Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewprock | Hacker News Reader

Yet, they also have an ethical responsibility to the society in which they operate. Being legal and ethical are two different things.

View on HN

What if the taxes are unethical?

That's like asking "what if profits are unethical?"

Why would profits be unethical?

Profits would be unethical if they were derived from unethical business practices. This isn't difficult to imagine.

Okay fair point. Though I don't necessarily see the correlation to taxation. I assume what perhaps is being implied is that the money from taxation can be used for ethical or unethical practices (as oldmanjay points out). Yet that analogy skips how tax is only possible with profit, not to mention the fundamental issue of whether or not taxation of profit is ethical in the first place.

Well, your original question was in response to an assertion that a corporation has an ethical responsibility to its society. You asked what if the taxes are unethical, which strikes me as a bit silly at best. I only offered a suggestion to your second question of why certain profits would be considered unethical. The matter of the choices made by leaders who spend tax revenue is independent of levying, paying, and collecting taxes.

If you have an argument that describes how taxing profits is unethical in contemporary society, as they are legislated by elected representatives, I'm sure there are others beside me who'd love to read it.

Then taxes is not the way to remove those profits from the company.

That wasn't the question I was answering.

How can a tax be in this category?

There are many ways a tax can be unethical. It may finance torture, invasion, and fomenting coups in undeveloped nations that lead to widespread suffering. For example.

That is not an ethical problem with the tax, but with the choices made by leadership on policies and budgets.

Sure it is. Taxes can be levied for very specific purposes. Even ignoring that category of taxes, if you find that a whole country is operating immorally, then funding that company is immoral.

But this is not the context we are talking about here. Spain is part of the EU and the so called "1st" world.

To reply to a comment I can't reply to: spdy 7 minutes ago

But this is not the context we are talking about here. Spain is part of the EU and the so called "1st" world.

I'm not sure if you're being tongue in cheek or not, but the 1st world may have less repression and human rights violations but it doesn't have none. And member states have invaded other countries in recent memory, have been involved in torture, institutional racism, etc.

FYI: you can reply to any comment by clicking on the n [minutes/hours/days] ago link.

You can't willingly start a business in a country that finances torture and invasion, make yourself money, and then turn around and say you won't pay tax because the country is unethical. That will be hypocrisy of highest magnitude.

"Taxation without representation."

If you have the friends that companies like Google do, then I don't think you have any problems with representation.

Taxation without representation has not been an issue in America since 1776. Unless you're referring to multinationals lacking direct representation in foreign legislatures. At which point, it's fair to both consider that as a reasonable consequence of choosing to engage in business in other national jurisdictions, and to admit they undoubtedly have indirect representation.

What if the taxes are unethical?

Doesn't matter -- when the principals signed documents agreeing to incorporate, they simultaneously agreed to abide by the what the law says in regard to paying taxes due as the law requires. If they thought these laws were "unethical"... well, that was their chance to make a principled stand against them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com