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?
Thread beginning with comment 516307
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No different than internet purchases
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 13:18 UTC
Member since:

This is no different than a regular person buying something over the internet. How much taxes is left unaccounted for by people who buy stuff over the internet? Most states in the US have a 'use tax' for all out of state purchases (double taxation anyone? -- Even if you paid taxes in another state, the state you live in wants your money too). Few people declare their amazon, ebay, newegg, etc, purchases, is that also immoral?

To me it's immoral to deprive a person, or company, of that which they earn. Taxes are immoral, earning a profit is not. Entitlement sense is immoral.

Apple is not "avoiding taxes", it's keeping that which it rightfully and lawfully earned.

Individuals do the exact same thing. You know those people who live in one state while working in another with higher income taxes? Is it immoral to live in Virginia and work in Maryland, while paying Virginia's 5% income tax with Maryland's 7.5% rate (total state+county+locality)? Is it immoral to live in Washington and work in Oregon? Is it immoral to live in Washington but buy clothing in Oregon where there is no sales tax?

Reply Score: 0

Neolander Member since:

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