3 ms·

>I hate how this story is always framed as the fault of evil TurboTax/Intuit. They are simply lobbying for their continued existence. Fascinating way to refram

>I hate how this story is always framed as the fault of evil TurboTax/Intuit. They are simply lobbying for their continued existence. Fascinating way to reframe this as a natural survival instinct of...checks notes... a corporate entity. An entity that exists at the government's pleasure, and whose charter can be revoked by said government. Let's reframe your own logic: > The real villains of this story are the politicians who TurtboTax/Intuit have successfully lobbied. The politicians did nothing illegal by accepting the lobbying on behalf of TurboTax, after all. Under what rule or law would you punish them? Surely you can not fault politicians for earning money to continue to survive in politics, no? You can go in circles with this kind of thinking. Instead, we should look at outcomes. What do we want to happen with taxes? Ideally the government sends you pre-filled paperwork. Who is opposing this outcome? Intuit. Hence they are villians.

slg 4y ago
>The politicians did nothing illegal by accepting the lobbying on behalf of TurboTax, after all. Under what rule or law would you punish them? Surely you can not fault politicians for earning money to continue to survive in politics, no? First off, I never said anything about a legal punishment. Secondly, politicians are ostensibly supposed to act for the good of their constituents. Corporations are motivated to act for the good of their shareholders. In this situation TurboTax/Intuit is operating as it is expected/supposed to act while the politicians are not.
- Afforess 4y ago
  I'm confused why you are holding politicians to a standard that you are unwilling to apply to corporate entities, who serve politicians explicitly via the government and their corporate charter. Either both are acting according to their interests and we should examine outcomes, or neither are, and the system is broken.
  - slg 4y ago
    Because the corporations are acting amorally while the politicians are acting immorally. Corporations are not obligated to better society. Politicians are. The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility. The politicians are ignoring something that is within their responsibility.
    - Afforess 4y ago
      I think this is where you erred in your reasoning: > The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility. Intuit is actively lobbying about tax preparation, ergo it is their responsibility, ergo they can be judged for their actions on it. In general you are correct, in the specifics here, you are incorrect.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      "Corporations" don't act. The people who manage them do. These acts are not amoral; they have real consequences for real people, and need to be judged as such. Corporations may not be obliged to better society, but it is entirely reasonable for me to look upon them unfavorably when their management intentionally and knowingly takes actions that make life worse for most people. It is very strange that you believe that an entity can engage with a government but then be absolved of all responsibility for the outcome of that engagement.
    - lostdog 4y ago
      Making the world worse so you can benefit is *evil*. It's evil when individuals do it, and it's evil when corporations do it. It doesn't matter that a certain choice is better for the corporation. It's still immoral for the corporation to harm people.
      - slg 4y ago
        This weekend I drove to the beach when I could have just sat in my house all day. I personally benefitted by receiving a relaxing afternoon at the expense of creating extra pollution for everyone else on the planet to deal with. By your definition that is evil and therefore we are all evil.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"this as a natural survival instinct of... checks notes ... a corporate entity" There is no need for the glib "checks notes" snark on a forum like this. I feel like it undermines the argument and makes the post come across as adversarial rather than constructive.

slg 4y ago

>The politicians did nothing illegal by accepting the lobbying on behalf of TurboTax, after all. Under what rule or law would you punish them? Surely you can not fault politicians for earning money to continue to survive in politics, no? First off, I never said anything about a legal punishment. Secondly, politicians are ostensibly supposed to act for the good of their constituents. Corporations are motivated to act for the good of their shareholders. In this situation TurboTax/Intuit is operating as it is expected/supposed to act while the politicians are not.

Afforess 4y ago
I'm confused why you are holding politicians to a standard that you are unwilling to apply to corporate entities, who serve politicians explicitly via the government and their corporate charter. Either both are acting according to their interests and we should examine outcomes, or neither are, and the system is broken.
- slg 4y ago
  Because the corporations are acting amorally while the politicians are acting immorally. Corporations are not obligated to better society. Politicians are. The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility. The politicians are ignoring something that is within their responsibility.
  - Afforess 4y ago
    I think this is where you erred in your reasoning: > The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility. Intuit is actively lobbying about tax preparation, ergo it is their responsibility, ergo they can be judged for their actions on it. In general you are correct, in the specifics here, you are incorrect.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    "Corporations" don't act. The people who manage them do. These acts are not amoral; they have real consequences for real people, and need to be judged as such. Corporations may not be obliged to better society, but it is entirely reasonable for me to look upon them unfavorably when their management intentionally and knowingly takes actions that make life worse for most people. It is very strange that you believe that an entity can engage with a government but then be absolved of all responsibility for the outcome of that engagement.
  - lostdog 4y ago
    Making the world worse so you can benefit is *evil*. It's evil when individuals do it, and it's evil when corporations do it. It doesn't matter that a certain choice is better for the corporation. It's still immoral for the corporation to harm people.
    - slg 4y ago
      This weekend I drove to the beach when I could have just sat in my house all day. I personally benefitted by receiving a relaxing afternoon at the expense of creating extra pollution for everyone else on the planet to deal with. By your definition that is evil and therefore we are all evil.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>"this as a natural survival instinct of... checks notes ... a corporate entity" There is no need for the glib "checks notes" snark on a forum like this. I feel like it undermines the argument and makes the post come across as adversarial rather than constructive.