5 ms·

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.

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".

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".