Hacker News Reader

Comment by artursapek | Hacker News Reader

They pay the tax they are legally obligated to. You can't expect any business to pay a penny more than that. It's on the lawmakers to remove the loopholes (which they and their friends probably exploit as well, so good luck with that...)

View on HN

Please see my reply above. It is alleged that they do not pay the tax that they are legally obliged to. No loophole, just special treatment.

Not OP, but OP's point stands. If they can get special treatment, someone else's might be able to. The fact that it's a possibility means they must use it or risk being at a competitive disadvantage of a less ethical player.

Before an argument of "this justifies any type of behavior such as murdering your competitors' CEOs." There's a natural limit (albeit fuzzy) to what rules is in the company's self interest to seek a "special treatment". Relationships with gov't go sour, governments change, etc. What used to be "special treatment" might quickly transform into proof of wrong-doing against the company.

But then the argument becomes rather different. It is no longer a question of "If that's the law then it is not Amazon's fault". It has moved on to "Can we get away with coercing the government into allowing us to break the law".

That is morally a lot more challenging, and there is nothing in the managements fiduciary responsibilities that compels them to break laws. Nothing. Indeed the responsibility to shareholders is more complex anyway, aggressive tax planning may for instance damage your brand and reduce the future profitability.

Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.

Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?

Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way.

If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.

Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.

It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator.

Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.

I'm not participating in the conversation around the moral imperatives for corporations.

I am curious about your statement:

> Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.

I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation".

I'm bringing it up because I'm sure you didn't intend your statement in this way. It might be worth it to re-think/phrase it.

> I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation".

The tax base and the voters are not the same thing. Unemployed have a vote, corporations do not.

Additionally, in the case of tax system manipulation, it is the richest who wield the greatest power. As a relatively boring private individual, no action I personally take to move my income to regions of low tax has any noticeable impact on a government — 100% of my tax is still less than most rounding errors. Large multinationals, on the other hand… Apple International is tax resident in the Republic of Ireland, and Apple (parent company not International) has an annual revenue of 70% of Ireland’s GDP.

I can see how my language choice led to your comment.

I’m worried this is one dollar one vote, not one person one vote.

It's not weakness, it's a commercial decision, both for Amazon AND for the jurisdiction. It's another tool the governing body has for drawing (or repelling) businesses.

There isn't a moral rate of taxation anymore than there is an absolute moral price to pay for a night at a hotel.

I’m not arguing about the absolute rate of taxation, I’m arguing about the ability to exploit different rates. Arbitrage of rules, I guess you might call it, in an environment where those setting the rules can be pressured into what would otherwise be suboptimal decisions.

Of course they did, why wouldn't they? You don't expect them to willingly pay more tax than necessary. They're a business and their job is to make money.

As they were almost certainly legally obligated too, the problem is individuals still vote in officials who bend to the whim of businesses instead of individuals.

The head tax was a poorly thought out law that would have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on Seattle-based businesses without trillion dollar market caps. It was broadly unpopular here for that and a number of reasons, in spite of widespread controversy about Amazon's effect on Seattle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com