Comment by doctorpangloss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by doctorpangloss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> the result of expert lobbying.

You don't need expert lobbying. Look at this forum, full of tax-evasion apologists who conflate pragmatism with pedantry.

Pedantry is the one of the most intellectually and emotionally bankrupt moral frameworks. It basically states that if you just think about the rules a lot, then you will find the solution.

I mean, obviously all these politicians and normal people, they've just been getting it wrong all along! To quote other commenters, "Apple did nothing illegal!" The "Tax law is a system of rules!" Just look more carefully at those random tiny rules and then, we don't have to have a discussion anymore! People who don't read the rules carefully enough: "it makes my brain hurt!" Then blame the people who write the rules, or petition for the rules.

Pedantry is the disease, not lobbyists.

I don't know how to convince the pedants though that sometimes, it's ethical to reinterpret the rules.

To clarify, I think we should be asking whether or not what Apple does is ethical. And the answer to that question shouldn't depend on whether or not we're wondering the same about other corporations.

The answer is obviously no, tax evasion / avoidance isn't ethical.

What exactly are the point of rules if you can reinterpret them in your favor as you see fit? It would be perfectly reasonable to rewrite rules going forward, but to retroactively change what the law says invalidates the point of having laws to begin with.

I don't know, what's the point of rules if they're not enforced properly? Or if they're written by people you don't like? Or any number of problems?

I'm assailing this line of thinking in general.

Instead, can we discuss whether or not giant corporations avoiding taxes is ethical, rather than whether or not there's something up with the rules? Do you seriously believe that what Apple and other large corporations do with respect to taxes is ethical?

What ethical standard is there that can determine how much tax a person or corporation should pay, apart from tax law?

It's not like there are pre-existing moral rules in the case of taxes -- taxes exist only because of tax law; tax law defines what taxes are, who is to pay them, and how much they ought to pay. Tax law is the only authoritative standard to which someone's behavior re: taxes can be submitted.

The spirit of said tax law.

It's not possible to determine the spirit of the tax law an objective way: the tax law is actually an accretion of a bunch of laws and amendments, passed decades apart by different people with different intentions, who were influenced by the politics of their time, lobbyists, the state of the economy, the upcoming presidential election, etc.

For example, some parts of tax law were passed by politicians who wanted to help corporations avoid paying taxes, and other parts were passed by politicians who wanted corporations to stop avoiding taxes. Both of these contradictory intentions are embodied in our current tax law. The spirit of the law is confused at best.

I grant you that it might not be possible in all the cases. But it'd be hard to argue that the double-Dutch sandwich was something any politician ever intended.

Or for which they could ever possibly have a mandate.

The EU rules about what state aids are legal or not have been there for years, though.

And this is an issue between Ireland and the EU.

Yeah, that's what this announcement is about. The Commission is telling Ireland what it did was illegal, and has to fix it.

There is no reinterpretation going on here. Apple never asked the EU. Apple went to Ireland "hey, guys, do you think it is okay to do this?" .. Ireland said yes, but Ireland has no authority here. The EU, which has authority, checked it and said "nope, your interpretation is wrong." - Simple as that.

If I ask someone on the street if its okay to steal from the rich, he says "yes" and I steal from the rich, no one would bat an eye if the courts didn't agree with my "interpretation" of the law and put me behind bars. And no one would accept it as a legal defense if I said "but hey, that guy over there said it is okay to do this!" - why should it be different for companies?

Ireland does have the authority, but:

1. They have applied their own laws in a way that amounts to subsidies, and

2. The corporate structure turned out to be fictional, and allocations of profits were therefore also fictional. ("Arm's length" and all that.)

They even open the door for national tax authorities to use their findings and evaluate for profit shifting.

This is an inspirational moment - too long have tax treaties favoured those willing to break the spirit of the law and weigh down the little man with the consequences!

The pedantry you're referring to is also sometimes called "rule of law", and it's more beneficial than the expediency of witch trials. I avoid taxes as much as possible, though I admittedly lack the team of lawyers, and everyone who puts money in retirement accounts is also just avoiding taxes.

I hate Walmart for their ruinous development patterns, but I don't fault them for working within the system they're given. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

> Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Said every gangster ever.

Stiglitz calls what Apple's done a fraud, while also saying it's the tax law that's incentivized that fraud. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/stiglitz-c...

Ethical to whom?

For all the Apple stockholders, it is ethical to follow the rule and reduce taxes. For all the handme-something EU bums it is not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com