Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Obviously the law should be changed. But your comments are otherwise incorrect.

> Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in taxes than they should?

What do you mean, 'should'? They 'should' pay the amount that is expected of them - the amount proportional to their profits. Each corporation should pay what is expected of them in full. This would produce is vastly more stable economy which would then let those corporations earn more money. It would benefit the shareholders of every corporation to have a stronger and stabler US consumer base than to have a crippled middle class like they create by not paying their taxes.

Yes, of course Google should have paid that $19.2B.

> Would an individual pay $500 more in taxes than they are required to out of the goodness of their heart and belief in the American government?

Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes.

> What do you mean, 'should'?

I read it as something like 'are required to by law.'

> Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes.

I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

> I read it as something like 'are required to by law.'

I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes.

> I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

If you have more money than necessary, and you know that others don't, and you know that a good portion of your taxes goes to helping others, the rational thing to do could be to help out and not attempt to claim every tax break and benefit you could. I'm not saying that's always right, I'm saying it can be rational for people to do it.

Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. This is a classic tragedy of the commons: if people and companies paid taxes as due, we would all be better off for it. The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes, not use offshore secret hideouts to avoid improving your own country.

I have never paid more taxes (that I'm aware of) than I am legally obligated to and I never will.

Your list of conditions for rationally paying more taxes hinges on so many assumptions that it's a moot point. You might as well say it's rational to burn money in a fire.

If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly, and you know that corporations will keep it instead of paying higher wages to workers, and you know that non profits will eat the majority of it in overhead before it helps people, and you know that decreasing the amount of money in circulation will cause the value of all money to increase, you should rationally set fire to your extra cash.

>If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly

You don't pay taxes so that governments can spend money. Governments can spend as much money as they like - they print the damn stuff.

The economy would function precisely as it does now if every dollar paid in tax were burned and every dollar spent by the government were printed.

Taxes paid to extinguish money. It is supposed to be deflationary - a transfer of wealth to everybody else spending money in the economy.

None of that is remotely true.

Even discounting local and state governments, which use tax dollars to fund themselves and can't print money like you describe, even the federal government doesn't work like that.

>Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations.

Of course it is, and then both individuals and companies have the option to make voluntary payments as charitable contributions or to support local institutions--as many universities to to their municipalities.

Charities are no replacement for a functioning democratic government. Charities do not build large scale infrastructure or keep populations safe or anything as powerful as a functioning government can do to lift citizens out of suffering and poverty.

The US economy lifted scores of millions of people up from poverty into the middle class in the 1800's, long before government entitlement programs, welfare, and wars on poverty.

You can see it in the statistics on life expectancy, infant mortality, and average height.

> the rational thing to do could be to help out

Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.

> The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes

The difficulty is in defining "expected." If the tax authorities give your return the green light, in what sense did they "expect" more? If your definition of expectation isn't about the letter of the law but the spirit, then whose spirit (amongst the many lawyers, accountants, and executives) should be followed? This doesn't even touch the issue of fiduciary responsibility, covered elsewhere in the thread.

The definition of 'expected' comes from the tax code and the government. The article itself states that the governments are expecting more revenue than they are receiving from these companies. Why are they expecting more? Because the companies spend more money finding ways to stash it offshore than the current employees at the government offices can spend to find and estimate the losses that will incur from a company creating its own loopholes for the future.

It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company.

It's clear cut.

> Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.

Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.

>It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company.

>It's clear cut.

See, that's the thing; it's obviously not clear cut to other people.

There's a very reasonable (IMO) position that a taxpayer is merely obligated to comply with the law, but is not similarly obligated to structure their affairs in such a way as to maximize the government's take.

> Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.

Also, charities don't bomb the living shit out of strangers around the world.

As an aside, I'm sad to see downvotes being used as a "I disagree with this post" (a la reddit) instead of a moderation tool to punish offtopic/rulebreaking, as they were intended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com