7 ms·

Taxes pay for all sorts of things in society. They pay for childhood education, they build roads, they pay for services like fire departments. If you don't pay

Taxes pay for all sorts of things in society. They pay for childhood education, they build roads, they pay for services like fire departments. If you don't pay taxes, then it wouldn't really be fair for you to be sending your kids to public schools, driving on roads to get around, or calling the fire department when your house is burning down, since you haven't contributed anything to their upkeep.

imgabe 5y ago
So the people earning $20k per year who don't pay any taxes shouldn't get to send their kids to public schools?
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  That is pretty obviously not what the parent is talking about. The context here is tax avoidance, i.e., avoidance by those financially able to pay. This has nothing to do with those whom the government has exempted due to limited financial means. Policy debates aside, I don't think many people will seriously argue such people have an individual ethical responsibility to pay taxes.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    If the government exempts you from paying taxes for low income that’s ok, but if the government exempts you from taxes for performing some kind of behavior they want to incentivize (like reinvesting company profits instead of paying them to shareholders) or structuring your company in a certain way, then you’re supposed to ignore that exemption and pay taxes anyway?
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      You're leaving out the part where corporations lobby relentlessly and effectively for the tax loopholes that best suit them. The structure and implementation of corporate taxes in the USA strikes me as needlessly complicated and corrupt, and I think corporate influence over the tax code is deeply unethical in many ways. At the same time, I wouldn't tell any individual or company that they're ethically obligated to forgo tax relief that's legally available to them. These two things are not in contradiction.
      - imgabe 5y ago
        > corporate influence over the tax code is deeply unethical in many ways. It is problematic in that corporations have a lot more resources to bring to bear than the average person does. I don't find it unethical though. People have a right to express their concerns to the government and advocate for their interests, even if those people group themselves together into a legal entity such as a corporation. It would be more unethical to single out certain groups of people and say "everyone else is allowed to talk to the government and advocate for their interests, but you are not". Edit to add: It's the government's job to listen to everybody's concerns and balance the interests of different groups against each other. If we're unhappy with the job they're doing, we should elect a different government that will do a better job, not just silence groups we don't like. They are not passive elements in this who are just helplessly acted on by outside forces.
        nate_meurer 5y ago
        > everyone else is allowed to talk to the government and advocate for their interests, but you are not In practice, this is exactly the problem with revolving-door politics and regulatory capture. > we should elect a different government that will do a better job Agreed, and I would add that one of the most important functions of journalism like the OP is to inform the voters about these situations.
        sarakayakomzin 5y ago
        >I don't find it unethical though. People have a right to express their concerns to the government and advocate for their interests, even if those people group themselves together into a legal entity such as a corporation. People still have the power to do so individually, but a corporation isn't democratically organized.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        So you are saying lobbying by these companies is unethical? Is all lobbying unethical?
alfl 5y ago
For example, given that Google successfully litigated the Oracle Java API copyright case in the public court system, it seems that it gains advantages from public institutions. Simple reciprocity indicates that they should support institutions from which they benefit. Mutatis mutandis for, eg, roads so that employees can get to work, etc.
- leephillips 5y ago
  But the employees pay taxes on their salaries. And Google’s corporate profit is taxed through taxes on dividends imposed on shareholders. The only tax that Google can evade is the double taxation on profits that will be taxed again when distributed. Although it is true that this tax rate is lower than income tax.
  - andromeduck 5y ago
    Just like with income taxes - it doesn't change the tax wedge at equalibrium but it feels better and that's what's important. It's like going to a store where everything is eternally 40% off.
  - alfl 5y ago
    Google has never paid a dividend. “Double taxation” refers to taxation post distribution not prior (source: I was a corporate tax accountant). Finally, “evasion” is illegal. “Avoidance” is a legal tax strategy.
mindvirus 5y ago
Those taxes also pay for guns and missiles and much worse stuff. Is it ethical to pay for these things? The point that the parent is making is that there's a legal obligation to pay taxes, but it's not an ethical one - the government says what you owe, and you pay that. It's muddied by companies lobbying to set the laws, but I would have to agree paying taxes the laws say you owe is not an ethical question.
gher-shyu3i 5y ago
> Taxes pay for all sorts of things in society. They pay for childhood education, they build roads, they pay for services like fire departments. What's the government doing by just collecting its citizens hard earned money? It should also invest in companies and other ventures and make its own money. It also has natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.) at its disposal. Only if those are not enough can it ask its citizens to pitch in.

imgabe 5y ago

So the people earning $20k per year who don't pay any taxes shouldn't get to send their kids to public schools?

nate_meurer 5y ago
That is pretty obviously not what the parent is talking about. The context here is tax avoidance, i.e., avoidance by those financially able to pay. This has nothing to do with those whom the government has exempted due to limited financial means. Policy debates aside, I don't think many people will seriously argue such people have an individual ethical responsibility to pay taxes.
- imgabe 5y ago
  If the government exempts you from paying taxes for low income that’s ok, but if the government exempts you from taxes for performing some kind of behavior they want to incentivize (like reinvesting company profits instead of paying them to shareholders) or structuring your company in a certain way, then you’re supposed to ignore that exemption and pay taxes anyway?
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    You're leaving out the part where corporations lobby relentlessly and effectively for the tax loopholes that best suit them. The structure and implementation of corporate taxes in the USA strikes me as needlessly complicated and corrupt, and I think corporate influence over the tax code is deeply unethical in many ways. At the same time, I wouldn't tell any individual or company that they're ethically obligated to forgo tax relief that's legally available to them. These two things are not in contradiction.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      > corporate influence over the tax code is deeply unethical in many ways. It is problematic in that corporations have a lot more resources to bring to bear than the average person does. I don't find it unethical though. People have a right to express their concerns to the government and advocate for their interests, even if those people group themselves together into a legal entity such as a corporation. It would be more unethical to single out certain groups of people and say "everyone else is allowed to talk to the government and advocate for their interests, but you are not". Edit to add: It's the government's job to listen to everybody's concerns and balance the interests of different groups against each other. If we're unhappy with the job they're doing, we should elect a different government that will do a better job, not just silence groups we don't like. They are not passive elements in this who are just helplessly acted on by outside forces.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        > everyone else is allowed to talk to the government and advocate for their interests, but you are not In practice, this is exactly the problem with revolving-door politics and regulatory capture. > we should elect a different government that will do a better job Agreed, and I would add that one of the most important functions of journalism like the OP is to inform the voters about these situations.
      - sarakayakomzin 5y ago
        >I don't find it unethical though. People have a right to express their concerns to the government and advocate for their interests, even if those people group themselves together into a legal entity such as a corporation. People still have the power to do so individually, but a corporation isn't democratically organized.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      So you are saying lobbying by these companies is unethical? Is all lobbying unethical?

alfl 5y ago

For example, given that Google successfully litigated the Oracle Java API copyright case in the public court system, it seems that it gains advantages from public institutions. Simple reciprocity indicates that they should support institutions from which they benefit. Mutatis mutandis for, eg, roads so that employees can get to work, etc.

leephillips 5y ago
But the employees pay taxes on their salaries. And Google’s corporate profit is taxed through taxes on dividends imposed on shareholders. The only tax that Google can evade is the double taxation on profits that will be taxed again when distributed. Although it is true that this tax rate is lower than income tax.
- andromeduck 5y ago
  Just like with income taxes - it doesn't change the tax wedge at equalibrium but it feels better and that's what's important. It's like going to a store where everything is eternally 40% off.
- alfl 5y ago
  Google has never paid a dividend. “Double taxation” refers to taxation post distribution not prior (source: I was a corporate tax accountant). Finally, “evasion” is illegal. “Avoidance” is a legal tax strategy.

mindvirus 5y ago

Those taxes also pay for guns and missiles and much worse stuff. Is it ethical to pay for these things? The point that the parent is making is that there's a legal obligation to pay taxes, but it's not an ethical one - the government says what you owe, and you pay that. It's muddied by companies lobbying to set the laws, but I would have to agree paying taxes the laws say you owe is not an ethical question.

gher-shyu3i 5y ago

> Taxes pay for all sorts of things in society. They pay for childhood education, they build roads, they pay for services like fire departments. What's the government doing by just collecting its citizens hard earned money? It should also invest in companies and other ventures and make its own money. It also has natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.) at its disposal. Only if those are not enough can it ask its citizens to pitch in.