Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bmelton 4209 days ago
Only if we pretend that individuals don't do the same thing.

When I check the box to count my daughter as a dependent, I am "avoiding" taxes. When a multi-national corporation inverts their company to Canada, they are "avoiding" taxes. So long as all of the above are within the rules, neither act is immoral.
2 comments
lmm 4209 days ago
Or both are. Here in the UK I've never made any attempt to optimize my taxes; I called HMRC once (when I saw a big increase in how much tax I was paying over the previous month's payslip) and they told me everything was fine, and that's the total extent of my interaction with them. (I even avoid ticking the gift aid box on charitable donations, as I think that's immoral). I agree that there is no legal obligation not to minmax your taxes, but I think there is a moral one.
link
NLips 4209 days ago
Gift aid is a specific scheme created by the government to increase charitable giving. At the 20% income tax bracket, it makes no difference to you but helps the charity, and at the 40+% brackets it makes a difference to the charity and provides you with a fraction back.

You still end up with less money than had you not given to charity, and it's MEANT to work this way. It's a very different kettle of fish to exploiting tax loop holes.

link
lmm 4209 days ago
> it makes no difference to you but helps the charity

And penalizes the government. I'm happy giving my own money to Music For Rich Old White Dudes, but I don't think it's moral for me to take money away from the general taxation pool for that.

link
mikeyouse 4209 days ago
> neither act is immoral.

I would argue that it's not illegal but if you're defense of an action is "It's not technically illegal", there's a good chance it's immoral.

link
bmelton 4209 days ago
The argument isn't that it isn't "technically legal", but that it's expressly legal. I fill out a government provided form using government provided instructions, and answer them with complete and total honesty.

The result of that is that I pay less in taxes than if I had lied.

Are you honestly suggesting that lying is morally superior?

link
mikeyouse 4209 days ago
What a ridiculous spin..

You do realize that setting up entities expressly for the purpose of avoiding tax is illegal in most jurisdictions right?[1-3] The absence of aggressive enforcement doesn't obviate the illegality of the actions.

In your scenario, those humble multinational corporations who are so beholden to the truth have to tell the tax authorities that the dozens of subsidiaries all have actual and legitimate business purposes and that they weren't set up merely to avoid taxes. I mean, it really is obvious why Apple transferred most of their IP to an Irish subsidiary for non-tax reasons, isn't it?

[1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-gen...

[2] - http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/87779/excerpt/978052188...

[3] - http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/15/247...

link
rahimnathwani 4209 days ago
"You do realize that setting up entities expressly for the purpose of avoiding tax is illegal in most jurisdictions right?[1-3]"

I don't believe that is true. There are ~200 countries in the world. The UK, a pretty advanced nation when it comes to tax, did not implement general anti-avoidance legislation until last year. (See your footnote [1] for the exact date.)

Moreover, this anti-avoidance legislation is specifically targeted at what HMRC calls 'abusive avoidance'. It is not targeted at all avoidance.

link