in his time. I could see the morality in a contentious objector who goes to the front line to shoot at the sky, or in Schindler purposefully minting defective rounds, or in the sit-ins and civil disobedience of the 60s. And I can also see morality in protesting an abortion clinic, even though I don't personally agree with those protestors. But this is of course difficult to grapple with at least on a larger level because it can create a lot of chaos when we're all off forcing our own moral choices on others.
  - natecavanaugh 9y ago
    I feel, perhaps wrongly, that this is a non-sequitur. You can't state that morality isn't absolute, but then use an argument to justify why a moral absolute (The Right Thing) defends the proceeding statement. I agree with 1, sometimes agree with 2, but 3 just doesn't follow for me.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      Makes sense to me: 1. I stated that morality isn't absolute 2. I provided a contradictory moral framework to the parent poster, leading to a different conclusion The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? (Note I have not outlined my personal beliefs in my post, just posited one possible line of reasoning.)
      - natecavanaugh 9y ago
        > The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? I would clarify that our view of morality is relative, but I think all of us believe in some sort of baseline sense of morality that we feel is wrong (or right) in any context, and for any person. We may disagree on the details and priority, but I believe most people share a common sense of morality. And I didn't mean to imply that my comment was a criticism of your personal beliefs, but that the syllogism didn't follow for me. But I do see your point as far as the contrasting of the opening statement and the moral framework don't need to share a logical consistency.
        chillacy 9y ago
        I see, I think we haven't yet defined what we mean by "Morality". I'm taking it to include the details, and you I think are referring to something deeper? I suspect most people (non sociopaths) base their morality on emotion, and some things are really hardwired, like disliking injustice (3rd party punishment is a really interesting topic on that). But the "details and priorities" vary so much in the real world... I've met people who believe strongly in affirmative action type policies, and those who believe strongly against them. I think both think the other side is being unfair, so if what I guessed above is true, then the underlying "morality" you defined would be the desire for "fairness"? As for how someone could come up with those "details and priorities", perhaps they would rather fund NASA than fight homelessness: they would rather invest in the high-end because the technology breakthroughs could have orders of magnitude more impact on poverty than simply redistributing money. I've witnessed many an argument over whether or not it was more "moral" to put money into "wasteful" endeavors like science funding when people are still struggling to get by even in America, not to mention the world at large.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  During the Alphabet transition, they dropped the "don't be evil" motto.
  - Cidan 9y ago
    https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Literally the first three words.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  What is evil about not paying taxes you have no legal obligation to? They have little or no unchecked burden on public infrastructure, basically all of their activities generate value out of thin air. If the tax code your representatives approved allows them to legally retain money, it would be stupid and thankless for them to pay more through taxes.
- totalZero 9y ago
  There is no moral obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits.
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    according to you, do you have the same outlook on people exploiting bugs/backdoors in code on other peoples machines for personal gain?
    - natecavanaugh 9y ago
      Personally, I would say, no, not the same outlook, unless you treat any system where an advantage is gained by one actor over another. But I don't think we can equivocate the action of not only breaking into a system (weak or not) and stealing something from others, from the government (or any actor) leaving money on the table due to their inefficiencies, or lack of foresight. But if we're going for false equivalencies, you could also say that government's using the act of force to take money is also equally wrong, which is the typical libertarian argument. I'm not a big fan of either argument, as they all fall apart as soon as you get into the details.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      Maybe there is a more applicable analogy that doesn't invoke "other people." After all, Google isn't exploiting a loophole of Amazon or Apple, nor is it violating any terms of service; it's simply complying with tax law.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    This mindset seems fine in isolation, but it falls apart when you consider that corporations and the wealthy first subvert democracy to pass tax law with loopholes only they can use, and then use this aphorism as a gag order to keep the rest of us from complaining about it.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      Potentially, but the question then becomes (A) did Google have a hand in passing this tax law, and (B) does this so-called gag order extend to complaining about the tax law itself, or only to compliance with said law? I see no evidence of (A), and if my comment has been construed as an aphoristic gag order, I would like to answer (B) by clarifying that it only means there's not much to complain about when a company abides by the tax regulation.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Yes. But "Don't be evil" does not translate to "Don't do anything dkural doesn't approve of".
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  I would argue that income taxes are still new enough (~100 years) that you can claim moral superiority over the state’s arbitrary claim to support them The nation state concept was arbitrarily rolled out worldwide over the last few centuries and their passive revenue ideas are just as arbitrary People largely debate the fairness of the tax amongst all participants in the system instead of the system itself, this is understandable because they are numerous and powerless whereas the multinational class is the exact opposite But these still have no effect on the intrinsically amoral nature of government revenue ideas The nation state concept got itself into its own mess
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- amygdyl 9y ago
  So far I'm alone to have thought contemporaneously this"don't be evil" gimmick was the most insulting piece of platitudinous double speak that the only possible positive spin I could attach was of two naive young boys helpless to direct the intent of their"adult supervision" away from, well you don't build surveillance on this scale and keep the number of people involved small. Silence does not mean not many people involved. Look at Blair slipping ten percent of the population into the country only unearthed by delayed census data. Nobody can do that outside of true authoritarian regimes. But I've been told to forget about trial or bail despite having just told the judge the paperwork claimed was a nullity impossible under any legal theory and therefore I could not have been lawfully arrested...forget bail or trial. Saif the judge. After I pointed out that I was illegally held. I was of course right. Further attempts on my life were desired however. Since 2004 we have been under the emergency powers act suspending legislature and all non executive branches. Two privy council members sit in private to excercise any law as necessary. I caught out one at the through of a massive fraud for which my mother was nearly abused to death to try to shut her up. But if a long story. But war office director for a uncle, ministry of information father well used to censorship the necessary evils not the unnecessary ones... Was the world so completely credulous?
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Google doesn't have that either
NotSammyHagar 9y ago
it's still a bad thing, even if it's widespread. We need consistent tax codes and consistent application of taxes. It's not exactly a new thing that richer, more clever companies figure out how to avoid paying as much in taxes. That is a bad thing whether it is because you can do the double dutch/irish trick, and it is equally bad if you can bribe politicans to give you special tax treatment.
throw2016 9y ago
You are right. These kind of tax loopholes should also be available to individuals. Then when there are no resources for governance and public services the debate can begin in earnest. But wait, without an operational advanced society companies like Google and others cannot exist. If Google doesn't pay taxes someone else has to. Loopholes don't just exist, they are created for the express purpose by lobbying, corporate capture and entrenched interests who are are adept at getting their way. Tax consultants like Deloitte and others are often writing the laws and then advising corporates how to work around them. Everyone knows how this works. Since this kind of evasion does not benefit the average user, american society or anyone apart from Google it follows the only people who will defend them are the Google ecosystem, yet this thread is full of defenders. Why would anyone point to other companies doing the same thing as a defense, surely as average americans this should concern us even more, that it's a trend. It's this social management by corporate interests that has completely derailed online discussions and makes everything toxic. Think about it, why would anyone come to HN to defend tax evasion by Google and unless readers can push back, self serving vested interests, the immature and trolls will destroy online discussion.

dkural 9y ago

Yes, but they don't have the "don't be evil" motto, or executives claiming some vague moral superiority to rest of the corporate world in "making the world a better place".

chillacy 9y ago
Morality isn't really absolute, so I could see people justifying it. One line of reasoning could go: 1. The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) 2. You disagree with what the government spends tax money on 3. You think AI progress is a form of "doing good"
- peteretep 9y ago
  > The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Simply flouting the law for private profit is hard to tie back to a sense of morality > You disagree with what the government spends tax money on Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal
  - Rescis 9y ago
    >And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. This is rather often criticized however. >Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal Are you conflating Google avoiding taxes as theft? If so, why is there a governmental right to corporate earnings, especially considering tax shelters are using legal loopholes? Further, how is it morally correct for me to donate money to a government that I fundamentally disagree with, as by giving them money I am atleast financially supporting their acts?
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      > Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. Larger corporations don't have much choice, they have to do it just to keep from getting run over by politicians.
      - dkural 9y ago
        By "run over", you surely mean getting to serve in the best interest of citizens, who elect those politicians. Instead of doing what's democratically decided, they'd rather legally bribe politicians to get the laws written to benefit their narrow interests. This is the very definition of private interest overriding and buying their way over public good.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Power corrupts. Politicians are powerful. Large corporations are big targets; everyone wants a piece of that action.
        xenomachina 9y ago
        > Instead of doing what's democratically decided Did you mean "instead of doing what's decided by competing lobbyists"? I completely agree that lobbying should not exist, but in a system where it does, trying to get by without doing it yourself might be disastrous if you're going up against those who have no such qualms.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    > Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal The fact that people can disagree with that might hint that morality is a bit more complex than absolute.. unless we talk to philosophy departments which like to push absolute morality, which seems to me like a scheme to create never ending debate ;) I could see an argument that robin hood was a moral figure in his time. I could see the morality in a contentious objector who goes to the front line to shoot at the sky, or in Schindler purposefully minting defective rounds, or in the sit-ins and civil disobedience of the 60s. And I can also see morality in protesting an abortion clinic, even though I don't personally agree with those protestors. But this is of course difficult to grapple with at least on a larger level because it can create a lot of chaos when we're all off forcing our own moral choices on others.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  I feel, perhaps wrongly, that this is a non-sequitur. You can't state that morality isn't absolute, but then use an argument to justify why a moral absolute (The Right Thing) defends the proceeding statement. I agree with 1, sometimes agree with 2, but 3 just doesn't follow for me.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    Makes sense to me: 1. I stated that morality isn't absolute 2. I provided a contradictory moral framework to the parent poster, leading to a different conclusion The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? (Note I have not outlined my personal beliefs in my post, just posited one possible line of reasoning.)
    - natecavanaugh 9y ago
      > The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? I would clarify that our view of morality is relative, but I think all of us believe in some sort of baseline sense of morality that we feel is wrong (or right) in any context, and for any person. We may disagree on the details and priority, but I believe most people share a common sense of morality. And I didn't mean to imply that my comment was a criticism of your personal beliefs, but that the syllogism didn't follow for me. But I do see your point as far as the contrasting of the opening statement and the moral framework don't need to share a logical consistency.
      - chillacy 9y ago
        I see, I think we haven't yet defined what we mean by "Morality". I'm taking it to include the details, and you I think are referring to something deeper? I suspect most people (non sociopaths) base their morality on emotion, and some things are really hardwired, like disliking injustice (3rd party punishment is a really interesting topic on that). But the "details and priorities" vary so much in the real world... I've met people who believe strongly in affirmative action type policies, and those who believe strongly against them. I think both think the other side is being unfair, so if what I guessed above is true, then the underlying "morality" you defined would be the desire for "fairness"? As for how someone could come up with those "details and priorities", perhaps they would rather fund NASA than fight homelessness: they would rather invest in the high-end because the technology breakthroughs could have orders of magnitude more impact on poverty than simply redistributing money. I've witnessed many an argument over whether or not it was more "moral" to put money into "wasteful" endeavors like science funding when people are still struggling to get by even in America, not to mention the world at large.
sokoloff 9y ago
During the Alphabet transition, they dropped the "don't be evil" motto.
- Cidan 9y ago
  https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Literally the first three words.
microcolonel 9y ago
What is evil about not paying taxes you have no legal obligation to? They have little or no unchecked burden on public infrastructure, basically all of their activities generate value out of thin air. If the tax code your representatives approved allows them to legally retain money, it would be stupid and thankless for them to pay more through taxes.
totalZero 9y ago
There is no moral obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  according to you, do you have the same outlook on people exploiting bugs/backdoors in code on other peoples machines for personal gain?
  - natecavanaugh 9y ago
    Personally, I would say, no, not the same outlook, unless you treat any system where an advantage is gained by one actor over another. But I don't think we can equivocate the action of not only breaking into a system (weak or not) and stealing something from others, from the government (or any actor) leaving money on the table due to their inefficiencies, or lack of foresight. But if we're going for false equivalencies, you could also say that government's using the act of force to take money is also equally wrong, which is the typical libertarian argument. I'm not a big fan of either argument, as they all fall apart as soon as you get into the details.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    Maybe there is a more applicable analogy that doesn't invoke "other people." After all, Google isn't exploiting a loophole of Amazon or Apple, nor is it violating any terms of service; it's simply complying with tax law.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  This mindset seems fine in isolation, but it falls apart when you consider that corporations and the wealthy first subvert democracy to pass tax law with loopholes only they can use, and then use this aphorism as a gag order to keep the rest of us from complaining about it.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    Potentially, but the question then becomes (A) did Google have a hand in passing this tax law, and (B) does this so-called gag order extend to complaining about the tax law itself, or only to compliance with said law? I see no evidence of (A), and if my comment has been construed as an aphoristic gag order, I would like to answer (B) by clarifying that it only means there's not much to complain about when a company abides by the tax regulation.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
Yes. But "Don't be evil" does not translate to "Don't do anything dkural doesn't approve of".
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
I would argue that income taxes are still new enough (~100 years) that you can claim moral superiority over the state’s arbitrary claim to support them The nation state concept was arbitrarily rolled out worldwide over the last few centuries and their passive revenue ideas are just as arbitrary People largely debate the fairness of the tax amongst all participants in the system instead of the system itself, this is understandable because they are numerous and powerless whereas the multinational class is the exact opposite But these still have no effect on the intrinsically amoral nature of government revenue ideas The nation state concept got itself into its own mess
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
amygdyl 9y ago
So far I'm alone to have thought contemporaneously this"don't be evil" gimmick was the most insulting piece of platitudinous double speak that the only possible positive spin I could attach was of two naive young boys helpless to direct the intent of their"adult supervision" away from, well you don't build surveillance on this scale and keep the number of people involved small. Silence does not mean not many people involved. Look at Blair slipping ten percent of the population into the country only unearthed by delayed census data. Nobody can do that outside of true authoritarian regimes. But I've been told to forget about trial or bail despite having just told the judge the paperwork claimed was a nullity impossible under any legal theory and therefore I could not have been lawfully arrested...forget bail or trial. Saif the judge. After I pointed out that I was illegally held. I was of course right. Further attempts on my life were desired however. Since 2004 we have been under the emergency powers act suspending legislature and all non executive branches. Two privy council members sit in private to excercise any law as necessary. I caught out one at the through of a massive fraud for which my mother was nearly abused to death to try to shut her up. But if a long story. But war office director for a uncle, ministry of information father well used to censorship the necessary evils not the unnecessary ones... Was the world so completely credulous?
oh_sigh 9y ago
Google doesn't have that either

NotSammyHagar 9y ago

it's still a bad thing, even if it's widespread. We need consistent tax codes and consistent application of taxes. It's not exactly a new thing that richer, more clever companies figure out how to avoid paying as much in taxes. That is a bad thing whether it is because you can do the double dutch/irish trick, and it is equally bad if you can bribe politicans to give you special tax treatment.

throw2016 9y ago

You are right. These kind of tax loopholes should also be available to individuals. Then when there are no resources for governance and public services the debate can begin in earnest. But wait, without an operational advanced society companies like Google and others cannot exist. If Google doesn't pay taxes someone else has to. Loopholes don't just exist, they are created for the express purpose by lobbying, corporate capture and entrenched interests who are are adept at getting their way. Tax consultants like Deloitte and others are often writing the laws and then advising corporates how to work around them. Everyone knows how this works. Since this kind of evasion does not benefit the average user, american society or anyone apart from Google it follows the only people who will defend them are the Google ecosystem, yet this thread is full of defenders. Why would anyone point to other companies doing the same thing as a defense, surely as average americans this should concern us even more, that it's a trend. It's this social management by corporate interests that has completely derailed online discussions and makes everything toxic. Think about it, why would anyone come to HN to defend tax evasion by Google and unless readers can push back, self serving vested interests, the immature and trolls will destroy online discussion.