Hacker News Reader

Comment by devsquid | Hacker News Reader

You are right, but its still wrong. Even if the legislation around the subject matter doesn't work, it doesn't mean the companies aren't paying their "fair share". They aren't. Just because something is legal, does not make it morally acceptable.

At the very least it should show the fan boys that companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple really do not give a shit about you. Its about profit, they are a corporation, stop idolizing corporations.

View on HN

So you think there is some tax rate or tax system what is the morally correct one? That's a pretty bizarre implication, even for people who entertain the notion of moral realism.

Taxes are inherently the result of a specific government passing specific laws. I cant conceive any argument for some natural law prescribing a particular tax rate.

What is wrong and immoral is that a single company is considered immoral for not paying an additional $2,400,000,000 in taxes.

Why? The US is clearly in desperate need of tax dollars. Look at how much we spend a year for the military alone, which accounts for around half of the USA's total budget.

Whats also shocking is that the tech companies have billions of dollars sitting around doing nothing.

Sounds like a spending problem. When the US is so inefficient with the vast amounts it already has, things aren't going to magically get better by giving them marginally more.

The money tech cos have 'sitting around' isn't actually idle. You can see what it's used for elsewhere in the thread.

That is not a problem of low taxes but a problem with the desire to spend without end. The US keeps hitting record highs of tax receipts.

Why? The said company made much more than that in profit. There is a social contract and companies avoiding taxes are not holding up their end of the bargain.

The social contract is formalized in law. They are paying what is required by law. In Singapore that rate is 17%, is that the right rate for the rest of the world? Why or why not? The only right rate from a company's point of view is the legal minimum.

It is not in the spirit of the law. I don't see why Singapore is relevant. According to wikipedia, Google and its parent company are headquartered in Mountain View, California, United States

How does this play against a companies fiduciary duty to shareholders? If your competitors can use these legal techniques, aren't you also obligated to stay competitive?

True. Which is why I approve the activist shareholder plans at Microsoft and Google to move their CEO's and global HQ's to India.

That's functionally impossible at Google, unless there's a defection in the core leadership.

The company has never let more than 51% of the voting shares leave a very tight-knit group.

Yes you are. It still doesn't make it morally ok.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com