[hackinthebochs]

So (unethical) hackers are also completely blameless, after all it is in fact the software itself that allows this unintended access. Are you willing to endorse that statement?

If not, then Google is to blame for taking advantage of tax loopholes.

[ihsw]

Consider the following:

* the software is designed by committee

* in the interest of greater acceptance, the committee solicits opinions of users for how to design the software

* some users need certain features, and the committee members are open to "suggestion"

* committee members have no issue with accepting suggestions without considering their impact

* committee members have no issue with accepting bribes in exchange for guarantees of certain features being implemented

* committee members actively solicit suggestions because they want money

* there are no repercussions for committee members taking bribes and blindly accepting feature requests, as a matter of fact it's official policy that they do so

Yeah, those "hackers" are definitely to blame here. They're playing the game by the rules and they're winning, and that makes you upset? Personally I'm not even surprised at all.

[hackinthebochs]

An analogous situation would be an NSA member sitting on a committee developing an encryption standard. The NSA member suggests a change that the committee members do not fully comprehend the implications of. They accept the standard and henceforth the NSA can crack the resulting cryptosystem. By your reasoning the NSA carries no moral fault here.

Man, the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify tax avoidance is astounding. Those with greater knowledge in an assumed non-adversarial system have a moral imperative to disseminate that knowledge to the others in the system. Otherwise taking advantage of the information imbalance and the other party's implied trust is unethical.

Just because something is legal does not make it right. Those who would outsource their moral thinking to laws are a sorry lot.

[ihsw]

Morals and ethics have no say in determining whether to pay taxes -- if you pay too much then the government complains, if you don't pay enough then the government complains. Where exactly does right and wrong fit into this equation?

There are no mental gymnastics in determining how much taxes you have to pay, the only thing that matters is how much you pay.

[hackinthebochs]

>Morals and ethics have no say in determining whether to pay taxes

Morals/ethics do have a determination whether the concept of tax is ethical or not, which would then determine the ethics of avoiding said tax. If you take the position that tax is ethical (as a member of a society...) then it is at least on the surface unethical to avoid the intended tax rate (shifting burden, freeloading, etc).

[simula67]

It is impossible to undo the damage done by some forms of hacking. For example, if someone breaks into your email provider and publishes embarrassing emails about you in public, it would be impossible to undo the damage by any reasonable means. Tomorrow the lawmakers could pass a law stating that all tax not paid be returned to the government.

Also in a free market, governments should compete for companies to register their books in their respective countries and the competition between the governments should keep the tax rates fair.