Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B • Hacker News Board

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#161

Post by jstanley » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 8:58 AM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #147

jstanley wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? 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…

> Assume the moral obligation lies at exactly the same point as the legal obligation. Now assume the tax law changes. Has your moral obligation changed? I don't actually believe that this assumption is generally true (nonpayment of taxes can be a form of civil disobedience; Henry David Thoreau did this in opposition to the Mexican-American War), but let's say that we believe in the principle that "any entity has a ci…

If you didn't mean to imply that there's a moral obligation to pay the legal minimum, then we don't disagree :)

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#162

Post by chillacy » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 9:24 AM UTC

natecavanaugh wrote: post #145

chillacy wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense to me: 1. I stated that morality isn't absolute 2. I provided a contradictory moral framework to the parent poster, leading to a different conclusion The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? (Note I have not outlined my personal beliefs in my post, just posited one possible line of reasoning.)

> The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? I would clarify that our view of morality is relative, but I think all of us believe in some sort of baseline sense of morality that we feel is wrong (or right) in any context, and for any person. We may disagree on the details and priority, but I believe most people share a common sense of mora…

I see, I think we haven't yet defined what we mean by "Morality". I'm taking it to include the details, and you I think are referring to something deeper?

I suspect most people (non sociopaths) base their morality on emotion, and some things are really hardwired, like disliking injustice (3rd party punishment is a really interesting topic on that).

But the "details and priorities" vary so much in the real world... I've met people who believe strongly in affirmative action type policies, and those who believe strongly against them. I think both think the other side is being unfair, so if what I guessed above is true, then the underlying "morality" you defined would be the desire for "fairness"?

As for how someone could come up with those "details and priorities", perhaps they would rather fund NASA than fight homelessness: they would rather invest in the high-end because the technology breakthroughs could have orders of magnitude more impact on poverty than simply redistributing money. I've witnessed many an argument over whether or not it was more "moral" to put money into "wasteful" endeavors like science funding when people are still struggling to get by even in America, not to mention the world at large.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#163

Post by titzer » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #131

titzer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't indict corporations for following the tax code, change the laws. Sure, don't indict them, just please, please recognize them for exactly what they are: soulless, inhuman, profit maximizers that will take every inch afforded to them by the law (and sometimes more). You gotta watch them like a hawk and don't believe their statements to the press.

>soulless, inhuman, profit maximizers Do you feel the same way about every person that takes an income deduction?

Humans are by definition not /in/human, though they can sometimes /act/ inhuman. However, by definition, corporations /are/ /not/ /human/, and they mostly act accordingly.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#164

Post by natecavanaugh » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 9:18 AM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #162

natecavanaugh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no? I would clarify that our view of morality is relative, but I think all of us believe in some sort of baseline sense of morality that we feel is wrong (or right) in any context, and for any person. We may disagree on the details and priority, but I believe most people share a common sense of mora…

I see, I think we haven't yet defined what we mean by "Morality". I'm taking it to include the details, and you I think are referring to something deeper? I suspect most people (non sociopaths) base their morality on emotion, and some things are really hardwired, like disliking injustice (3rd party punishment is a really interesting topic on that). But the "details and priorities" vary so much in the real world... I'…

I'm so sorry for the delay in the response, I'm just now seeing yours.

I want to say thank you for engaging me in this, as to be honest, many hate these conversations or it devolves quickly, but I'm hoping this doesn't :)

I tend to think that the morality we discuss is fairly common even if it's a mix of what we intrinsically feel and what we observe.

One case I can point to is C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man, in his description and the the Tao. You can see that for the most part, throughout recorded history there's a common sense of right and wrong.

So I guess all of that to say, I try not to base my morality on emotion, especially in cases where my emotions line up with my morality (those tend to be the blind spots).

I think that morality is a wide spectrum rainbow that we all truly desire to hit, and that most "sin" comes from focusing on the wrong parts or the right parts at the wrong time.

But regarding some of your points, I guess some things in my view, like affirmative action policies don't count directly to morality (though maybe indirectly), at least in my opinion.

I guess I focus morality towards those things we all see over the millennia, and ethics tend to be more temporal, though still critical.

Anyways, this one is always tough to get deep into without establishing first principles :)