Zuckerberg Fires Back at Cook

[Razor01]

well how about the years before that?

 

Did you buy anything from Ebay last year?  How about from Amazon?  Any out of state online store for that matter?

 

Since you feel Newegg is going to roll over its better to just pay the taxes right?  Well that is what Apple has been doing lol, since Ireland wasn't enforcing tax laws, they didn't pay in the past. So pretty much ethically you and Apple did the same thing when it came to taxes lol, as did I and many others, if we can get away with it, we will.

[asus killer]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

well how about the years before that?

 

Did you buy anything from Ebay last year?  How about from Amazon?  Any out of state online store for that matter?

 

Since you feel Newegg is going to roll over its better to just pay the taxes right?  Well that is what Apple has been doing lol, since Ireland wasn't enforcing tax laws, they didn't pay in the past. So pretty much ethically you and Apple did the same thing when it came to taxes lol, as did I and many others, if we can get away with it, we will.

apples and oranges. You had to pay taxes but choose not to and your state choose not to enforce any laws. Apple went to Ireland and pay the tax rate there, there were no laws that weren't enforced, the tax rate was low, but that's another issue, no laws were broken in Ireland. The EU made them pay more because they decided Ireland was acting as a tax shelter, that's not even Apple's fault, more Ireland's fault. That's why they paid no penalties, just back taxes.

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

apples and oranges. You had to pay taxes but choose not to and your state choose not to enforce any laws. Apple went to Ireland and pay the tax rate there, there were no laws that weren't enforced, the tax rate was low, but that's another issue, no laws were broken in Ireland. The EU made them pay more because they decided Ireland was acting as a tax shelter, that's not even Apple's fault, more Ireland's fault. That's why they paid no penalties, just back taxes.

Good point.

[79wjd]

15 hours ago, Cole5 said:

But I can, and DO blame companies for not paying their fair share of taxes, Sure loopholes may not be legal, but it's still douchy to pay .05% on profit if i have to pay 34%

Get a better tax attorney and find and utilize every loophole that applies. It's not Apple's (or any company/individual's) fault that they're smarter than you. No FOR-PROFIT company or individual in their right mind would voluntarily pay taxes they didn't legally have to pay. No one likes paying taxes, which is why tax attorneys are such a big thing; plus more taxes only go to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and "fixing" the same ten feet of road that isn't even damaged while the next ten miles is riddled with potholes and problems. The government is very much so like any church -- they want all the money so they can burn through it and accomplish nothing but make a select few rich. 

 

Should the loopholes be closed? Maybe, although there are arguments to be made there in that many of the loopholes exist in order to encourage employing your population or spending money on your soil -- which ends up yielding far more benefit (in the form of a higher employment rate and more spending) than the original taxes would in the first place. 

 

1 hour ago, Cole5 said:

I did last year, Cause New egg is gonna roll over like a scared dog again sooner or later

So you only paid those taxes because you're afraid of getting caught....not because it's the ethically right thing to do....

[Cole5]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Get a better tax attorney and find and utilize every loophole that applies. It's not Apple's (or any company/individual's) fault that they're smarter than you. No FOR-PROFIT company or individual in their right mind would voluntarily pay taxes they didn't legally have to pay. No one likes paying taxes, which is why tax attorneys are such a big thing; plus more taxes only go to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and "fixing" the same ten feet of road that isn't even damaged while the next ten miles is riddled with potholes and problems. The government is very much so like any church -- they want all the money so they can burn through it and accomplish nothing but make a select few rich. 

 

Should the loopholes be closed? Maybe, although there are arguments to be made there in that many of the loopholes exist in order to encourage employing your population or spending money on your soil -- which ends up yielding far more benefit (in the form of a higher employment rate and more spending) than the original taxes would in the first place. 

 

So you only paid those taxes because you're afraid of getting caught....not because it's the ethically right thing to do....

Whats the difference? Are ethics just not fear of begin judged? 

[AngryBeaver]

17 hours ago, asus killer said:

you did not read the article. If now you are clearly given them permission to see sms's  (what is stupid because you're not given an option no to do it at least at install), it was not always like this, so i hardly can see how you can blame someone for something they didn't have idea it was a thing. It's in the article.

 

Besides this is the discussion that many had because of TOS and things like it. Just because you click agree on some 100 page BS it doesn't mean the company can kill you if that is clearly stated on point 111.2 of the TOS. More so when you have no alternative, you either agree or can't use it. TOS aren't law, they must abide by the law like anyone else.

Correct, the terms of their contract need to follow the local laws. However, that is still irrelevant to this discussion. They haven't broken any laws.

 

Is what it immoral? Possibly. Illegal? No.

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

Correct, the terms of their contract need to follow the local laws. However, that is still irrelevant to this discussion. They haven't broken any laws.

 

Is what it immoral? Possibly. Illegal? No.

i totally agree with you on the immoral part, for me this has nothing to do with morals. I don't know if it's illegal what they did, but it's being investigated like i said in EU and Australia at least, so it's neither clearly legal or illegal, you have to agree that it's at least suspicious.

[AngryBeaver]

18 hours ago, asus killer said:

i totally agree with you on the immoral part, for me this has nothing to do with morals. I don't know if it's illegal what they did, but it's being investigated like i said in EU and Australia at least, so it's neither clearly legal or illegal, you have to agree that it's at least suspicious.

It is just more of these countries wanting more control over private identities and now that this has come forward they will put on a show about it.

 

This is just more of the same we have seen from them over the past decade or so.

[asus killer]

7 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

It is just more of these countries wanting more control over private identities and now that this has come forward they will put on a show about it.

 

This is just more of the same we have seen from them over the past decade or so.

if they had any control we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem is the country that has control over them.

[LAwLz]

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

You are incorrectly assuming that I think that is a blanket statement that applies to everything that is law. In this specific case I believe it to be true, becasue od the nature of the case and the ways tax law come into being. But you need to stop extending that to everything and trying to claim I am wrong.   Such gross generalizations do not prove why tax avoidance is unethical, only that some other things can be.

So what you are saying is that whether or not an action complies with a countries laws or not, is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical? Except in this particular case where it is?

Why only in this case and not something like cheating on your wife?

 

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

You keep repeating yourself. I think you are over generalizing because you can't refine your argument.  Again explain to me how managing your finances in a way that legitimately lowers your tax liability is unethical.  avoid mentioning spousal affairs or abortion. 

1) Apple are not just "lowering their taxes". As soon as they bring the money into the US they will have to pay full tax, which is why they are stacking it in a huge mountain in Ireland, waiting for the US to make a tax holiday specifically for them.

2) I have already explained why it is unethical, and given you the definition of unethical. You don't get to pick and choose when a definition of a word applies and when it doesn't. Avoiding paying tax is unethical for the same reason cheating on your spouse is unethical. While neither is illegal, both of them goes against what society has come on a consensus on is not rightful actions.

You might think it is morally alright to avoid taxes, but society does not.

If you were to ask 1000 people on the street if you think what Apple does is virtuous, do you think people would say it was? My guess is that they would say hell no.

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

Again, you are still  trying to use unethical things to prove something unrelated is unethical also.  It doesn't work that way, either tax avoidance is unethical in it's own right or it isn't.  But it seems as you can't show me how it is unethical without talking about cheating and abortions and all manner of other things not even in the same realm as filing a tax return.

I have showed it. I have linked a research paper as well as a statement from the director of business ethics, both saying that you are wrong and I am right. You just ignored those because they don't agree with you.

 

By the way, Apple are not just filing tax returns in a way that makes them pay lower taxes. Do you even know what Apple is doing?

 

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

Because you can't describe the mechanism by which tax avoidance is unethical.

I have, in the links I have posted, which uses ethical models to determine it. You ignored those though.

 

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

No, 95% of people would think it is, but that doesn't make it unethical for the remaining 5%.   This is the bit you might be having the most trouble with,  you don't get to decide what is ethical for other people.   In fact you don't even get to decide what is ethical for the majority of people let alone whether that belief is valid or not.  Majority of the population believes in discriminatory gender pay gap, does that make it a real thing?  No.  most of the population believes in woman only employment to balance inequality in the workforce, does that make it a legitimate practice? no.  Majority of people believe tax avoidance is unethical, same thing, that does not make it unethical. 

Again, you don't seem to understand the definitions of ethics or morals.

The remaining 5% might not think it is immoral, but that does not mean it is ethical. It is still unethical.

I don't get to decide what is ethical for other people, but society does. Society don't get to decide what is immoral to other people though.

 

Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between ethics and facts.

What does the gender gap have to do with anything? The gender gap existing/not existing is an incorrect fact. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. It's not unethical to say the sun is purple for example. It's just incorrect. Ethics does not deal with facts. It deals with principles.

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

So you acknowledge they can be different it except you want to create a new category of "general" ethics becasue it supports your claims.    So far you have spoken about everything else except how tax avoidance is actually unethical.

I am not trying to create a new category for "general ethics". Ethics is the moral principle consensus within a particular group. The group I am referring to here is the western society.

 

On 2018-04-06 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

That last line is the most important bit in this conversation.  Until you actually address that you are doing nothing but obfuscating the issue with generalizations and philosophies.

Ethics is philosophy. I am not obfuscating anything because it is literally 100% about philosophy. That's what Ethics is.

 

I would like you to answer these questions:

1) What do you think morals are? Define it.

2) What do you think ethics are? Define it.

3) What do you think Apple is doing and what are the effects?

 

The reason why I want an answer to question 1 and 2 is because it seems like you do not understand what they are. I have already given the explanation earlier in the thread, as well as linked multiple sources saying the same things.

The reason why I want you to answer question 3 is because it does not seem like you know what is going on. You seem to think that Apple has found a way to pay less tax than if they didn't transfer money back and fourth, through different countries in this particular way. That is not what is happening.

[AngryBeaver]

I think it is a little in bad taste that Facebook was using the messenger app to collect sms information, but honestly I am not surprised. Companies have been doing this for a very long time now. They will sell our information anytime they can to make extra coin.

 

I think the only recourse that could be had with Facebook legally, would be the collecting of the SMS messages. However, if they were stripping the PII (Personal Identifiable Information) from them, then there won't be a case here. Even if they didn't only the people who don't actively have a facebook account would have a case. As in there information and communications were collected from conversations they had with facebook messenger users, but they were not aware and had not agreed to the collection of their text messages by being a user of facebook.

 

 

[ItsMitch]

Zuckerburg has arrived at the Senate, most likely to get a grilling and a half, he looked actually professional in his suit for once. 

 

[79wjd]

 

Quote

You might think it is morally alright to avoid taxes, but society does not.

If you were to ask 1000 people on the street if you think what Apple does is virtuous, do you think people would say it was? My guess is that they would say hell no.

You better also ask how many of them take advantage of exemptions and/or loopholes, because the vast majority of people do write off whatever they can. People for some reason just believe that companies should be more willing to pay taxes than they themselves as individuals are willing to pay likely stemming from the fact that they simply see a company as having so much money why shouldn't they just willingly hand over whatever is asked of them. It's the same reason a lot of people have no problem gaming a stores return policy but wouldn't consider strealing from an individual -- e.g. stealing from a large store is a "victimless" crime.

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You better also ask how many of them take advantage of exemptions and/or loopholes, because the vast majority of people do write off whatever they can.

Why? That is completely irrelevant to the conversation. One bad action does not excuse other bad actions, nor does hypocrisy invalidate their stance. Do you know what kind of argument that is? It's an ad hominem argument. Or to be more specific, an Ad hominem tu quoque.

 

Someone: "Americans need to eat healthier! Our people are sick because of the obesity epidemic"

You: "You're fat so we don't have to listen to you! You're no better than us so therefore we don't need to eat healthier!"

 

In any case, what they do is irrelevant. The only thing that matters to whether or not something is unethical, is what the general consensus within a group is. If the consensus is that it is not virtues of Apple to behave the way they do, then it is unethical. It might not be legally wrong, and their actions might align with plenty of peoples' own actions (although on a much larger scale), but none of that makes it ethical because ethics is purely about what people believe.

 

And like I have already pointed out with several independent research papers and articles, tax avoidance is unethical.

Research paper from George Washington University and article from the director of the Institute of Business Ethics.

 

 

16 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

People for some reason just believe that companies should be more willing to pay taxes than they themselves as individuals are willing to pay likely stemming from the fact that they simply see a company as having so much money why shouldn't they just willingly hand over whatever is asked of them.

You're right, but there are reasons for why they believe that. Now, you might shoot down this reason if you want, but my guess is that it is the biggest reason why people look at it this way. Please note however that, like I explained earlier, hypocrisy from people does not invalidate what they say or believe. Especially not when we are talking about things like ethics. A lot of people act in shitty ways, but that does not mean the rest of us shouldn't strive to be better than them (or that they expect us to be better than them).

 

There is a very big difference in scale. You're trying to draw a comparison between maybe getting away with a 60 dollar game, vs the 53.4 billion US dollars Apples have avoided paying in tax (38 billion to the US, and 15.4 billion to Ireland). The individual does not see their actions as having a big impact, which it doesn't.

 

Individual person - Throws a battery in the trash bin.

Apple - dumping radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor straight into the ocean.

That's the difference in scale we're talking about here. And yes, lots of people throwing batteries in the trash is bad, and you should not do it.

 

Also, Apple has been so hellbent on avoiding taxes, that they have not been able to use their money at all. They would rather not be able to use their money at all, than pay taxes and be able to use it.

[suicidalfranco]

LTT forum be like:

me making profit from crypto without paying taxes cause there are no taxes on cryto

> hopes the government cracks down on me

multinational corporations making billions in profit paying lower than a coffee bar down the street

> nothing wrong here

[mr moose]

On 4/7/2018 at 10:01 PM, Cole5 said:

Both, Full time worker and co owner of a woodshop

Then create an offshore holding to hold your profit in instead of paying tax on that.

[mr moose]

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

So what you are saying is that whether or not an action complies with a countries laws or not, is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical? Except in this particular case where it is?

Why only in this case and not something like cheating on your wife?

 

No, I am saying  the actual issue here is not unethical, therefore the only mechanism by which it could be unethical if it was illegal.  which is not the same as using legality as reasoning for it's actual.original ethical positioning.

 

 

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

1) Apple are not just "lowering their taxes". As soon as they bring the money into the US they will have to pay full tax, which is why they are stacking it in a huge mountain in Ireland, waiting for the US to make a tax holiday specifically for them.

So?  the If the US want to tax that they can, if they decide to waive it they will.  Apple are not in control of tax law in either country.

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

2) I have already explained why it is unethical, and given you the definition of unethical. You don't get to pick and choose when a definition of a word applies and when it doesn't. Avoiding paying tax is unethical for the same reason cheating on your spouse is unethical. While neither is illegal, both of them goes against what society has come on a consensus on is not rightful actions.

No you haven't.  You just keep pointing to things that are unethical as if that is proof.  cheating on my wife is not avoiding tax. you may as well claim that beacuse all trees have roots that all buildings must too.

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

You might think it is morally alright to avoid taxes, but society does not.

You do  not, some of society does not, that doesn;t make it unethical, as we have already established, consensus does not make an ethic.

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

If you were to ask 1000 people on the street if you think what Apple does is virtuous, do you think people would say it was? My guess is that they would say hell no.

 

I don't care what they say, 1000 people on the street think men get paid more than woman because they are men. this doesn't make it true.

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

I have showed it. I have linked a research paper as well as a statement from the director of business ethics, both saying that you are wrong and I am right. You just ignored those because they don't agree with you.

I can link you to ethics professors who think woman need to be given special treatment during the interview process,  doesn't make them right. 

 

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

By the way, Apple are not just filing tax returns in a way that makes them pay lower taxes. Do you even know what Apple is doing?

 

Yes.

On 4/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, LAwLz said:

 

I have, in the links I have posted, which uses ethical models to determine it. You ignored those though.

 

 

Again, you don't seem to understand the definitions of ethics or morals.

The remaining 5% might not think it is immoral, but that does not mean it is ethical. It is still unethical.

I don't get to decide what is ethical for other people, but society does. Society don't get to decide what is immoral to other people though.

 

Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between ethics and facts.

What does the gender gap have to do with anything? The gender gap existing/not existing is an incorrect fact. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. It's not unethical to say the sun is purple for example. It's just incorrect. Ethics does not deal with facts. It deals with principles.

 

I am not trying to create a new category for "general ethics". Ethics is the moral principle consensus within a particular group. The group I am referring to here is the western society.

 

Ethics is philosophy. I am not obfuscating anything because it is literally 100% about philosophy. That's what Ethics is.

 

I would like you to answer these questions:

1) What do you think morals are? Define it.

2) What do you think ethics are? Define it.

3) What do you think Apple is doing and what are the effects?

 

The reason why I want an answer to question 1 and 2 is because it seems like you do not understand what they are. I have already given the explanation earlier in the thread, as well as linked multiple sources saying the same things.

The reason why I want you to answer question 3 is because it does not seem like you know what is going on. You seem to think that Apple has found a way to pay less tax than if they didn't transfer money back and fourth, through different countries in this particular way. That is not what is happening.

What we have here is a difference of opinion that you think you can claim absolute correctness on.   Until you show me how apple are somehow holding countries to ransom on their taxes (which is the only way ethics can come into it) then you are simply falling victim to the same social justice mindset that ignores some pretty large facts (like government creating/enforcing  tax law in the first place) in order to maintain this view.

 

The only thing that needs to happen (if any large company should be paying more taxes) is for governments to change the rules or enforcing tighter tax law.  That''s it, nothing else.  Trying to hold a company to an arbitrary moral code that has no defined boundaries or rules is simply unfair if you are going to hold them to account over it.  Everyone has a different idea on whats acceptable.

 

1 and 2 have been done to death, you just don't seem to understand them.

3. apple are simply managing their finances to limit their tax obligations.  The effects of that are that they have more money in their savings.  I would have thought this was pretty self evident.   You know,  seeing as that's the whole point of taking a microscope to tax law to make sure you pay less. 

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, I am saying  the actual issue here is not unethical, therefore the only mechanism by which it could be unethical if it was illegal.  which is not the same as using legality as reasoning for it's actual.original ethical positioning.

Well you see, that is because you don't know the meaning of ethical. Hell, this part right here proves it without a doubt:

"the only mechanism by which it could be unethical if it was illegal".

Something being illegal or not has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to do with it being ethical or not.

 

And what do you mean the issue isn't about ethics? According to whom? Certainly not the definition of the word, researchers or ethicists.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

So?  the If the US want to tax that they can, if they decide to waive it they will.  Apple are not in control of tax law in either country.

I am fairly sure they can't, since the money is in an offshore account. Not just an account, but a shell company too. The money is technically not Apple's. It belongs to an Irish company that Apple has paid royalties to.

What do you want and expect the US to do exactly to stop this?

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

No you haven't.  You just keep pointing to things that are unethical as if that is proof.  cheating on my wife is not avoiding tax. you may as well claim that beacuse all trees have roots that all buildings must too.

I am posting those things because they are examples of why legal != ethical, which is something you have once again brought up.

Things can be legal and unethical. Things doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.

 

What logical though process do you use to rationalize the idea that you can not question the ethics of avoiding taxes, but you can question the ethics of cheating on your wife?

Why do you exclude paying taxes completely from the subject of ethics? Is it because you don't know what ethics means? You can question the ethics of anything. Eating apples, cheating on your wife, murder, donating to the poor, and so on.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

You do  not, some of society does not, that doesn;t make it unethical, as we have already established, consensus does not make an ethic.

Yes, consensus does decide whether or not something is ethical, withing a particular group.

Again, I have posted several links which proves this. It's your (wrong) word, against actual sources and research. We didn't establish what you say we did. All that happened was that you said it wasn't that way, and to you that apparently counts as we establishing that.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't care what they say, 1000 people on the street think men get paid more than woman because they are men. this doesn't make it true.

You are no longer talking about ethics there.

You're talking about people believing in facts or fiction. Ethics does not deal with facts, it deals with right or wrong, virtue or vice, good or evil.

What you could ask is, would it be ethical to pay a man more than a woman? That is an ethical question.

Your example makes as much sense as saying "is it ethical that 1+1=2?". It doesn't make any sense.

 

Again, ethics does not deal with "true/false". It deals with "good/bad".

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I can link you to ethics professors who think woman need to be given special treatment during the interview process,  doesn't make them right. 

Irrelevant because, like I said before, ethics does not deal with "true/false". It deals with "good/bad".

That ethics professor might believe that it is morally correct to give women special treatment during interviews. You morals do not.

The morals of two different people often do not align, because like I said earlier morals and ethics do not deal with "true/false". Nobody can say that your morals are wrong, just like they can't say your color preference is wrong.

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

1 and 2 have been done to death, you just don't seem to understand them.

You have not once in this entire thread posted what you believe ethics and morals are. I want you to do it right now because that is the entire reason why we are arguing. I keep posting source after source, explaining what morals and ethics are, and you just go "no that's not right". Come on, it shouldn't be hard for you to just tell me what you believe it means, and it would put an end to this conversation.

 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

3. apple are simply managing their finances to limit their tax obligations.  The effects of that are that they have more money in their savings.  I would have thought this was pretty self evident.   You know,  seeing as that's the whole point of taking a microscope to tax law to make sure you pay less. 

No I mean in detail. You're describing the result of their actions, not their actions.

The result is that they have more money in their savings, but how do you think they accomplish that?

[TVwazhere]

Does anyone else read the title and misread it as:

Quote

Zuckerberg Fires Cook

and wonder what his personal chef did wrong?

 

Maybe I'm just that dyslexic.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well you see, that is because you don't know the meaning of ethical. Hell, this part right here proves it without a doubt:

"the only mechanism by which it could be unethical if it was illegal".

Something being illegal or not has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to do with it being ethical or not.

 

And what do you mean the issue isn't about ethics? According to whom? Certainly not the definition of the word, researchers or ethicists.

 

 

I am fairly sure they can't, since the money is in an offshore account. Not just an account, but a shell company too. The money is technically not Apple's. It belongs to an Irish company that Apple has paid royalties to.

What do you want and expect the US to do exactly to stop this?

 

 

I am posting those things because they are examples of why legal != ethical, which is something you have once again brought up.

Things can be legal and unethical. Things doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.

 

What logical though process do you use to rationalize the idea that you can not question the ethics of avoiding taxes, but you can question the ethics of cheating on your wife?

Why do you exclude paying taxes completely from the subject of ethics? Is it because you don't know what ethics means? You can question the ethics of anything. Eating apples, cheating on your wife, murder, donating to the poor, and so on.

 

 

Yes, consensus does decide whether or not something is ethical, withing a particular group.

Again, I have posted several links which proves this. It's your (wrong) word, against actual sources and research. We didn't establish what you say we did. All that happened was that you said it wasn't that way, and to you that apparently counts as we establishing that.

 

 

You are no longer talking about ethics there.

You're talking about people believing in facts or fiction. Ethics does not deal with facts, it deals with right or wrong, virtue or vice, good or evil.

What you could ask is, would it be ethical to pay a man more than a woman? That is an ethical question.

Your example makes as much sense as saying "is it ethical that 1+1=2?". It doesn't make any sense.

 

Again, ethics does not deal with "true/false". It deals with "good/bad".

 

Irrelevant because, like I said before, ethics does not deal with "true/false". It deals with "good/bad".

That ethics professor might believe that it is morally correct to give women special treatment during interviews. You morals do not.

The morals of two different people often do not align, because like I said earlier morals and ethics do not deal with "true/false". Nobody can say that your morals are wrong, just like they can't say your color preference is wrong.

 

You have not once in this entire thread posted what you believe ethics and morals are. I want you to do it right now because that is the entire reason why we are arguing. I keep posting source after source, explaining what morals and ethics are, and you just go "no that's not right". Come on, it shouldn't be hard for you to just tell me what you believe it means, and it would put an end to this conversation.

 

 

No I mean in detail. You're describing the result of their actions, not their actions.

The result is that they have more money in their savings, but how do you think they accomplish that?

Your just repeating yourself and saying the opposite.

 

You have neither explained how tax avoidance is unethical  (pointing to other people saying it is isn't explaining how), and you still can't get past the whole illegal/legal thing.

 

You keep claiming I have no idea of what ethics are even though I have posted several times what they are, I even gave examples of the traits that make them unethical/immoral. but you either don't like what that means or you don't understand the basic underlying principals of the whole ideal. 

 

EDIT: upon further thought, so far your only reasoning is: 1. becasue you thinks so and 2. because a professor of ethics says so.

I have shown how being a professor of anything doesn't make for absolute flawless presentation of the facts, and so far your only reasoning for it being unethical personally is because you think it is the same as cheating or abortion.

 

[LAwLz]

On 4/12/2018 at 10:22 PM, mr moose said:

Your just repeating yourself and saying the opposite.

 

You have neither explained how tax avoidance is unethical  (pointing to other people saying it is isn't explaining how), and you still can't get past the whole illegal/legal thing.

 

You keep claiming I have no idea of what ethics are even though I have posted several times what they are, I even gave examples of the traits that make them unethical/immoral. but you either don't like what that means or you don't understand the basic underlying principals of the whole ideal.

Please define ethics and morals for me.

This entire conversation seems to be based on you and I having two different definitions of those words. If you just explain what you think they mean, like I did a few pages ago, this conversation might finally come to an end.

 

I have tried to explain how it is unethical several times, but it seems like you are confused about what ethics are. Every time I try to explain it, you seem to misinterpret it and goes back to either "it's not illegal, so how can it be unethical" or "just because people believe it doesn't make it unethical", which both seem to be rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what ethics are.

 

Ethics does not deal with facts, nor are ethics ruled by laws. You can therefore not argue that something is ethical/unethical based on them. You can not say something is factually wrong and therefore ethical/unethical, nor can you argue that something is legal and therefore ethical. Ethics are philosophy, not hard science like 1+1=2.

 

 

So I will ask you again, please define and preferably give examples (like I did) of ethics and morals, as well as how they differ. I did so on page if you want to read it again.

I don't want you quoting some dictionary either. I want you to explain it with your own words.

 

 

 

On 4/12/2018 at 10:22 PM, mr moose said:

EDIT: upon further thought, so far your only reasoning is: 1. becasue you thinks so and 2. because a professor of ethics says so.

Yep, that is usually how logical people decide on things.

If you believe something, and experts in the field thinks so too, then I think it's pretty rational behavior to assume that it is so.

If I believed something, and experts in the field disagreed then I would question my own beliefs. I would not just go "well, the experts are wrong because I don't agree with their views". That's not to say experts are always right, but when their views align with your views you rationed yourself into then I don't see any reason to question it. Also, it's not one professor. It's one professor, one university paper (with written with a professor as an advisory) directly saying it is unethical, plus several definitions which does not explicitly say tax avoidance is unethical, but the definitions of unethical they give fits perfectly with tax avoidance.

 

So it's more like ~5 different people that I have linked in this thread, and I got more links if you want.

 

 

Nicholas Lord - Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Manchester:

Quote

The ethics of reducing tax liabilities becomes problematic when it is aggressively avoided through creative schemes that are not intended or authorised by the state – but which do abide by the letter of the law. It is here we see what is referred to as “tax avoidance”. This is formally legal but highly questionable, seriously harmful and often unethical.

 

The book "Corporate Social Responsibility: A Research Handbook" also goes into more detail (page 116 and forward for the part I am citing, but it uses several methods earlier in the book). I'm gonna skip the ethical tests they used to determine this, but you can read those yourself if you want.

Quote

As the practice fails both the consistency and the human welfare principle of the Categorical Imperative, tax avoidance is - from a Kantian perspective - an unethical practice.

 

 

One of many citations from "The Ethics of Tax Avoidance", from Uppsala University and University of Groningen:

Quote

However, in democracies the belief is that tax avoidance is almost always unethical (McGee, 2006). Most strong democracies have low government corruption (Kolstad and Wiig, 2015), the state is legitimate and there is a strong belief that individuals should conform to majority rule. Nevertheless, even if there is no moral duty to pay taxes to the government there is a moral duty to other taxpayers (Lehmkuhl, 1902). This argument is in accordance with the third perspective on the ethics of tax avoidance, the relationship between the citizens and taxpayers in society. Lehmkuhl (1902) argues that there is a moral obligation to pay taxes based on the tax burden shift that occurs when taxes are avoided in society. This is supported by Davis (1938) who argues that taxpayers have to make up for the tax avoidance of others.

 

 

 

On 4/12/2018 at 10:22 PM, mr moose said:

I have shown how being a professor of anything doesn't make for absolute flawless presentation of the facts, and so far your only reasoning for it being unethical personally is because you think it is the same as cheating or abortion.

Yes, you have shown that professors are not infallible when it comes to facts. Being a professor in musical history does not mean you can't be wrong about a mathematical formula for example. However, we are talking about philosophers here, and the overwhelming majority, as well as the different ethical models, all agree that tax avoidance is unethical.

There are some edge cases where some models might not agree, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that they apply here (for example if the money would go towards something unethical, then some models will say that paying taxes is unethical in and of itself since you're enabling it to happen).

[ARikozuM]

There's a Rock'em Sock'em Robot joke around here somewhere. 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Snip.

 

You have the problem with this being about ethics.  It is not an ethical situation to me.   It really is quite simple: if a government wants a company to pay more tax then they change their laws in order to force that company to pay more tax (I.E making shifting profit into an offshore holding/investment no longer a deductible).  Otherwise that company will continue to pay the tax asked of them.  In order for this to be about ethics you would have to demonstrate some sort of moral decision that is being made that disadvantages another party against their will or beyond their power to mitigate.   

 

Please explain to me who is being disadvantaged against their will or against their power to mitigate. 

 

All unethical behaviour comes down to dishonesty or bullying.  Cheating on your wife is dishonest (made a vow/promise), plagiarism is dishonest (claiming ownership of someone else's work),  anything that misrepresents reality to another person/entity or forces them through a monopoly into a position of disadvantage for personal gain is unethical.  Tax avoidance is none of those things. It is completely open to inspection and all claims made are transparent, they do not lie about where their money is going, they do not hide facts or evidence and they certainly do not make the rules.  Every tax office knows exactly where all the money is and enforces the rules as set out. 

 

Explain how is something that contains no deceit, no dishonesty and does not get its way from bullying or forcing someone into being denied something beyond their desires (in this case the tax office) can be unethical.   I shift plenty of my yearly revenue into business practices that allow me to personally benefit from the money without paying tax on it.  Its all legal and above board, I tell the tax office everything and they have access to all my transactions.  Am I being unethical?  No of course not.

 

I believe I asked you to explain the mechanism by which you think it is unethical back on page 5, still waiting.

 

 

[Nicnac]

facebook is always playing the humanity loving philanthropist when in fact it is a personal data leech. People were able to use technology to connect like forums back when there was no facebook. it's not like it's giving you anything you'd really need (ok, except memes but I switched to insta for those  ). to me fb is dead and I only check it rarely.

[Cole5]

On 4/12/2018 at 12:59 AM, mr moose said:

Then create an offshore holding to hold your profit in instead of paying tax on that.

Why? I quite like roads that dont fall apart and bridges that dont cave in