3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.