Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pungsnigel | Hacker News Reader

Your conclusion does not follow from your the issue you outline. The unfair advantage could easily be removed by simply not taxing corporations at all. Taxing someone (or in this case, a whole bunch of people) just to keep them down seems like quite a bad motivation.

View on HN

That's a separate argument. Laissez-faire vs. government (or the optimal level of taxation).

My argument is that a set of tax laws exist today and as long as they do all companies should be treated the same.

> just to keep them down

As an aside, Ireland's corporate tax is 12.5%, roughly 1/3 of the US corporate tax rate (35%). So it's not like Apple is being horribly 'kept down' here.

Doesn't have to be, no. There are other things to tax than corporations, people and transactions being the obvious candidates.

Unless Apple's going to start paying to keep the roads, energy infrastructure and primary education that keeps their business and staff going they better start paying up.

Its not really Apple's responsibility though.

Well, legally it is if the tax code says it is (or multinational agreements say the tax code should say it is). And ethically, I don't see why an artificial entity which exists purely because governments are benevolent enough to bestow special privileges like limited liability upon its shareholders should carry less responsibility for the maintenance of the civil society required for its continued existence than the average person living in that country.

So governments should print the money they need instead?

I've made no arguments about if its right or wrong to collect taxes.

But you assume that not taxing companies is an option.

Sure. Because it is. Alternatives could be to simply tax transactions, tax capital, tax people or not taxing anyone at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com