5 ms·

Just because you "behave logically" does not mean you behave morally or ethically. Perhaps you should reflect on why immoral behavior would result in people ha

• JonFish85 12y ago
  Are you saying that a company moving money around in an advantageous way is immoral? How so? Presumably you deduct the maximum amount you can from your taxes. That's what the business is doing: shuffling it's money around in a way that minimizes their costs. Sure, I can see the argument of people who don't really like it, but to say it's immoral seems a bridge too far for me.
  • ericd 12y ago
    There's a big difference between the government asking you what deductions you qualify for - those are intended under the law - and a corporation making convoluted corporate structures to avoid paying the intended amount of tax. Generally, double irish sandwiches and the like don't pass the smell test.
    • talmand 12y ago
      If the convoluted corporate structures are legal then they are paying the intended amount of tax because they are following the law. It may not pass the smell test but they are legal. The complaint needs to be placed upon the laws and those write them, not the companies who abide by the law.
      • ericd 12y ago
        Just because a law exploit is possible doesn't mean it's acceptable to exploit it en masse. Yes, the law writers should fix their laws, as browser writers should fix holes in their browsers, but that in no way gives the exploiter a free pass.
        • talmand 12y ago
          I think you continue to misunderstand my point. It is not an "exploit" if it is the law. It is simply the law. Your comparison to exploiting browser security holes doesn't even come close to being a proper analogy.
  • ceejayoz 12y ago
    "Minimizes their costs" can also be read as "minimizes their contributions back to the society they're benefiting greatly from", hence the ethical concerns.
    • wutbrodo 12y ago
      That's his point though. Can't you say the same thing about you hiring a tax accountant (or hell, TurboTax) to get you the deductions that you're eligible for?
    • JonFish85 12y ago
      I think the companies would argue (not necessarily myself, for the record) that they do contribute to society via high-paying jobs, collecting payroll & sales taxes and income taxes. According to [1], Apple paid roughly $14.2b in 2012 income taxes, and according to [2], they paid $1 out of every $40 collected (using Apple numbers, although I'd imagine other companies are similar). [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/... [2] http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-dollars-us-collects-how-much-more-does-senate-want http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-d...
      • lliwta 12y ago
        > via high-paying jobs, collecting payroll & sales taxes and income taxes. In other words, doing what's absolutely necessary and expedient in order to make profit and not flagrantly disregarding certain portions of tax law? And in the case of tech companies such as Apple, the "high paying jobs" bit comes with an extra bit of irony since they were doing the exact opposite to a criminal extent. Color me unimpressed.
        • JonFish85 12y ago
          Median Apple salary is ~$110k[1]. Sure, there was the lawsuit about colluding to depress salaries, but according to [2], the median personal income of a person with a bachelor's degree or more is $56k. That's essentially double. [1] http://www.salarylist.com/company/Apple-Salary.htm http://www.salarylist.com/company/Apple-Salary.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
  • busterarm 12y ago
    Because you're shifting that burden onto somebody else. If you're a company that primarily does business in the US, you're benefiting from access to all of those customers and a friendly business legal infrastructure. You should be paying tax for that privilege. If you want to move out of the US and lose all of that, I don't have a problem of that, but what Mark Cuban is talking about is different. Multi-billion dollar product and finance companies move to the Cayman Islands or Ireland or elsewhere and do virtually no business there. It's purely to shed tax liability. It's not much different than banks and lenders who choose to incorporate in places like South Dakota or on Native American reservations where there are lax/no usury laws so they can charge absurd interest rates (the latter of which 50-100% are common) that have been voted illegal in the places where they actually have their customers. It's immoral as it gets. I used to work in Finance and those companies justify it as ethical because "everyone else is doing it". It's bullshit, they just don't want to be the nail that sticks out...
  • bduerst 12y ago
    There's a difference between immoral and irrational. It is rational for a company to maximize their returns for shareholders and to skip taxes wherever legally possible. Morality is relative, but if you went simply by utilitarian ethics, then a company would be acting irrational by maximizing the amount of good it provides. There is crossover between rationality and ethical behavior for companies (especially B-Corps). A good case would be plastic water bottles. It's good that they are using thinner plastic lids now, and is rational because it cuts costs, but non-biodegradable water bottles are a huge filler for landfills, and probably are not maximizing the good.
  • migrantgeek 12y ago
    It's very immoral to benefit from the utilities, roads, emergency services, etc provided for by tax money and work very hard to not contribute. Think starting a business is hard? Try starting a business without any infrastructure. What's worse is that companies like Walmart get cities and towns to build infra to new Walmart locations and funnel lots of the money away from the areas that provide the infra.
    • refurb 12y ago
      I don't know about you, but I'd prefer if the gov't didn't start enforcing "morality".
• joelrunyon 12y ago
  How is following the law to a "T" morally or ethically wrong? Isn't the greater moral or ethical wrong here is how terribly convoluted the tax code is?
  • ceejayoz 12y ago
    If I find a loophole in the law that allows me to murder someone without punishment, surely that's not moral or ethical, despite being legal?
    • aidenn0 12y ago
      No, but there is an ethical duty to not commit murder, but there is no ethical duty to pay more taxes than the government asks for.
    • joelrunyon 12y ago
      Funny enough - that exists [1] That said, murder & paying the least amount of taxes possible are slightly different scales of morality - don't you think? Should you be judged morally because you have a tax accountant maximize your tax refund every year or should you just pay as much as possible without regard to being fiscally responsible to your own self? [1]
      • lliwta 12y ago
        I'm sure it's not intentional, but you don't actually give a source. I'm not sure why I find the missing citation so funny (probably because the claim is pretty surprising), but I laughed really hard and up-voted you in case it was a joke and not a mistake.
        • tzs 12y ago
          He probably meant to link to something about the Yellowstone anomaly. The idea is you kill someone in the 50 square miles of Yellowstone National Park that is in the state of Idaho (most of Yellowstone is in the state of Wyoming). The Sixth Amendment says in a criminal trial the defendant has a right to a trial by a jury from the State and district where the crime was committed. The problem is that all of Yellowstone is in the District of Wyoming, including the 50 square miles that is in the State of Idaho. Hence, the jury must consist of people that are from that 50 square mile region of the park and state. The permanent population of that region is 0, and it is a part of the park that is rarely visited so the transient population is close to 0. No jury can be impaneled for your trial, and without a trial, you cannot be convicted.
• sbmassey 12y ago
  Why assume paying higher taxes than necessary to a government is moral? It is not as if governments are widely considered to be admirable ethical organizations. Just the alternative, really.
• paulhauggis 12y ago
  yet, downloading software and music for free, without compensating the author/creator, is seen around here as 'moral'. So is using Adblock on websites, depriving that company of revenue. I see this as leveling the playing field.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    How is it leveling the playing field, if it equally harms people how religiously pay for all their software and music and don't block ads?
• aidenn0 12y ago
  Judge Learned Hand would disagree with you: "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934). "Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant." Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F2d 848 (1947)
  • rosser 12y ago
    You're conflating "permitted" and "encouraged". Both of those rulings said that people may arrange their affairs so as to minimize their tax burdens. In no way is that saying one should.
  • sparkie 12y ago
    Way to miss the point. Courts enforce laws, not morals. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.
  • parfe 12y ago
    This discussion thread started with: >I don't understand the whole "If you behave logically as a business we hate you" sentiment. Yes, companies can legally and rationally reduce their taxes to the absolute minimum. Viewing as immoral the act of taking from society while maneuvering to give nothing back seems completely reasonable. Disliking someone you see acting immorally should be perfectly understandable. HOLY SELECTIVE QUOTING BATMAN! The Supreme Court decided exactly opposite of what you try to covey with your quotes (from the dissenting judge of a lower court): In these circumstances, the facts speak for themselves and are susceptible of but one interpretation. The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of subdivision (B), was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. The rule which excludes from consideration the motive of tax avoidance is not pertinent to the situation, because the transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose. GREGORY v. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
• donatj 12y ago
  I'd argue if your morality is illogical, it's probably the morality that is wrong