Hacker News Reader

> none of the moral compass of a human

I find this notion laughable, that a "moral compass" prevents individuals from attempting to lower their tax burden as much as corporations. Individuals are no different than corporations in the desire to avoid paying taxes. The difference is that the amounts are smaller, so they can't afford as many lawyers, and the tax laws are less complex, so generally fewer loopholes are available.

If it was advantageous for individuals to set up European subsidiaries for tax purposes, I guarantee everyone would be doing it, "moral compass" be damned.

> I find this notion laughable, that a "moral compass" prevents individuals from attempting to lower their tax burden as much as corporations.

Correct, I'd argue a functioning moral compass would keep a person from seeing it as a "burden" to begin with. Paying for what I take out and for the less fortunate (until it's my turn to be struck by misfortune) is not a burden, just like waiting in a queue until it's my turn is not an inconvenience. Being aware of the randomness of my own birth and having empathy doesn't require a moral compass, it requires intelligence; it leads to having a moral compass.

That you can find that "laughable" you owe to the fact that you were born and cared for as a baby, creating a lot of costs and work for a lot of people, none of which with anything but their moral compass humming gently as a compensation.

If all you care about is paying in so you can take out, and to help cover unlucky people until it's your rainy day, you don't need any taxes at all, just insurance.

In practice taxes are used for all sorts of things which you may or may not agree with (e.g. foreign wars), and other things that you may agree with but maybe don't believe tax and government is the most efficient way to provide it.

The blasé assumption that tax == moral is just another form of the left wing assumption that people working for the state have a slight moral superiority over people working in the private sector (and who are therefore tainted by the desire for profit).

For some things, there aren't really any better options than paying taxes. Military spending comes to mind. For others, it's sort of an open question (roads and healthcare are cases where countries frequently strike different balances). For yet others, tax is obviously the wrong solution. Nobody these days thinks governments should be in the steel or coal businesses, except China.

Unfortunately the nature of tax is that it's rather hard to express your views about it outside of general elections.

> In practice taxes are used for all sorts of things which you may or may not agree with (e.g. foreign wars), and other things that you may agree with but maybe don't believe tax and government is the most efficient way to provide it.

So? You can't evade taxes for A but not B -- if you evade taxes, you are actually more likely to hit, say, orphans, than, say, big business or war profiteers.

I can't respond to "may". If you think there is a better way, humor me, though even then I don't see how one should be allowed to "have the cake and eat it", namely profit from the infrastructure upheld in no small part with taxes, but then not pay taxes because there are better ways. Then make business and be a citizen where it's done a better way, or try to change it where you are.

And yes, I'm aware that taxes get spent on all sorts of crappy things, that doesn't invalidate the general idea or the social contract, and just because I think "trying to minimize taxes whenever possible by all means" is always immoral, doesn't mean I think all taxes are moral in all instances.

> The blasé assumption that tax == moral is just another form of the left wing assumption that people working for the state have a slight moral superiority over people working in the private sector

Except I don't have that assumption, so it can't possibly be a form of that. That simply doesn't parse.

Though we could discuss the meaning of "profit". Someone who voluntarily reads stories to children with cancer does profit from that, too, and furthermore they are also considering the profit others have from that. So it's still a "desire for profit". Hey, even Jesus asked "what does it profit a man..", profit in itself apparently not the issue, but rather what profit, and at what costs to whom or at what point down the road. Profit, in my books, isn't just measured in the amount of money or land something nets, but in everything it involved to get there.

What makes you think that if you minimise your tax payments, it's poor little orphans that get hit and not bloated military budgets or overweight bureaucracies? Isn't that just an assumption on your part? How can you know what governments would choose to spend less on, if they had less tax revenue?

Corporations normally do not profit directly from infrastructure provided by governments. The people who make them up benefit from them a lot, but they pay taxes already. The primary infrastructure corporations specifically use a lot is the courts, and arguably, patent/copyright systems. But these are relatively cheap to administer, especially as courts can charge fees and the patent system is actually a profit centre for government (in the USA).

Everything else (roads, schools, health, etc) is all about people, not the abstract groups they sometimes form. We'd still need them even if there were no corporations.

When I said "may or may not agree with", I meant that many things governments do are somewhat controversial. Not that I expected anyone to write an essay on all of them :-)

> What makes you think that if you minimise your tax payments, it's poor little orphans that get hit and not bloated military budgets or overweight bureaucracies? Isn't that just an assumption on your part? How can you know what governments would choose to spend less on, if they had less tax revenue?

Because that's what happens time and time again, from what I can tell when looking for information on that over the news I got to hear for all of my adult life. It has nothing to do with looking into a glass ball.

> Corporations normally do not profit directly from infrastructure provided by governments. The people who make them up benefit from them a lot, but they pay taxes already.

"Not directly", so? Without the people who need the infrastructure to live, there would be no corporations and no customers.

The problem is if your moral compass does prevent you from taking advantage of tax breaks, you're suddenly disadvantaged against those who do thus leading to pretty much any pragmatist to reconsider.

Given game theory logic, I'll pretty much abuse any loopholes I think I can, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should change the rules of the game.

And that's why we can't have nice things. Yes, if you refrain from defecting, you lose to others. That's why it's in everyone's best interest to severly punish anyone who games the system. That's why society developed customs and laws against theft and murder.

The "if it's legal, it's ok, morality be damned" attitude is antisocial - it's a danger to civilized world. Therefore everyone who wants to follow their moral code or at least likes civilization should not only refrain from abusing the rules, but actively shun people who game them. Cooperation is a superior solution, but a one that is unstable by itself and needs maintenance (i.e. enforcing the rules and setting up the expectation that defectors will be penalized).

People already do follow their own moral codes. However, morality is subjective. What's "right" to you isn't necessarily "right" to someone else.

Additionally, it's part of human nature to act in our own self-interest. Call it antisocial if you want, but it's part of us. We're people, not ants. Trying to fight against that desire is a losing battle.

Instead, the focus should be entirely on the system itself to create such tremendous disincentives for crime/cheating/etc that it's in our self interest to follow the law (e.g. the laws against theft and murder that you pointed out).

A corporation is under a lot more societal pressure than individuals in regards to following norms and ethics. Most corporations (including Google) only exists because people choose to do business with them and they are happy with their product and price.

Google does plenty of charitable ventures that don't add any value for this reason and it makes sense.

A corporations bottom line is hurt when people have negative views of their company, product or practices. Individuals don't really have this amount of pressure. An individual can be immoral but legal and likely not lose their income. If people have a negative view of a corporation and choose not to purchase their product or use their service, the corporation suffers and therefore has an incentive to behave ethically.

The reason that Google and other companies can get away with these practices is that most people don't care enough to not use their product. They still find their value proposition attractive. The gains from the unethical behavior is less than the lost revenue from those that do care.

Personally, I am not concerned about their minimizing taxes as I believe that the government isn't a great steward of the taxes they collect and the extra revenue brought it would not have a positive effect.

> That's why it's in everyone's best interest to severly punish anyone who games the system.

That's in the judicial system best interest. A better society would be more impervious to being gamed.

> If it was advantageous for individuals to set up European subsidiaries for tax purposes, I guarantee everyone would be doing it, "moral compass" be damned.

To a certain degree that already happens. U2 are often disliked in Ireland because they have a Dutch tax set up, so they hardly pay any taxes in Ireland. People even sneak "Pay your taxes" ballons into concerts, like this one at Gastonbury ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/28/glaston... )

> I guarantee everyone would be doing it

I guarantee you that you can't guarantee anything about what I and hundreds of millions of other people would or wouldn't be doing.

Consider the Roth IRA backdoor whereby people who have too much income to directly start a roth can start one by converting a traditional IRA. This is directly in conflict with the intent of the law but is now a standard bit of financial advice.

Read up on the Step Transaction Doctrine to better understand the legality of the Roth IRA backdoor. Or talk to an actual tax lawyer.

The sensible answer to this issue is tax reform, to make sure the real world use of tax laws matches more closely to the intended consequences of the tax laws.

However, in the meantime, we can still send a clear message that the behaviour being engaged in is not desired. If words alone will not build enough momentum for change, then people could resort to civil disobedience. For example, Google is dependent on its advertising business, it would be trivial to "legally" damage this (for example, running bots that clicked on Google ads but did not purchase anything, inflating the cost of running ads without increasing revenue for those running them. Similar schemes would work for Facebook and others).

I'd hope it didn't come to that, but if companies can act without a moral compass, I don't see why the general population has to act any better.

I think you're sending the clear message to the wrong party. It's the politicians you should be lobbying to tax companies on their real global profits, ignoring offshore shenanigans. I'm sure some corporate lobbyists lobby the opposite so we the people need to counter that.

I don't think so. The important point is to get it discussed in the media. It's the media which acts as the main arbiter for public discourse. Politicians are more or less free to act as they wish so long as the media does not amplify the voice of dissenters. Actions which bring the voice of the people into the mainstream media are of use in bringing about change. Hopefully this public discourse can happen through debate alone, but if a legal but questionable method like a botnet that targets corporate greed is required to get the debate going (and/or provide impetus for change), then so be it.

For what it's worth, Penn Jillette would most likely disagree that giving more money to the government is the way towards "societally accretive goals for the future". I don't want to start a political debate on HN but let's say things are not as black and white as you paint them to be and that it is possible to hold an opinion different than yours without being already-wealthy.

> A smart player would put money back into the public coffers so that people could be taken care of, not hoard it for the already-wealthy.

No, a smart player would let others do that, and avoid doing it themselves. Exactly what Google is doing.

I think you should be directing your ire at the overly-complex, full-of-holes tax code.

> Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's okay, from a values and ethics perspective.

Exactly. And taxation is a prime example of that. Just because a racket gang decides to spend some of their proceedings for the betterment of society (in their or your definition of it) doesn't make their activities morally justified and certainly doesn't make anyone (be it person or corporation) morally obliged to pay up.

It's a part of the social contract, and in most countries you can voice your opinion about the magnitude of the taxes.

But you can also look at it as a free market choice - after all, this is a voluntary transaction, you buy services from the government (like schools, medical care, internal and external security, water treatment, electricity, and many others) and you pay for them with taxes. You can always refuse the deal if you don't like it - by renouncing your citizenship. ;).

You're Polish, right? So obviously, having voiced your opinion, you are now going to make an honest best effort to abide, not just by the letter of the law as laid down by PiS, but by the full spirit of it too? Either that, or renouncing your citizenship?

Or do you feel there is room for subversion and disobedience in, say, social, law enforcement and immigration policies that just doesn't apply to tax policy?

What's the ratio of new roads to drone strikes that kill civilians? Cost of pervasive surveillance versus cost of quality schools? Etc, etc. My opinion is that, given the vast and expanding evil of an already huge and highly immoral government, advocating paying more taxes makes one also highly immoral.

The US is leading in child poverty, with 16 million kids (20%) on food stamps. Poverty alleviation requires government action. Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense. Some of the money flows just get redirected and millions of people get lifted out of poverty. This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power.

We should of course oppose Drone strikes (and all other forms of aggression). But don't use Drone strikes as a boogeyman to oppose all taxes. Without sufficient taxation government becomes underfunded and incapable of providing the services needed for the country to function. Where government falls short other groups will take over. When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off.

It's a permanent struggle to keep the powers that be in check. However when it comes to the government there are many checks and balances in place, and there is a lot of transparency so the citizenry can figure out what the government is doing if they care enough. All things considered, that's pretty good.

> Raising taxes so money can be given to people who clearly need it isn't "big government" in any meaningful sense

Huh, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one - big time.

All civilised countries need a welfare state. But it's hard to argue that this is not "big government" because unless you have a basic income (which nowhere does), all welfare systems require enormous bureaucracies to manage the flow of money, find and fight fraudulent claims, try to get people who are on welfare back off it again, follow up individual cases, gather statistics on the systems performance and so on. They need this because "people who clearly need it" is an unusably vague standard.

In practice, the standard figures I've seen for overheads of welfare spending are about 5-20%. According to this article, the USA Medicaid program has overheads of about 5% and food stamps is closer to 17%:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramati...

> This doesn't contribute at all to the problems of unaccountable and unchecked power.

The welfare state is pretty much the embodiment of unaccountable and unchecked power! The only time you can ever hold it to account is during elections and then it's competing with many other issues. The rest of the time it's run by unelected and often rather opaque bureaucracies!

Look, I am not arguing that welfare is bad. All countries need a safety net (although I note that most welfare spending, in the UK at least, is actually on pensions and not the safety net).

But just because we may like having such a thing doesn't mean we should be blind to its costs.

Final comment:

> When underfunded government institutions get replaced with unaccountable for-profit organizations the citizens are far worse off.

The vast majority of organisations I deal with in my daily life are for-profit organisations held to account through market power. Most things in my life (food, home, water, energy, heat, furniture, internet, etc) are provided by such organisations. There have been countries that tried it the other way around - all such things were provided by the state. That was called communism and it collapsed.

I frequently donate directly to needy children. Other worthy causes as well. I don't have a choice when it comes to taxes - a large fraction of them are used for highly immoral purposes. As a moral person I do not support paying more taxes. In fact, I have made major life changes in order to minimize the amount of taxes the government can force me to pay. It's really the only way to bring such a huge out of control government under control - starve it.

There's a spectrum of how "big" government should be and what its proper function is. Not everyone agrees that redistribution of wealth, even for the purpose of poverty alleviation, is a function of the smallest feasible government.

NO! You are not morally obligated to pay one more penny in taxes than what you legally are required to! It's got nothing to do with morals. If the system is broken, then abuse it until the law makers are forced to fix it. Hate the game, not the player.

English authorities tried light touch regulation, and companies like Google and Vodaphone a used the fuck out of it.

Google's illegal (because that's what it was) scheme got shut down, and the light touch regulation means it's hard to fine them, or even take them through court.

Too many people in this thread are claiming that what Google was doing is legal - it wasn't, which is why they've stopped doing it and repaid (albeit a tiny amount of) tax.

The metaphor I like is that these companies convert common social capital into their own financial capital.

Simple solution: you should stop using any GOOG products and convince others to do so as well.