5 ms·

It seems to me absolutely ethical. Any country can make whatever tax laws they want to get an advantage over other countries. If the EU and its population want

It seems to me absolutely ethical. Any country can make whatever tax laws they want to get an advantage over other countries. If the EU and its population want to ban this practice, they should reorganize the tax laws.

anoncareer0212 6y ago
The ethical problem here is the consequence of the same game theory you're citing as a solution - the next country can always cut taxes more
- bagacrap 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I still don't see the ethical implications. Is universally lower taxation inherently unethical?
  - mrlala 6y ago
    >Is universally lower taxation inherently unethical? When services that take care of people depend on taxes then yeah lower taxation without a backup is inherently unethical.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      Efficacy of these services is not a given relative to low tax + charity. Additionally, lower government revenue should require cuts from other areas first, like military and corporate subsidies. We shouldn’t accept that any of the supposedly missing Apple tax revenue should affect the poor or uneducated. To threaten such seems unethical.
      - mrlala 6y ago
        Not sure how you sleep at night with logic like that, but ok.
        1123581321 6y ago
        We should each be able to disagree, and even consider the views of the other to have harmful consequences, and still live contentedly.
        anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Frankly, your argument is nonsensical, if you have something past tone policing your own conclusions, it'd be helpful. Currently we're stuck at figuring out how an infinite prisoner's dilemma leads to an outcome that caps losses to one agent, and the cap somehow falls below "things we don't need to do" or around "things we have to do"
        1123581321 6y ago
        I apologize for the confusion. There are two situations. The argument is that if human services are important enough that reducing service is unethical, and a government also provides other services that do not meet that standard, then in the event of revenue reduction, those other services should be reduced before human services. This specifically has to do with the Irish situation the link is about: corporate tax from externally derived revenue. Additionally, human services are not necessarily best provided by governments, so in a situation where all corporate tax revenue were reduced, meaning more money to be allocated by shareholders and employees, and human services budgets were reduced commensurately, charity would make up for it, or more than make up for it. This applies to a potential case of internally-derived (internal to the EU) corporate tax revenue being generally reduced. I realize you will disagree strongly/viscerally with both points. That’s okay. I also stand by my belief that we can all strongly disagree and still extend goodwill to each other, even if you don’t find that attitude helpful.
        splintercell 6y ago
        These kinds of comments don't belong to HN.
    - bodono 6y ago
      Seems like Ireland is doing fine, it's one of the best places to live in the world. So it is ethical then, by your argument. By the way, in case anyone claims that the tax revenue was 'stolen' from other countries- it's not up to the Irish government to charge higher taxes in order to subsidize other countries services (be it directly or by presenting itself as more expensive tax-wise than it needs to be).
- zanny 6y ago
  Its on the sovereign authority of other nations to sanction or place tariffs upon international actors they deem harmful. If the US doesn't like Irelands tax policy ban US companies from setting up Irish subsidiaries. A lot of this just comes down to the will of the people not being represented in their governments though, but thats just simply a bigger problem to deal with first before the cascade of other symptomatic issues of that root cause can be addressed.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I don't think most people attribute a moral value to the amount of taxes you pay
avianlyric 6y ago
The EU has, it has some very strong rules/laws that prevent many forms of state aid (frequently brought up as a reason why countries should leave the EU). These rules/laws are given force via international treaties signed when countries join the EU, including Ireland. The EU are say that Ireland’s laws break these EU treaties, and are thus invalid. There’s probably some valid questions regarding why the EU acted now, and not previously. But ultimately if those treaties has provide no time limit on enforcement, then the EU is free to pursue remediation whenever it wants. Today, tomorrow or two decades time.
- anonymousDan 6y ago
  Well no, the EU just lost the case. Taxation is not an EU competency. The court case was about whether Ireland gave taxation opportunities to Apple that were unavailable to other companies, which was shown to not be the case.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Specifically the case was whether or not the tax benefits provided can be considered a form of state aid, clearly EU courts don’t think they can. But I suspect that the EU commission will appeal this ruling, and maybe they’ll win the appeal. If the current tax situation is anything to go by, no government anywhere is competent at taxing multi-nationals. The US made loud noises about the EU trying to force Ireland to tax Apple, but only because the US wants the tax revenue instead, but even the US hasn’t figured out how it’ll actually get Apple to pay more tax.
LockAndLol 6y ago
This is like saying a kid is murdering rabbits from the family garden in their room and since nobody said it was wrong, it's right - until the family tells them it's not. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  I don't see how the situations are alike. Corporate taxes and tax laws in general vary wildly among countries without being condemned as a violation of human rights or animal abuse.
yashap 6y ago
My view is: - It makes sense for governments to provide healthcare, education, police, the military, welfare for the elderly/poor/disabled, basic infrastructure like electricity, water, etc. These things don't tend to work well when privatized, and humanity has advanced to the point where we have sufficient productivity/technological advances that we can (and should) provide these things for everyone - These things are expensive, extensive taxes are required to pay for them - I believe progressive taxation is the most reasonable way to pay for these things. The poor pay next to no taxes, and as you get wealthier, a greater percentage of that wealth gets taxed, because you get less marginal benefit from it anyways. Jeff Bezos has a net worth of ~$180 billion. Apple has a cash reserves of ~$250 billion. Take $100 billion from either of them, and there's virtually no impact on the person or corporation. Raise those same taxes from ONE MILLION middle class individuals and small business ($100,000 each), and you utterly destroy those MILLION individuals/small-businesses. Tax revenue must come from somewhere, more of it should come from the uber-wealthy - There are many forms of taxes, but ultimately they're almost all paid by individuals and businesses. For the lower, middle, and "normal" upper classes, as well as small to reasonably large businesses, progressive taxation is a reality. Those with the ability to pay more, do pay more - However, for the uber-wealthy individuals and businesses, those with almost unimaginable wealth, they have the power and influence to literally alter the law for their own benefit. They use this power/influence to pay near-zero tax. But the services of government still need to be paid for, so it comes from everyone else, for whom taxes are actually a big deal, instead of the insanely wealthy, who could easily afford to pay massive taxes with basically no impact, but prefer to be even more insanely wealthy When the altering of laws to favour the uber-wealthy happens through pure corruption (like literally paying off lawmakers, behind closed doors), it's obviously unethical. When it happens through more legalized corruption, like making big donations to political candidates, then using your position of influence to change laws, I think most agree this is still unethical. It's a bit more arguable when it happens via one country enabling gaping tax evasion, for the benefit of that country, at the cost of all other countries. From my point of view, it's nearly as bad - you're helping the richest of the rich evade taxes, normal people and smaller businesses are burdened with higher tax load to make up for it, and it's done for the good of a few over the good of the many. The scale is different, one-country vs. all-other-countries, instead of few-citizens vs. all-other-citizens, or few-businesses vs. all-other-businesses, but the impact is similar. The selfishness of a few leads to tax loopholes for the richest of the rich, and everyone else pays for it. Obviously, the fight to close tax loopholes for the uber-wealthy is a tough one - they're so powerful, and they only have to win over a handful of lawmakers to evade taxes. But it's a fight worth fighting, IMO. The status quo, where the uber-wealthy pay minimal taxes, and the tax burden falls on everyone else, is leading to excessive wealth inequality, that is only growing over time.

anoncareer0212 6y ago

The ethical problem here is the consequence of the same game theory you're citing as a solution - the next country can always cut taxes more

bagacrap 6y ago
I'm sorry, I still don't see the ethical implications. Is universally lower taxation inherently unethical?
- mrlala 6y ago
  >Is universally lower taxation inherently unethical? When services that take care of people depend on taxes then yeah lower taxation without a backup is inherently unethical.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    Efficacy of these services is not a given relative to low tax + charity. Additionally, lower government revenue should require cuts from other areas first, like military and corporate subsidies. We shouldn’t accept that any of the supposedly missing Apple tax revenue should affect the poor or uneducated. To threaten such seems unethical.
    - mrlala 6y ago
      Not sure how you sleep at night with logic like that, but ok.
      - 1123581321 6y ago
        We should each be able to disagree, and even consider the views of the other to have harmful consequences, and still live contentedly.
        anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Frankly, your argument is nonsensical, if you have something past tone policing your own conclusions, it'd be helpful. Currently we're stuck at figuring out how an infinite prisoner's dilemma leads to an outcome that caps losses to one agent, and the cap somehow falls below "things we don't need to do" or around "things we have to do"
        1123581321 6y ago
        I apologize for the confusion. There are two situations. The argument is that if human services are important enough that reducing service is unethical, and a government also provides other services that do not meet that standard, then in the event of revenue reduction, those other services should be reduced before human services. This specifically has to do with the Irish situation the link is about: corporate tax from externally derived revenue. Additionally, human services are not necessarily best provided by governments, so in a situation where all corporate tax revenue were reduced, meaning more money to be allocated by shareholders and employees, and human services budgets were reduced commensurately, charity would make up for it, or more than make up for it. This applies to a potential case of internally-derived (internal to the EU) corporate tax revenue being generally reduced. I realize you will disagree strongly/viscerally with both points. That’s okay. I also stand by my belief that we can all strongly disagree and still extend goodwill to each other, even if you don’t find that attitude helpful.
      - splintercell 6y ago
        These kinds of comments don't belong to HN.
  - bodono 6y ago
    Seems like Ireland is doing fine, it's one of the best places to live in the world. So it is ethical then, by your argument. By the way, in case anyone claims that the tax revenue was 'stolen' from other countries- it's not up to the Irish government to charge higher taxes in order to subsidize other countries services (be it directly or by presenting itself as more expensive tax-wise than it needs to be).
zanny 6y ago
Its on the sovereign authority of other nations to sanction or place tariffs upon international actors they deem harmful. If the US doesn't like Irelands tax policy ban US companies from setting up Irish subsidiaries. A lot of this just comes down to the will of the people not being represented in their governments though, but thats just simply a bigger problem to deal with first before the cascade of other symptomatic issues of that root cause can be addressed.
missedthecue 6y ago
I don't think most people attribute a moral value to the amount of taxes you pay

avianlyric 6y ago

The EU has, it has some very strong rules/laws that prevent many forms of state aid (frequently brought up as a reason why countries should leave the EU). These rules/laws are given force via international treaties signed when countries join the EU, including Ireland. The EU are say that Ireland’s laws break these EU treaties, and are thus invalid. There’s probably some valid questions regarding why the EU acted now, and not previously. But ultimately if those treaties has provide no time limit on enforcement, then the EU is free to pursue remediation whenever it wants. Today, tomorrow or two decades time.

anonymousDan 6y ago
Well no, the EU just lost the case. Taxation is not an EU competency. The court case was about whether Ireland gave taxation opportunities to Apple that were unavailable to other companies, which was shown to not be the case.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Specifically the case was whether or not the tax benefits provided can be considered a form of state aid, clearly EU courts don’t think they can. But I suspect that the EU commission will appeal this ruling, and maybe they’ll win the appeal. If the current tax situation is anything to go by, no government anywhere is competent at taxing multi-nationals. The US made loud noises about the EU trying to force Ireland to tax Apple, but only because the US wants the tax revenue instead, but even the US hasn’t figured out how it’ll actually get Apple to pay more tax.

LockAndLol 6y ago

This is like saying a kid is murdering rabbits from the family garden in their room and since nobody said it was wrong, it's right - until the family tells them it's not. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
I don't see how the situations are alike. Corporate taxes and tax laws in general vary wildly among countries without being condemned as a violation of human rights or animal abuse.

yashap 6y ago

My view is: - It makes sense for governments to provide healthcare, education, police, the military, welfare for the elderly/poor/disabled, basic infrastructure like electricity, water, etc. These things don't tend to work well when privatized, and humanity has advanced to the point where we have sufficient productivity/technological advances that we can (and should) provide these things for everyone - These things are expensive, extensive taxes are required to pay for them - I believe progressive taxation is the most reasonable way to pay for these things. The poor pay next to no taxes, and as you get wealthier, a greater percentage of that wealth gets taxed, because you get less marginal benefit from it anyways. Jeff Bezos has a net worth of ~$180 billion. Apple has a cash reserves of ~$250 billion. Take $100 billion from either of them, and there's virtually no impact on the person or corporation. Raise those same taxes from ONE MILLION middle class individuals and small business ($100,000 each), and you utterly destroy those MILLION individuals/small-businesses. Tax revenue must come from somewhere, more of it should come from the uber-wealthy - There are many forms of taxes, but ultimately they're almost all paid by individuals and businesses. For the lower, middle, and "normal" upper classes, as well as small to reasonably large businesses, progressive taxation is a reality. Those with the ability to pay more, do pay more - However, for the uber-wealthy individuals and businesses, those with almost unimaginable wealth, they have the power and influence to literally alter the law for their own benefit. They use this power/influence to pay near-zero tax. But the services of government still need to be paid for, so it comes from everyone else, for whom taxes are actually a big deal, instead of the insanely wealthy, who could easily afford to pay massive taxes with basically no impact, but prefer to be even more insanely wealthy When the altering of laws to favour the uber-wealthy happens through pure corruption (like literally paying off lawmakers, behind closed doors), it's obviously unethical. When it happens through more legalized corruption, like making big donations to political candidates, then using your position of influence to change laws, I think most agree this is still unethical. It's a bit more arguable when it happens via one country enabling gaping tax evasion, for the benefit of that country, at the cost of all other countries. From my point of view, it's nearly as bad - you're helping the richest of the rich evade taxes, normal people and smaller businesses are burdened with higher tax load to make up for it, and it's done for the good of a few over the good of the many. The scale is different, one-country vs. all-other-countries, instead of few-citizens vs. all-other-citizens, or few-businesses vs. all-other-businesses, but the impact is similar. The selfishness of a few leads to tax loopholes for the richest of the rich, and everyone else pays for it. Obviously, the fight to close tax loopholes for the uber-wealthy is a tough one - they're so powerful, and they only have to win over a handful of lawmakers to evade taxes. But it's a fight worth fighting, IMO. The status quo, where the uber-wealthy pay minimal taxes, and the tax burden falls on everyone else, is leading to excessive wealth inequality, that is only growing over time.