4 ms·

> The criticism towards Google, Apple etc. for minimizing their tax burdens has always been misplaced. It's a valid criticism if you don't think that "Corporat

> The criticism towards Google, Apple etc. for minimizing their tax burdens has always been misplaced. It's a valid criticism if you don't think that "Corporations are supposed to maximize profits" should be true. When anything can be justified because it maximizes profits it becomes very, very easy to be a technically law abiding unethical company which is a net negative on society.

cracker_jacks 7y ago
How about "corporations are supposed to take advantage of things they can take advantage of to better their position"? If a corporation believes they are a net positive for society, then any advantage they can get furthering their own abilities is viewed as a net positive.
growse 7y ago
> > The criticism towards Google, Apple etc. for minimizing their tax burdens has always been misplaced. > It's a valid criticism if you don't think that "Corporations are supposed to maximize profits" should be true. When anything can be justified because it maximizes profits it becomes very, very easy to be a technically law abiding unethical company which is a net negative on society. Isn't this why society comes together to form a government and pass laws to prevent these sorts of behaviours? Not every corporation will be looking to maximize profits, but they're generally all looking to maximize something typically at the expense of something else. From a selfish perspective, externalising your costs is a good thing.
- javajosh 7y ago
  >Isn't this why society comes together to form a government and pass laws to prevent these sorts of behaviours? No, people form (limited) government to prevent abuse from government. The idea that a company could abuse you in any substantial way (other than fraud, violating contract terms) must have seemed like an edge case (only the East India Company would have been large enough to present such a threat circa 1775). So, maybe your claim would work if you consider companies to be a form of government, which is an entirely defensible position.
  - barrkel 7y ago
    People form governments to set the rules for their society. You don't get to define what is and isn't legitimate government on principles other than democratic consent.
- chongli 7y ago
  Society is made up of human beings, most of whom are affected by emotions like guilt and empathy. Society works best when we are able to assume good faith from all participants. It breaks down when free riders (those unbound by empathy or mores) reach some critical threshold and then everyone loses trust in the system. Have you ever been in a group of friends and played a board game where everyone was playing casually to have a good time, except for that one guy? MtG fans call this type of player Spike [1]. Other gaming circles refer to these players as munchkins and they’ve been immortalized in the card game Munchkin [2]. I think most people have played with someone like this before. Their obsession with winning at all costs ruins the game for everyone else. This is what big corporations are like! They put mom & pop out of business. They drive down wages and destroy the environment. They play one government against the other in order to minimize their taxes while maximizing their subsidies. They are the Spikes of society. We try to fight them with legislation but our laws are always one step behind. If Google is making an announcement like this, you can be sure they’ve found something else that works even better for them. You can’t expect them to give anything away without a fight. [1] https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Player_type#Spike https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Player_type#Spike [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(card_game)
  - growse 7y ago
    > Society is made up of human beings, most of whom are affected by emotions like guilt and empathy. Society works best when we are able to assume good faith from all participants. It breaks down when free riders (those unbound by empathy or mores) reach some critical threshold and then everyone loses trust in the system. Human beings also self-organise and incorporate into groups, which may individually have their own distinct aims. I'm not sure what guilt and empathy have to do with organisations of people though. "Good faith" is also pretty meaningless, as it doesn't really describe any specific behaviour or motivation. What happens when two individuals (or groups) come into conflict trying to optimise their own outcomes "in good faith"? > They play one government against the other in order to minimize their taxes while maximizing their subsidies. They are the Spikes of society. We try to fight them with legislation but our laws are always one step behind. I, as an individual, choose to use a low tax savings scheme to minimize my tax burden. I also make sure to claim every tax credit (or subsidy) that I'm entitled to. Am I a 'spike' in society?
avocado4 7y ago
> technically law abiding unethical company which is a net negative on society. Debatable - capitalism took 7 billion people out of extreme poverty, eradicated diseases, improved literacy, decreased child mortality, and increase life expectancy. All thanks to companies maximizing profits while abiding by the democratically enacted laws.
skybrian 7y ago
Tax avoidance != anything can be justified. You do want clear rules. An extreme case of vagueness would be: pay whatever taxes you want, but we will criticize and punish you until we think you've paid enough. That would be neither efficient nor fair. In video game terms, maybe there should be a convention of not taking advantage of exploits, but it's often unclear what's the intention of a tax rule, so fixing the exploit is better.
sircastor 7y ago
In the US pubicly held corporations have a legal obligation to act in the interests of their shareholders. Not always, but typically this means maximizing revenue as that's how the company provides value to it's owners.
- anticensor 7y ago
  That does not require them to maximise their immediate profit, like they have just about to go bankrupt, though. They should strive to maximise overall return to shareholders.
rayiner 7y ago
I think you can accept that corporations have responsibilities beyond maximizing profits, and still find criticisms of tax minimization to be misplaced. There is nothing inherently ethical or unethical about paying more or less taxes. You should pay the taxes you owe, but the law is what tells you how much you owe. Here, for example, the United States believes it should collect taxes on profits a U.S. company makes on sales in Europe. While that is itself dubiously moral, that's the law. But how can it then be immoral to take advantage of Irish tax laws--which Ireland deliberately adopted to encourage companies to move IP and skilled workers to Ireland--that is also legal under U.S. law?
shadowgovt 7y ago
But replacing "corporations are supposed to maximize profits" with "corporations are supposed to fund the president's trips to his private golf resort" hardly seems like a step in the right direction. Without contextual detail, paying more than the minimum taxes required by law is not necessarily the moral choice.
mam2 7y ago
The world is made a better place with adversarial interactions. Its true even in Machine Learning. Dont expect better from other people if you cant fight for your own ideas.

cracker_jacks 7y ago

How about "corporations are supposed to take advantage of things they can take advantage of to better their position"? If a corporation believes they are a net positive for society, then any advantage they can get furthering their own abilities is viewed as a net positive.

growse 7y ago

> > The criticism towards Google, Apple etc. for minimizing their tax burdens has always been misplaced. > It's a valid criticism if you don't think that "Corporations are supposed to maximize profits" should be true. When anything can be justified because it maximizes profits it becomes very, very easy to be a technically law abiding unethical company which is a net negative on society. Isn't this why society comes together to form a government and pass laws to prevent these sorts of behaviours? Not every corporation will be looking to maximize profits, but they're generally all looking to maximize something typically at the expense of something else. From a selfish perspective, externalising your costs is a good thing.

javajosh 7y ago
>Isn't this why society comes together to form a government and pass laws to prevent these sorts of behaviours? No, people form (limited) government to prevent abuse from government. The idea that a company could abuse you in any substantial way (other than fraud, violating contract terms) must have seemed like an edge case (only the East India Company would have been large enough to present such a threat circa 1775). So, maybe your claim would work if you consider companies to be a form of government, which is an entirely defensible position.
- barrkel 7y ago
  People form governments to set the rules for their society. You don't get to define what is and isn't legitimate government on principles other than democratic consent.
chongli 7y ago
Society is made up of human beings, most of whom are affected by emotions like guilt and empathy. Society works best when we are able to assume good faith from all participants. It breaks down when free riders (those unbound by empathy or mores) reach some critical threshold and then everyone loses trust in the system. Have you ever been in a group of friends and played a board game where everyone was playing casually to have a good time, except for that one guy? MtG fans call this type of player Spike [1]. Other gaming circles refer to these players as munchkins and they’ve been immortalized in the card game Munchkin [2]. I think most people have played with someone like this before. Their obsession with winning at all costs ruins the game for everyone else. This is what big corporations are like! They put mom & pop out of business. They drive down wages and destroy the environment. They play one government against the other in order to minimize their taxes while maximizing their subsidies. They are the Spikes of society. We try to fight them with legislation but our laws are always one step behind. If Google is making an announcement like this, you can be sure they’ve found something else that works even better for them. You can’t expect them to give anything away without a fight. [1] https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Player_type#Spike https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Player_type#Spike [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(card_game)
- growse 7y ago
  > Society is made up of human beings, most of whom are affected by emotions like guilt and empathy. Society works best when we are able to assume good faith from all participants. It breaks down when free riders (those unbound by empathy or mores) reach some critical threshold and then everyone loses trust in the system. Human beings also self-organise and incorporate into groups, which may individually have their own distinct aims. I'm not sure what guilt and empathy have to do with organisations of people though. "Good faith" is also pretty meaningless, as it doesn't really describe any specific behaviour or motivation. What happens when two individuals (or groups) come into conflict trying to optimise their own outcomes "in good faith"? > They play one government against the other in order to minimize their taxes while maximizing their subsidies. They are the Spikes of society. We try to fight them with legislation but our laws are always one step behind. I, as an individual, choose to use a low tax savings scheme to minimize my tax burden. I also make sure to claim every tax credit (or subsidy) that I'm entitled to. Am I a 'spike' in society?

avocado4 7y ago

> technically law abiding unethical company which is a net negative on society. Debatable - capitalism took 7 billion people out of extreme poverty, eradicated diseases, improved literacy, decreased child mortality, and increase life expectancy. All thanks to companies maximizing profits while abiding by the democratically enacted laws.

skybrian 7y ago

Tax avoidance != anything can be justified. You do want clear rules. An extreme case of vagueness would be: pay whatever taxes you want, but we will criticize and punish you until we think you've paid enough. That would be neither efficient nor fair. In video game terms, maybe there should be a convention of not taking advantage of exploits, but it's often unclear what's the intention of a tax rule, so fixing the exploit is better.

sircastor 7y ago

In the US pubicly held corporations have a legal obligation to act in the interests of their shareholders. Not always, but typically this means maximizing revenue as that's how the company provides value to it's owners.

anticensor 7y ago
That does not require them to maximise their immediate profit, like they have just about to go bankrupt, though. They should strive to maximise overall return to shareholders.

rayiner 7y ago

I think you can accept that corporations have responsibilities beyond maximizing profits, and still find criticisms of tax minimization to be misplaced. There is nothing inherently ethical or unethical about paying more or less taxes. You should pay the taxes you owe, but the law is what tells you how much you owe. Here, for example, the United States believes it should collect taxes on profits a U.S. company makes on sales in Europe. While that is itself dubiously moral, that's the law. But how can it then be immoral to take advantage of Irish tax laws--which Ireland deliberately adopted to encourage companies to move IP and skilled workers to Ireland--that is also legal under U.S. law?

shadowgovt 7y ago

But replacing "corporations are supposed to maximize profits" with "corporations are supposed to fund the president's trips to his private golf resort" hardly seems like a step in the right direction. Without contextual detail, paying more than the minimum taxes required by law is not necessarily the moral choice.

mam2 7y ago

The world is made a better place with adversarial interactions. Its true even in Machine Learning. Dont expect better from other people if you cant fight for your own ideas.