‘Loophole’ is such great branding. Loopholes don’t exist - there are only ‘laws.’ Flawed laws are rebranded as loopholes. Similar to pharma’s invention of ‘side effects.’ There‘s no such thing as a side effect - there are only effects. Bad effects are rebranded as side effects.
-
-
When people say "Amazon should pay more tax" I don't take them to mean "Amazon should electively pay more than required by law" I take them to mean "our laws should require Amazon to pay more tax."
-
I take it as just lashing out, unless people really are suggesting to either tax corporations on something other than profitability, or eliminate carryforward losses - both of which seem unlikely.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Great question! But I've got to disappear to an early dinner. I guess my intuition is: individual ethics is fantastically difficult and complicated; it seems likely the same for a type of collective ethics applicable to companies. I'd happily read a good book on it...
-
Glad we had a productive conversation - enjoy dinner.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah it seems to me that moral==legal when it comes to taxes, with considerations: (1) Companies lobby to change what's legal, and they could ask for things that are immoral (like skirting paying fees for damage they caused); (2) The law could be immoral, obv.
-
I think there's an implicit "don't push tax minimization to a comical extreme" too. Skip the Double Irish Dutch Sandwich even if it's technically legal.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.