5 ms·

He should be forced to abide by the laws while he lives or does business here. But if he wants to live in a new place by a new set of laws in the future, I'm no

He should be forced to abide by the laws while he lives or does business here. But if he wants to live in a new place by a new set of laws in the future, I'm not sure what's wrong with that. It seems more like you regret the laws in the US during the decades he was here, and you are hoping future changes in the law will retroactively address your concerns. But I see no moral basis for that stance. If we want to change the law, we should be forced to consider the effects on the future, and whether those laws will negatively impact the wealth created in the future. If we start going back and seizing wealth from the past, that will give us a false sense that the laws are working, until the old money runs out and we look around and don't see anyone creating new wealth.

addicted 6y ago
The problem is benefiting from the advantages a system gives you, and then using those same benefits to deny others who are seeking those same advantages. Like Paul Ryan who basically made it where he did thanks to US social services but did everything he could while in power to decimate those very services he himself relied upon now that he no longer needed them.
sonotathrowaway 6y ago
> “I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate,” Schmidt told one interviewer in 2012. “It’s called capitalism.” As much as I enjoy watching people dissemble while describing their true actions, there’s not really anyone naive enough to believe Schmidt didn’t actively create the rules google currently operates under, is there? Maybe he really was just a bystander in his company as it poured millions of dollars into lobbying the American government and he was powerless to stop them. Or maybe he though the lobbying did nothing and he thought wasting money was a good thing. Or he’s just lying and hopes people don’t acknowledge that there were maybe half a dozen people who had more power to shape the laws and regulations he operated under. But trying to just pass himself off as an uninvolved observer just rings thoroughly disingenuous.
- chmod600 6y ago
  That's a different line of reasoning, and it falls under the category of "regret the previous laws". The solution for the future is to try to harder to make good laws in the present rather than somehow retroactively change the past.
  - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
    I don’t advocate for trying to retroactively pass laws, as that is just mob rule. But to be one of the most powerful lobbying efforts in the country (in 2017, the single largest), while simultaneously claiming to be a helpless observer inside said system is hard for me to take seriously. His response was a claim that his behavior is socially acceptable and not tax avoidance (and thus would continue), whereas I’m saying this behavior is tax avoidance and should be labeled as such, and he’s well aware of how unpopular his opinion is and how much he invests from stopping reforms that would align the legal definition closer to the layman’s conception of tax avoidance.
idrios 6y ago
Morality != Legality! No sane person is advocating for ex post facto laws but it's wrong even if it's not illegal. He's been given every opportunity in life, accrued a net worth equal to the sum of 140,000 median Americans, then gives barely any of it back and apparently may flee to dodge being taxed on it. > If we want to change the law, we should be forced to consider the effects on the future Of course. This is why it's taken so long to come up with laws that prevent the kind of exploitation that creates a couple dozen billionaires while stagnating the majority of America's incomes. It's morality that drives the lawmaking -- since everyone has different morals and we all live under the same laws -- and at least if everyone hates the guy for this then hopefully we see some laws that prevent more behavior like this in the future.

addicted 6y ago

The problem is benefiting from the advantages a system gives you, and then using those same benefits to deny others who are seeking those same advantages. Like Paul Ryan who basically made it where he did thanks to US social services but did everything he could while in power to decimate those very services he himself relied upon now that he no longer needed them.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago

> “I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate,” Schmidt told one interviewer in 2012. “It’s called capitalism.” As much as I enjoy watching people dissemble while describing their true actions, there’s not really anyone naive enough to believe Schmidt didn’t actively create the rules google currently operates under, is there? Maybe he really was just a bystander in his company as it poured millions of dollars into lobbying the American government and he was powerless to stop them. Or maybe he though the lobbying did nothing and he thought wasting money was a good thing. Or he’s just lying and hopes people don’t acknowledge that there were maybe half a dozen people who had more power to shape the laws and regulations he operated under. But trying to just pass himself off as an uninvolved observer just rings thoroughly disingenuous.

chmod600 6y ago
That's a different line of reasoning, and it falls under the category of "regret the previous laws". The solution for the future is to try to harder to make good laws in the present rather than somehow retroactively change the past.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  I don’t advocate for trying to retroactively pass laws, as that is just mob rule. But to be one of the most powerful lobbying efforts in the country (in 2017, the single largest), while simultaneously claiming to be a helpless observer inside said system is hard for me to take seriously. His response was a claim that his behavior is socially acceptable and not tax avoidance (and thus would continue), whereas I’m saying this behavior is tax avoidance and should be labeled as such, and he’s well aware of how unpopular his opinion is and how much he invests from stopping reforms that would align the legal definition closer to the layman’s conception of tax avoidance.

idrios 6y ago

Morality != Legality! No sane person is advocating for ex post facto laws but it's wrong even if it's not illegal. He's been given every opportunity in life, accrued a net worth equal to the sum of 140,000 median Americans, then gives barely any of it back and apparently may flee to dodge being taxed on it. > If we want to change the law, we should be forced to consider the effects on the future Of course. This is why it's taken so long to come up with laws that prevent the kind of exploitation that creates a couple dozen billionaires while stagnating the majority of America's incomes. It's morality that drives the lawmaking -- since everyone has different morals and we all live under the same laws -- and at least if everyone hates the guy for this then hopefully we see some laws that prevent more behavior like this in the future.