5 ms·

I think you mean there is no legal obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits. Whether your moral obligation lies above or belo

I think you mean there is no legal obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits. Whether your moral obligation lies above or below the legal minimum depends on your viewpoint.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
Does this logic also applies to individuals who look for various kinds of tax exemptions in their personal filings? Is someone taking a mortgage exemption being immoral?
- jstanley 9y ago
  Careful. I wasn't arguing that corporations minimising their tax burden is immoral. I was arguing that a moral obligation is orthogonal to a legal obligation, and may be either higher or lower, depending on your viewpoint. My opinion is that moral tax obligations are so far below legal obligations that almost any effort to minimise taxes is perfectly fine. But you still have to pay your legal minimum if you don't want to go to prison.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    Yes, but when someone's calling Google evil for this behavior, it's clear they consider this act immoral. And I am asking whether similar logic extends to individuals too.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      I don't know, you'd have to ask those people. I don't personally think it's evil for either Google or an individual.
totalZero 9y ago
Your thought is incorrect. I mean precisely what I said. There is no moral obligation to pay more than your legally required amount of tax. The presumption would be that no moral obligation exists until one is proven, for precisely the reason you mentioned (it depends on your viewpoint, so we cannot begin with any one set of norms), so if you would kindly propose one, I will disprove it.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? Edit: I wasn't saying there's a moral obligation to pay more than the legal obligation. I was saying there's not necessarily a moral obligation to pay even the legal obligation. They're orthogonal issues. You implied that there is a moral obligation to pay at least the legal minimum, and I'm saying that's not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. Edit further: imagine living in a regime with 90% income taxes, and which takes that money and uses it to do terrible things. You have a legal obligation to pay those taxes, but I'd argue at least that you don't have a moral obligation to pay, and perhaps that you actually have a moral obligation not to pay. Therefore the legal minimum tax payment is not a moral obligation but a legal obligation.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    > Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? I don't actually believe that this assumption is generally true (nonpayment of taxes can be a form of civil disobedience; Henry David Thoreau did this in opposition to the Mexican-American War), but let's say that we believe in the principle that "any entity has a civic duty to follow the law, and if it is unjust, to protest it and endeavor to change it rather than simply disobeying it." In that case, yes, the moral obligation changes, because it is based on following the law. > You implied that there is a moral obligation to pay at least the legal minimum, and I'm saying that's not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. I don't believe I implied that. I just said there's no moral obligation to pay more than the legal minimum. That is true even if there is no moral obligation to pay taxes at all. > Edit further: imagine living in a regime with 90% income taxes, and which takes that money and uses it to do terrible things. You have a legal obligation to pay those taxes, but I'd argue at least that you don't have a moral obligation to pay, and perhaps that you actually have a moral obligation not to pay. Therefore the legal minimum tax payment is not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. OK, so even in this situation, there is no moral obligation to pay any more than the minimum legally required tax. I fail to see where we disagree.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

Does this logic also applies to individuals who look for various kinds of tax exemptions in their personal filings? Is someone taking a mortgage exemption being immoral?

jstanley 9y ago
Careful. I wasn't arguing that corporations minimising their tax burden is immoral. I was arguing that a moral obligation is orthogonal to a legal obligation, and may be either higher or lower, depending on your viewpoint. My opinion is that moral tax obligations are so far below legal obligations that almost any effort to minimise taxes is perfectly fine. But you still have to pay your legal minimum if you don't want to go to prison.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Yes, but when someone's calling Google evil for this behavior, it's clear they consider this act immoral. And I am asking whether similar logic extends to individuals too.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    I don't know, you'd have to ask those people. I don't personally think it's evil for either Google or an individual.

totalZero 9y ago

Your thought is incorrect. I mean precisely what I said. There is no moral obligation to pay more than your legally required amount of tax. The presumption would be that no moral obligation exists until one is proven, for precisely the reason you mentioned (it depends on your viewpoint, so we cannot begin with any one set of norms), so if you would kindly propose one, I will disprove it.

jstanley 9y ago
Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? Edit: I wasn't saying there's a moral obligation to pay more than the legal obligation. I was saying there's not necessarily a moral obligation to pay even the legal obligation. They're orthogonal issues. You implied that there is a moral obligation to pay at least the legal minimum, and I'm saying that's not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. Edit further: imagine living in a regime with 90% income taxes, and which takes that money and uses it to do terrible things. You have a legal obligation to pay those taxes, but I'd argue at least that you don't have a moral obligation to pay, and perhaps that you actually have a moral obligation not to pay. Therefore the legal minimum tax payment is not a moral obligation but a legal obligation.
- totalZero 9y ago
  > Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? I don't actually believe that this assumption is generally true (nonpayment of taxes can be a form of civil disobedience; Henry David Thoreau did this in opposition to the Mexican-American War), but let's say that we believe in the principle that "any entity has a civic duty to follow the law, and if it is unjust, to protest it and endeavor to change it rather than simply disobeying it." In that case, yes, the moral obligation changes, because it is based on following the law. > You implied that there is a moral obligation to pay at least the legal minimum, and I'm saying that's not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. I don't believe I implied that. I just said there's no moral obligation to pay more than the legal minimum. That is true even if there is no moral obligation to pay taxes at all. > Edit further: imagine living in a regime with 90% income taxes, and which takes that money and uses it to do terrible things. You have a legal obligation to pay those taxes, but I'd argue at least that you don't have a moral obligation to pay, and perhaps that you actually have a moral obligation not to pay. Therefore the legal minimum tax payment is not a moral obligation but a legal obligation. OK, so even in this situation, there is no moral obligation to pay any more than the minimum legally required tax. I fail to see where we disagree.