Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Apr 2012 12:22 UTC
Apple "Apple, the world's most profitable technology company, doesn't design iPhones here. It doesn't run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn't manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby. Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states." Sure, this is all legal for companies to do (and Apple obviously isn't alone) but it does show you how much sense of morality companies have. Answer: none. But hey, it's legal, and the law is never wrong, right?
Permalink for comment 516344
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Philosophical concepts like morality are a double-edged sword, I wouldn't attempt to win an argument using them.

So, in your opinion, the most moral option is to have not taxes. But no taxes means no public services, and thus no income redistribution. It means that a child born out of a rich family is implicitly considered superior to a child born out of a poorer family without having done anything with its life yet, and that the latter deserves to die from hunger if it can save the former a few dollars from the inherited millions that he did nothing to gain.

Of course, you can argue that inheritance is immoral. But that would be against your dogma that people shall never, ever be deprived from doing whatever their want with the cash they earn.

So, which option is most moral ? State-enforced income redistribution or wealth-based eugenics ? Equity or freedom ? It is not so easy to tell, otherwise there wouldn't have been left-wing and right-wing parties ever since democracy has existed.

Edited 2012-04-30 17:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2