8 ms·

That's just because "fair share" is just an abstract concept that means next to nothing. If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so th

by talmand 13y ago

That's just because "fair share" is just an abstract concept that means next to nothing. If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. When society thinks someone is not paying what they should then they have the means to resolve the matter. Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing.

Nursie 13y ago
>> If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. Well yes, and it turns out that the societal expectation of 'fair share' and the side-effects of the current tax laws are out of whack here. >>If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. Well no, they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code and international trade agreements as written, not necessarily paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up. Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. >> Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing. I agree, and the politicians ought to be doing something about this in order to make the current concept of 'fair share' and the implementation more in line. Particularly when it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith. However in the case of Google here there has been some suggestion that they may not have worked within the law in their sales practices, so an investigation may be needed.
- timrichard 13y ago
  It always strikes me that the societal expectation of 'fair share' tends to exclude booze cruises to France, or getting discounts from workmen in exchange for "cash in hand". Even savings in an ISA and duty free shopping are technically tax avoidance.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Sure, individuals like to avoid tax too, but there are differences in order of magnitude here somewhere.
- talmand 13y ago
  >> societal expectation of 'fair share' Societal expectations have little bearing on a badly written law. Society can expect anything it wants, but if the laws don't reflect those expectations then society will forever be disappointed. I stipulate that current tax laws do not meet societal expectations and blaming the companies for it is misguided and wasteful. The blame should be aimed at the people who write the tax laws that do not meet societal expectations. >> they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code Another way to look at that is they're paying the maximum they are required to pay under the tax code. >> paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up If they are paying the legally required amount then they are indeed paying what is required. If the intention was for them to pay more then that indicates an issue with the tax law, not the practices of the company. If said company finds a way to reduce their tax liability within the law then they are doing nothing wrong. Your language implies they are doing something wrong; be it unethical or illegal. They are not, they are doing what is required by law. If people feel that's not enough then the tax laws need to be reviewed. It is not a company's responsibility to fund society more than what the law says it is required to do. You are implying that companies do have that responsibility based upon the whims of society despite the law. >> Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. Again, you are implying they are doing something wrong. If they are breaking the law then that's one thing; if they follow the tax laws then they are not "seeing what they can get away with", they are paying what is required of them. If a tax law is written with a certain intention with an expected "spirit" but the tax law doesn't actually reflect that, then the fault is on the people who wrote the law not the one's who follow it. >> politicians ought to be doing something about this ... it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith You start out fine, but yet again, if the company is following the tax law so that they are not breaking the law, then they are acting in good faith. I fail to see how following the law, despite how complicated and stupid it is, is acting in bad faith.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nursie 13y ago
    You once again conflate compliance with the letter of the law with both ethics and the expectations that went in to drawing up the laws. It's clear that a company can do no evil in your eyes so long as they don't break the law. What a funny, black and white world you live in.

by talmand 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

>> If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. Well yes, and it turns out that the societal expectation of 'fair share' and the side-effects of the current tax laws are out of whack here. >>If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. Well no, they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code and international trade agreements as written, not necessarily paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up. Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. >> Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing. I agree, and the politicians ought to be doing something about this in order to make the current concept of 'fair share' and the implementation more in line. Particularly when it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith. However in the case of Google here there has been some suggestion that they may not have worked within the law in their sales practices, so an investigation may be needed.

timrichard 13y ago
It always strikes me that the societal expectation of 'fair share' tends to exclude booze cruises to France, or getting discounts from workmen in exchange for "cash in hand". Even savings in an ISA and duty free shopping are technically tax avoidance.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Sure, individuals like to avoid tax too, but there are differences in order of magnitude here somewhere.
talmand 13y ago
>> societal expectation of 'fair share' Societal expectations have little bearing on a badly written law. Society can expect anything it wants, but if the laws don't reflect those expectations then society will forever be disappointed. I stipulate that current tax laws do not meet societal expectations and blaming the companies for it is misguided and wasteful. The blame should be aimed at the people who write the tax laws that do not meet societal expectations. >> they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code Another way to look at that is they're paying the maximum they are required to pay under the tax code. >> paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up If they are paying the legally required amount then they are indeed paying what is required. If the intention was for them to pay more then that indicates an issue with the tax law, not the practices of the company. If said company finds a way to reduce their tax liability within the law then they are doing nothing wrong. Your language implies they are doing something wrong; be it unethical or illegal. They are not, they are doing what is required by law. If people feel that's not enough then the tax laws need to be reviewed. It is not a company's responsibility to fund society more than what the law says it is required to do. You are implying that companies do have that responsibility based upon the whims of society despite the law. >> Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. Again, you are implying they are doing something wrong. If they are breaking the law then that's one thing; if they follow the tax laws then they are not "seeing what they can get away with", they are paying what is required of them. If a tax law is written with a certain intention with an expected "spirit" but the tax law doesn't actually reflect that, then the fault is on the people who wrote the law not the one's who follow it. >> politicians ought to be doing something about this ... it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith You start out fine, but yet again, if the company is following the tax law so that they are not breaking the law, then they are acting in good faith. I fail to see how following the law, despite how complicated and stupid it is, is acting in bad faith.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 13y ago
  You once again conflate compliance with the letter of the law with both ethics and the expectations that went in to drawing up the laws. It's clear that a company can do no evil in your eyes so long as they don't break the law. What a funny, black and white world you live in.