Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

projekte.sueddeutsche.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 817 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#291

Post by freeflight »

tyingq wrote: post #240
loceng wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies evading taxes are responsible for increased hardship and suffering of a society as well, leeching off of the nations they exist in, and being able to outcompete the honest organizations and people in them. The damages are far greater than the tax avoided. "They are doing it too" isn't a valid excuse either.

They aren't, for the most part, doing anything illegal though. They are using the existing laws to their best advantage. The fix for this can't be trying to appeal to their morals. It would have to be something else that just limits the legal choices. Edit: If you disagree, are you saying that shaming them into not doing this solely on some moral compass is the right fix? Does that scale?

> Edit: If you disagree, are you saying that shaming them into not doing this solely on some moral compass is the right fix? Does that scale?

Legislation doesn't do anything if actors don't see a moral responsibility to abide by it. Case in point: There are laws against murder but murder still happens.

Does that mean we need better laws in regards to murder? Imho it rather means that some parts of society still have a "moral debt" in recognizing the value of human life.

Same pretty much applies to paying taxes. For some people it's something they do out of a sense of responsibility to the society they live in, to others it's an unfair burden they need to evade at all costs.

And because the latter behavior isn't even that criminalized, there are large sectors of society where nobody feels a moral responsibility to pay taxes. Heck in many of these circles people actually boast about how much taxes they evaded/how much money they got out of the government. In that regard, there might be quite a cultural angle to this whole issue.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#292

Post by nickpp »

loceng wrote: post #188
styx31 wrote: post #80

What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate. But there are these big companies which can afford to create offshore companies/holding just to evade some tax system, and lower their tax rate. So, what? The tax rate of a country is now "artificial", because it will never be applied to all revenues from all companies, because th…

These companies evading taxes are responsible for increased hardship and suffering of a society as well, leeching off of the nations they exist in, and being able to outcompete the honest organizations and people in them. The damages are far greater than the tax avoided. "They are doing it too" isn't a valid excuse either.

How exactly are they inflicting all that harm, hardship and suffering? In my eyes, they are creating tremendous value every day while following every single law nations impose on them. They would risk everything otherwise.

You're throwing demagogic, populist accusations without a single shred of support. Is emotional discourse an acceptable replacement for the rational one?

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#293

Post by jrobn »

Apple and the like are just being “smart businessmen” as our current tax evading president once said. I never really minded paying taxes. Sure, I was upset sometimes when I learned how some of it is spent. After Trump said that, I made it my duty to pay as little taxes as possible to the federal gov’t. The US election taught me that a total morally banktrupt asshole can win the presidency of the United States and flaunt his disgraceful behavior, I might as else enjoy what he enjoys.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#294

Post by tankenmate »

fastball wrote: post #218
tankenmate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws with being moral (or equitable which is hopefully a subjunct matter), then personally I think your view of the world is far more black and white than reality. In my view morality (and part of which is equality) should lead to legality not the other way around.

I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy . Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with y…

To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#295

Post by bildung »

adventured wrote: post #88
almostarockstar wrote: post #60

As an Irish citizen, I feel embarrassed by the way we have dealt with Apple (and other behemoth corps). We simultaneously gave these organisations "free parking" and a "get out of jail free card". I don't blame Apple for taking advantage though. I would.

That free parking increased Ireland's economy by nearly six fold in a mere 25 years. It took Ireland from a second tier economy, to a first tier economic power ($300b in GDP with a mere 4.7m people). From sub $15,000 GDP per capita in 1993, to surpassing the US in GDP per capita at $62,000. You can tell it's the large foreign corporations causing it, because of the big gap between the growth in domestic income and th…

GDP doesn't tell us much in the case of Ireland, because these huge companies only invest very little in the country, as is typical for a tax haven. If you look at GNP, the gross national product, the actual gains for the people in Ireland are much lower. Have a look at GDP[1] and GNP[0] numbers per inhabitant for Europe: Where for most european countries both numbers are about the same, for Ireland there's a difference of over 30%. Much of Irelands GDP growth didn't result in more income for the people.

[0] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu... [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#296

Post by pawelk »

jitbit wrote: post #221
pawelk wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I live in Poland and it's not really a secret that small companies can and do optimize their taxes by registering in the UK (mostly self-employed professionals) or Czech Republic (small companies / family businesses). It's not like you can avoid taxes, but the difference for a self-employed programmer is non-trivial, like getting a 13th monthly salary every year. The Czech deal is done mostly for simpler tax code…

Yes, I know the UK drill... But how do you hire someone in Poland being a UK company? I thought that's not possible

There are many Poles employed in the UK, so there has to be a way. It may get tricky when these workers do not live in the UK, but on the other hand there are many foreign companies operating in Poland and hiring people here.

As I said the UK setup is mostly used for self-employment, so when you need a team mate they are most likely incorporated as well (either in Poland or the UK), so you just sign a B2B contract.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#297

Post by hashmal »

bauerd wrote: post #20
wjnc wrote: post #8

Dear Herr Krach, thank you for your letter. I think you misunderstand how business works. Apple is a profit seeking corporation. Profits we make, we hope to distribute to our shareholders. Paying taxes is an obligation with which we comply, both to the letter and in spirit. We meet such obligations, but not nilly-willy. Our shareholders would not look kindly upon executives who pay more taxes than necessary. Avoidanc…

I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it (a) that tax avoidance is morally justified, (b) morally justified only in the business context or (c) not of concern, because the business and the moral are two separate contexts?

The argument is that the focus is on the companies when the problem lies within rule-making. We cannot expect entities to obey rules that aren't there, whether these entities are individuals or companies.

The distinction has to be made between what is lawful and what is moral. The law is a system that we all have to comply to (which may or may not be perceived as moral), morals are subjective and built on experience, environment, etc. Laws are often made with current/major moral views in mind.

Tax evasion is clearly perceived as not moral, but it's lawful. We cannot expect companies (or individuals) to obey moral rules, since it's kinda unsolvable (morals being subjective). On the other hand, we can expect them to obey law.

Again, focusing on companies in this case is pointless and unproductive, no matter how shocking it is. Governments like to criticize tax evasion, but they are the only ones who could do something about it. We have to go after them.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#298

Post by rhaps0dy »

snappyTertle wrote: post #83

I don't get why people think paying more taxes is "moral". There are a lot of things the government spends on that I don't agree with...and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

Actually what is moral (according to utilitarianism) is to avoid as many taxes as possible and then donate as much money to efficient charity. A lot of first-world government interventions are inefficient human-welfare-wise, mainly because they focus on problems within their own country.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#299

Post by zentiggr »

fastball wrote: post #218
tankenmate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws with being moral (or equitable which is hopefully a subjunct matter), then personally I think your view of the world is far more black and white than reality. In my view morality (and part of which is equality) should lead to legality not the other way around.

I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy . Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with y…

> I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy.

Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes.

So yes, definitely an issue with this democracy.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#300

Post by tyingq »

freeflight wrote: post #291
tyingq wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't, for the most part, doing anything illegal though. They are using the existing laws to their best advantage. The fix for this can't be trying to appeal to their morals. It would have to be something else that just limits the legal choices. Edit: If you disagree, are you saying that shaming them into not doing this solely on some moral compass is the right fix? Does that scale?

> Edit: If you disagree, are you saying that shaming them into not doing this solely on some moral compass is the right fix? Does that scale? Legislation doesn't do anything if actors don't see a moral responsibility to abide by it. Case in point: There are laws against murder but murder still happens. Does that mean we need better laws in regards to murder? Imho it rather means that some parts of society still have…

That analogy is hard for me to follow. Again, for the most part, no laws are being broken.

One that's probably more relatable is itemized deductions for US taxpayers. I can deduct the property taxes and mortgage interest for my house from my Federal income tax. Do people take advantage of that and deduct the costs for ridiculous mansions? Sure. Shaming them for it is silly. If that exemption isn't fair, then put a cap on it.

Post reply on HN