6 ms·

I'd say that you do have a moral obligation to pay taxes, regardless of the legal facts.

by shardling 14y ago

jacques_chester 14y ago
Why?
- shardling 14y ago
  To support the very civilization you benefit from.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    I get it, necessary evil, all that jazz. But the question is not: Should taxes be levied? It is: Is it immoral to pay only what the law requires?
    - Nursie 14y ago
      I would say: That depends on how hard you're trying to work around it. If you're shifting profits around the globe deliberately to avoid taxes in the places you generated those profits - yes. Other people will draw the line in different places, as demonstrated by the comments here!
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Every purchase I can justifiably put through my Pty Ltd company, I do so, to minimise the amount of tax I pay. Is that categorically different?
        Nursie 14y ago
        IMHO, yes. I'm in a similar situation. Things the company needs (justifiably) the company buys. I consider it very different to using accounting tricks to make profits disappear out of the country entirely, based on bogus internal charging.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        I disagree. The point is that you have to define "where" the profit was made. In an international environment that's pretty close to insensible (especially since the naive interpretation of profit to the lay person is gross profit). And I still think that morally there isn't a categorical difference between minimising tax by spending money and minimising tax by ... spending money.
        Nursie 14y ago
        "The point is that you have to define "where" the profit was made. In an international environment that's pretty close to insensible" Not in the case of a bricks n' mortar business like Starbucks it ain't! "And I still think that morally there isn't a categorical difference between minimising tax by spending money and minimising tax by ... spending money." And I don't see what 'by spending money' has to do with anything.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > Not in the case of a bricks n' mortar business like Starbucks it ain't! Well, two things. First: VAT is designed to capture tax from this exact scenario. Secondly: 1. The beans are bought from Switzerland. 2. The sale is made in High Street. Now, to calculate gross profit, deduct Cost of Goods Sold from the Sales. But: COGS was established in Switzerland. Sales in Britain. If you calculate profit as if COGS was established in Britain, you beggar Switzerland. If you calculate it the other way around, you beggar Britain. Switzerland has more favourable tax rates. So Starbucks, completely legally, arrange their affairs so that the COGS is done in Switzerland. Otherwise they'd buy from British bean middlemen. Why is it Switzerland's problem that Britain has the higher tax rates?
        Nursie 14y ago
        Well the beans never actually go to Switzerland, and the bean dealership seems to be there specifically as a tax dodge so... again, morally (as we're talking about here) I'm not sure what the issue is. It comes down to this - Starbucks operate a chain of coffee shops in the UK. They report to their shareholders that their UK division is a profitable enterprise, they report to the HMRC that it's a loss-maker. Somewhere in between there is probably the truth, and it's that truth the UK should be taxing on. Why should Starbuck, simply because it is a multinational, enjoy tax breaks that a local/national business does not get? --edit-- I realise that that isn't a moral question for starbucks, but one for the res of us. The question for Starbucks is 'What is the limit of reasonable behaviour?' and many people consider they've gone far beyond that. I know you think the limit of reasonable behaviour for a corporation is the same as the limit of the law, so I'll pose the same question to you I posed to someone else downthread - If it's not (yet) illegal to dump industrial byproducts into the water supply in the country you're operating in, is it moral to do so?
        DanBC 14y ago
        > justifiably You have to attempt to justify it. Other people will see if they agree with your justifications. Most justifications are reasonable and the person is correct to make them. Sometimes justifications shift from being acceptable to being unacceptable. (Free parking spaces for employees is now a taxable benefit in England.) There's a bit of a kerfuffle while people transition. Sometimes foolish people will make justifications that strain credulity. Sometimes unscrupulous people will invent justifications. It feels that Amazon and Starbucks (and probably Google) are straining credulity with their weird systems.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > It feels that Amazon and Starbucks (and probably Google) are straining credulity with their weird systems. They wouldn't do it if those were actually illegal systems of tax minimisation. That you or I would like massively profitable companies to pay more tax in our respective countries is one matter. Whether they are obliged to do so by law is a different.
        Nursie 14y ago
        Certainly, but that's very, very different to the question of morality that you asked.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        But it's not, at all. The question I'm raising is: if I am obliged by law to pay X, is it moral that I pay only and exactly X?
        DanBC 14y ago
        It is immoral if you evade the intent of the law by exploiting dubious loopholes such that you reduce the amount of tax you should pay beyond any reasonable lower limit to almost zero. Starbucks needing to pay Starbucks so that they can use the Starbucks brand (and thus - co-incidentally we're told) syphoning off profit from Starbucks UK to Starbucks cupboard in tax haven is an example of something that might be legally correct but is morally wrong. I think it's pretty clear that we disagree, so feel free to have the last word.
    - shardling 14y ago
      Taxes are not some external force that the evil government is applying to us. They're part of the social contract binding a society together. The more effort people spend avoiding taxes, the more complicated the tax system will get as it attempts to close those loopholes. The more complicated it gets, the harder it is to form a social contract that represents the best interest of the nation.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        > Taxes are not some external force that the evil government is applying to us. They're part of the social contract binding a society together. Which is orthogonal to whether it is moral to arrange your affairs to pay only what is legally owed. > The more effort people spend avoiding taxes, the more complicated the tax system will get as it attempts to close those loopholes. Which is also orthogonal to whether it is moral to arrange your affairs to pay only what is legally owed.
        shardling 14y ago
        No, that is the very point. We encode the social contract in a system of rules. When you deliberately manipulate those rules to avoid the spirit or original intent of the contract, then you are breaking that contract, regardless of whether it is legal or not. This is the framework under which I consider tax avoidance to be unethical -- obviously if you do not support the society in the first place, you might disagree.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > We encode the social contract in a system of rules. When you deliberately manipulate those rules to avoid the spirit of the contract, then you are breaking that contract, regardless of whether it is legal or not. Then change the rules. We have a mechanism for that purpose. It is not the courts.
        shardling 14y ago
tomjen3 14y ago
And I say you have a moral obligation to pay as little in taxes as possible, since the government is too big.

I'd say that you do have a moral obligation to pay taxes, regardless of the legal facts.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Why?

shardling 14y ago
To support the very civilization you benefit from.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  I get it, necessary evil, all that jazz. But the question is not: Should taxes be levied? It is: Is it immoral to pay only what the law requires?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    I would say: That depends on how hard you're trying to work around it. If you're shifting profits around the globe deliberately to avoid taxes in the places you generated those profits - yes. Other people will draw the line in different places, as demonstrated by the comments here!
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Every purchase I can justifiably put through my Pty Ltd company, I do so, to minimise the amount of tax I pay. Is that categorically different?
      - Nursie 14y ago
        IMHO, yes. I'm in a similar situation. Things the company needs (justifiably) the company buys. I consider it very different to using accounting tricks to make profits disappear out of the country entirely, based on bogus internal charging.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        I disagree. The point is that you have to define "where" the profit was made. In an international environment that's pretty close to insensible (especially since the naive interpretation of profit to the lay person is gross profit). And I still think that morally there isn't a categorical difference between minimising tax by spending money and minimising tax by ... spending money.
        Nursie 14y ago
        "The point is that you have to define "where" the profit was made. In an international environment that's pretty close to insensible" Not in the case of a bricks n' mortar business like Starbucks it ain't! "And I still think that morally there isn't a categorical difference between minimising tax by spending money and minimising tax by ... spending money." And I don't see what 'by spending money' has to do with anything.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > Not in the case of a bricks n' mortar business like Starbucks it ain't! Well, two things. First: VAT is designed to capture tax from this exact scenario. Secondly: 1. The beans are bought from Switzerland. 2. The sale is made in High Street. Now, to calculate gross profit, deduct Cost of Goods Sold from the Sales. But: COGS was established in Switzerland. Sales in Britain. If you calculate profit as if COGS was established in Britain, you beggar Switzerland. If you calculate it the other way around, you beggar Britain. Switzerland has more favourable tax rates. So Starbucks, completely legally, arrange their affairs so that the COGS is done in Switzerland. Otherwise they'd buy from British bean middlemen. Why is it Switzerland's problem that Britain has the higher tax rates?
        Nursie 14y ago
        Well the beans never actually go to Switzerland, and the bean dealership seems to be there specifically as a tax dodge so... again, morally (as we're talking about here) I'm not sure what the issue is. It comes down to this - Starbucks operate a chain of coffee shops in the UK. They report to their shareholders that their UK division is a profitable enterprise, they report to the HMRC that it's a loss-maker. Somewhere in between there is probably the truth, and it's that truth the UK should be taxing on. Why should Starbuck, simply because it is a multinational, enjoy tax breaks that a local/national business does not get? --edit-- I realise that that isn't a moral question for starbucks, but one for the res of us. The question for Starbucks is 'What is the limit of reasonable behaviour?' and many people consider they've gone far beyond that. I know you think the limit of reasonable behaviour for a corporation is the same as the limit of the law, so I'll pose the same question to you I posed to someone else downthread - If it's not (yet) illegal to dump industrial byproducts into the water supply in the country you're operating in, is it moral to do so?
      - DanBC 14y ago
        > justifiably You have to attempt to justify it. Other people will see if they agree with your justifications. Most justifications are reasonable and the person is correct to make them. Sometimes justifications shift from being acceptable to being unacceptable. (Free parking spaces for employees is now a taxable benefit in England.) There's a bit of a kerfuffle while people transition. Sometimes foolish people will make justifications that strain credulity. Sometimes unscrupulous people will invent justifications. It feels that Amazon and Starbucks (and probably Google) are straining credulity with their weird systems.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > It feels that Amazon and Starbucks (and probably Google) are straining credulity with their weird systems. They wouldn't do it if those were actually illegal systems of tax minimisation. That you or I would like massively profitable companies to pay more tax in our respective countries is one matter. Whether they are obliged to do so by law is a different.
        Nursie 14y ago
        Certainly, but that's very, very different to the question of morality that you asked.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        But it's not, at all. The question I'm raising is: if I am obliged by law to pay X, is it moral that I pay only and exactly X?
        DanBC 14y ago
        It is immoral if you evade the intent of the law by exploiting dubious loopholes such that you reduce the amount of tax you should pay beyond any reasonable lower limit to almost zero. Starbucks needing to pay Starbucks so that they can use the Starbucks brand (and thus - co-incidentally we're told) syphoning off profit from Starbucks UK to Starbucks cupboard in tax haven is an example of something that might be legally correct but is morally wrong. I think it's pretty clear that we disagree, so feel free to have the last word.
  - shardling 14y ago
    Taxes are not some external force that the evil government is applying to us. They're part of the social contract binding a society together. The more effort people spend avoiding taxes, the more complicated the tax system will get as it attempts to close those loopholes. The more complicated it gets, the harder it is to form a social contract that represents the best interest of the nation.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      > Taxes are not some external force that the evil government is applying to us. They're part of the social contract binding a society together. Which is orthogonal to whether it is moral to arrange your affairs to pay only what is legally owed. > The more effort people spend avoiding taxes, the more complicated the tax system will get as it attempts to close those loopholes. Which is also orthogonal to whether it is moral to arrange your affairs to pay only what is legally owed.
      - shardling 14y ago
        No, that is the very point. We encode the social contract in a system of rules. When you deliberately manipulate those rules to avoid the spirit or original intent of the contract, then you are breaking that contract, regardless of whether it is legal or not. This is the framework under which I consider tax avoidance to be unethical -- obviously if you do not support the society in the first place, you might disagree.
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > We encode the social contract in a system of rules. When you deliberately manipulate those rules to avoid the spirit of the contract, then you are breaking that contract, regardless of whether it is legal or not. Then change the rules. We have a mechanism for that purpose. It is not the courts.
        shardling 14y ago

tomjen3 14y ago

And I say you have a moral obligation to pay as little in taxes as possible, since the government is too big.