121–130 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no moral obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits.
according to you, do you have the same outlook on people exploiting bugs/backdoors in code on other peoples machines for personal gain?
Bloomberg likes to write about how "tech companies do this" whenever it's something bad. The fact is all companies do this... it's well-known every industry is doing the same. Walmart, Exxon and Pfizer are just a few companies that tax-dodge just as much as Google. It's estimated $700 billion in taxes are dodged so singling out Google's $19 billion seems strange. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-char…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no moral obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits.
I think you mean there is no legal obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits. Whether your moral obligation lies above or below the legal minimum depends on your viewpoint.
There is no moral obligation to pay more than your legally required amount of tax. The presumption would be that no moral obligation exists until one is proven, for precisely the reason you mentioned (it depends on your viewpoint, so we cannot begin with any one set of norms), so if you would kindly propose one, I will disprove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no moral obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits.
This mindset seems fine in isolation, but it falls apart when you consider that corporations and the wealthy first subvert democracy to pass tax law with loopholes only they can use, and then use this aphorism as a gag order to keep the rest of us from complaining about it.
I see no evidence of (A), and if my comment has been construed as an aphoristic gag order, I would like to answer (B) by clarifying that it only means there's not much to complain about when a company abides by the tax regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean there is no legal obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits. Whether your moral obligation lies above or below the legal minimum depends on your viewpoint.
Your thought is incorrect. I mean precisely what I said. There is no moral obligation to pay more than your legally required amount of tax. The presumption would be that no moral obligation exists until one is proven, for precisely the reason you mentioned (it depends on your viewpoint, so we cannot begin with any one set of norms), so if you would kindly propose one, I will disprove it.
Edit: I wasn't saying there's a moral obligation to pay more than the legal obligation. I was saying there's not necessarily a moral obligation to pay even the legal obligation. They're orthogonal issues.
You implied that there is a moral obligation to pay at least the legal minimum, and I'm saying that's not a moral obligation but a legal obligation.
Edit further: imagine living in a regime with 90% income taxes, and which takes that money and uses it to do terrible things. You have a legal obligation to pay those taxes, but I'd argue at least that you don't have a moral obligation to pay, and perhaps that you actually have a moral obligation not to pay. Therefore the legal minimum tax payment is not a moral obligation but a legal obligation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean there is no legal obligation to pay additional taxes beyond the minimum that tax law permits. Whether your moral obligation lies above or below the legal minimum depends on your viewpoint.
Does this logic also applies to individuals who look for various kinds of tax exemptions in their personal filings? Is someone taking a mortgage exemption being immoral?
My opinion is that moral tax obligations are so far below legal obligations that almost any effort to minimise taxes is perfectly fine. But you still have to pay your legal minimum if you don't want to go to prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this logic also applies to individuals who look for various kinds of tax exemptions in their personal filings? Is someone taking a mortgage exemption being immoral?
Careful. I wasn't arguing that corporations minimising their tax burden is immoral. I was arguing that a moral obligation is orthogonal to a legal obligation, and may be either higher or lower, depending on your viewpoint. My opinion is that moral tax obligations are so far below legal obligations that almost any effort to minimise taxes is perfectly fine. But you still have to pay your legal minimum if you don't wan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful. I wasn't arguing that corporations minimising their tax burden is immoral. I was arguing that a moral obligation is orthogonal to a legal obligation, and may be either higher or lower, depending on your viewpoint. My opinion is that moral tax obligations are so far below legal obligations that almost any effort to minimise taxes is perfectly fine. But you still have to pay your legal minimum if you don't wan…
Yes, but when someone's calling Google evil for this behavior, it's clear they consider this act immoral. And I am asking whether similar logic extends to individuals too.
There are no such things as tax loopholes. There is compliance with the law as Congress has written with all of their agendas, and there is noncompliance.
"There are no such things as bugs in code; the computer always executes the code as written." Loopholes and bugs are differences between intent and effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not at all that cut and dried. Engaging in sham business activity for the specific purpose of tax avoidance is not legal. Many of these tax schemes could be declared invalid at the discretion of the IRS (or other governments - the EU already has in some cases). These companies are not complying with tax law. They are cheating and paying bribes or doing favors to get away with it, and everyone knows it.
LOL saas_co_de accuses Google of engaging in a sham business.