6 ms·

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's true that it doesn't make it any less immoral, but at the end of the day companies will seek to lower their costs, a

by BbzzbB 6y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's true that it doesn't make it any less immoral, but at the end of the day companies will seek to lower their costs, after all it is their mission, hence this (major) problem is political and shouldn't depend on corporations good will.

giarc 6y ago
Governments have to close this loophole. A CEO is going to be quickly ousted if they suggest not taking advantage of the well known tactic. For one it means less money in the pockets of shareholders but also reduces the ability to compete if all other companies are paying little to no tax. Until governments step in, nothing will change.
- api 6y ago
  This is the nature of regulation in general. Without it anyone who does shady stuff gains a massive advantage.
sneak 6y ago
Paying the minimum in tax allowed by law to reserve the maximum amount of money possible for pursuing your own social or charitable goals is not immoral. The government is not a charity (indeed, Apple HQ’s government uses some fraction of their tax revenues to conduct mass murder) and to argue that anyone is immoral for not paying more tax than is specified by the law is an argument against the rule of law in society. If you don’t like the laws, take it up with your lawmakers, or with the concept of representative government or democracy in general, NOT those who explicitly comply with the law, and indeed spend millions on staff (and their payroll taxes) to ensure that they do.
- sukilot 6y ago
  > for pursuing your own social or charitable goals is not immoral. Assumption of facts not in evidence.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Lack (or later loss) of those social or charitable goals does not cause the prior act to be (or retroactively become) immoral.
  - sneak 6y ago
    In case there was any doubt: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/us/mackenzie-scott-billion-fortune-bezos.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/us/mackenzie-scott-billio...
- BbzzbB 6y ago
  It outprortionally transfers the cost of doing business to normal taxpayers, even those not interacting with said companies. It swoops local money and hides it in coffers of unrelated countries. I don't blame them for doing it, I blame it on global politics (it will probably require a global response), but it doesn't make it any more moral or damageless, tho I guess it's somewhat subjective.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > It swoops local money and hides it in coffers of unrelated countries. It absolutely does not. Tax revenues (“local money”) are based on the law and the law alone. It’s simply not “local money” if the law does not describe it belonging to that local jurisdiction. The concept of ownership and rights to money are legal ones, and the cash flows are flowing according to the law. You may argue that it goes against the spirit of the idea of tax, but that is simply not documented anywhere and thus could not be complied with precisely even if someone wanted to. Don’t criticize people for obeying the law as written, and certainly don’t criticize them for not voluntarily donating to organizations that like to use their resources to run torture camps and bomb children.
    - BbzzbB 6y ago
      I don't understand why you are adopting this tone, read my message again as you seem to be misinterpreting it. I explicitly mentioned that I am blaming the laws themselves and not the corporations for abiding by them, it is the entire point and premise of the few comments I left on this thread. These laws are at fault for allowing corporations to make money in country X and pays tax for it in country Y, to defend this form of taxation seems boneheaded to me.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Apple plays a shell game with revenue and gets away with it. Shkreli plays a shell game with revenue and has to go to prison. Corporations are people right?
JKCalhoun 6y ago
The problem is political. Corporations have way more money than the rest of is in politics for just this reason. Because, as you say, at the end of the day companies will seek to lower their costs.
- BbzzbB 6y ago
  That's true in the US where corruption is legal, in most other developed nations it is severely limited or forbidden, making it much less rampant and outproportioned. Here in Canada (and I assume many similarly developed countries), stories of corporate donations to political parties are often big enough scandals to make the party lose thereafter. Citizens United v. FEC has to be one of the grossest judicial change a developed country could adopt. I doubt political donation regulations are this loose even in tax havens. It didn't birth the US era of crony politics, but it sure does contribute to cement it. It's up to the people now to tackle these issues. Wikipedia: >The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
  - api 6y ago
    Citizens United is also a threat to national security as it opens the floodgates for foreign money to directly influence American politics to an almost unlimited degree. It may take a constitutional amendment to fix it though.
mhh__ 6y ago
I think it says more about corporation taxes being unfit for purpose than immorality. They clearly don't work with international companies, so it would be better to charge consumption taxes on their products.

by BbzzbB 6y ago

giarc 6y ago

Governments have to close this loophole. A CEO is going to be quickly ousted if they suggest not taking advantage of the well known tactic. For one it means less money in the pockets of shareholders but also reduces the ability to compete if all other companies are paying little to no tax. Until governments step in, nothing will change.

api 6y ago
This is the nature of regulation in general. Without it anyone who does shady stuff gains a massive advantage.

sneak 6y ago

Paying the minimum in tax allowed by law to reserve the maximum amount of money possible for pursuing your own social or charitable goals is not immoral. The government is not a charity (indeed, Apple HQ’s government uses some fraction of their tax revenues to conduct mass murder) and to argue that anyone is immoral for not paying more tax than is specified by the law is an argument against the rule of law in society. If you don’t like the laws, take it up with your lawmakers, or with the concept of representative government or democracy in general, NOT those who explicitly comply with the law, and indeed spend millions on staff (and their payroll taxes) to ensure that they do.

sukilot 6y ago
> for pursuing your own social or charitable goals is not immoral. Assumption of facts not in evidence.
- sneak 6y ago
  Lack (or later loss) of those social or charitable goals does not cause the prior act to be (or retroactively become) immoral.
- sneak 6y ago
  In case there was any doubt: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/us/mackenzie-scott-billion-fortune-bezos.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/us/mackenzie-scott-billio...
BbzzbB 6y ago
It outprortionally transfers the cost of doing business to normal taxpayers, even those not interacting with said companies. It swoops local money and hides it in coffers of unrelated countries. I don't blame them for doing it, I blame it on global politics (it will probably require a global response), but it doesn't make it any more moral or damageless, tho I guess it's somewhat subjective.
- sneak 6y ago
  > It swoops local money and hides it in coffers of unrelated countries. It absolutely does not. Tax revenues (“local money”) are based on the law and the law alone. It’s simply not “local money” if the law does not describe it belonging to that local jurisdiction. The concept of ownership and rights to money are legal ones, and the cash flows are flowing according to the law. You may argue that it goes against the spirit of the idea of tax, but that is simply not documented anywhere and thus could not be complied with precisely even if someone wanted to. Don’t criticize people for obeying the law as written, and certainly don’t criticize them for not voluntarily donating to organizations that like to use their resources to run torture camps and bomb children.
  - BbzzbB 6y ago
    I don't understand why you are adopting this tone, read my message again as you seem to be misinterpreting it. I explicitly mentioned that I am blaming the laws themselves and not the corporations for abiding by them, it is the entire point and premise of the few comments I left on this thread. These laws are at fault for allowing corporations to make money in country X and pays tax for it in country Y, to defend this form of taxation seems boneheaded to me.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Apple plays a shell game with revenue and gets away with it. Shkreli plays a shell game with revenue and has to go to prison. Corporations are people right?

JKCalhoun 6y ago

The problem is political. Corporations have way more money than the rest of is in politics for just this reason. Because, as you say, at the end of the day companies will seek to lower their costs.

BbzzbB 6y ago
That's true in the US where corruption is legal, in most other developed nations it is severely limited or forbidden, making it much less rampant and outproportioned. Here in Canada (and I assume many similarly developed countries), stories of corporate donations to political parties are often big enough scandals to make the party lose thereafter. Citizens United v. FEC has to be one of the grossest judicial change a developed country could adopt. I doubt political donation regulations are this loose even in tax havens. It didn't birth the US era of crony politics, but it sure does contribute to cement it. It's up to the people now to tackle these issues. Wikipedia: >The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
- api 6y ago
  Citizens United is also a threat to national security as it opens the floodgates for foreign money to directly influence American politics to an almost unlimited degree. It may take a constitutional amendment to fix it though.

mhh__ 6y ago

I think it says more about corporation taxes being unfit for purpose than immorality. They clearly don't work with international companies, so it would be better to charge consumption taxes on their products.