No, your comment quite clearly implies that the corporations should not utilize the tax laws to pay the minimum required amount of taxes. You use words like 'avoid' to imply that it's evasion, but it's 'avoiding' in the same way as someone who 'avoids' taxes by taking a deduction for a dependent.

No, you've misread and inserted your own ideas as what I meant. The comment I replied to used 'avoid' in describing 'optional taxes'. I reused the word in disagreeing with the notion there are optional taxes, particularly as these allegedly optional taxes were suggested as taxes a corporation took action specifically to avoid.

[Edit]: Moreover, you still fail to address how I've suggested any notion of right amounts or paying more than the law requires. I have not. Since the comment I replied to used 'avoid', and you think avoid implies evading taxes, then you seem to assert I should understand the GP to be saying optional taxes are those taxes a company can take action to evade. This is even more problematic.

The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether.

> The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen. Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether.

You've said it's not the same. How is it different? Both ways of reducing tax burden are things that the laws permit, and that have been established as lawful from much precedent.

What is lawful != what is ethical. Most of my comments in this thread and on this subject engage the ethical responsibilities of citizens and corporations to their societies, and their parts in the establishment and perpetuation of just and healthy societies.

Beyond that, there is quite an orders of magnitude difference between electing to take an individual deduction as a citizen and establishing complicated structural entities specifically to avoid or reduce taxes by increasing the complexity of determining tax obligation. If you do not see these things are different, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

>If you do not see these things are different, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

If you can't articulate why they are different, then perhaps the distinction isn't as clear as you seem to think.

Why do you think a person incorporates a small business instead of operating as a sole proprietor? Why do you think small businesses save all kinds of receipts and pay accountants to ensure they are maximizing expenses?

Who says I can't articulate the difference? You seem to be incapable of avoiding jumping to some seriously erroneous conclusions throughout our exchange here. I most certainly can articulate the difference, and have succinctly done so more than once while reiterating what specifically I am targeting with my comments—a target you continue to ignore and brush aside. You seem to want to argue. I see no indication that writing hundreds of more words will move the needle of this discussion. You make assertions and ask questions that are wholly divorced from my point, and seem to somehow entirely miss the point of every statement I've made.

For your edification, I run a business. I do not pursue complicated measures or hire accountants to minimize or avoid taxation, maximize expenses, or anything similar. I practice what I preach, as the saying goes. And such behavior is entirely counter to everything I'm saying is important here.

Drawling on with small examples that seem obvious to you is worthless. It's not articulating anything, it's only proving the point that there is no real distinction other than one method of paying the legally required amount of taxes feeling more icky to you than another.

Is your line in the sand the involvement of accountants or lawyers? Any publicly traded company needs both of those anyway even if they have extremely boring returns. So what is it that draws the line for you?

I'm interested to hear your opinion on this, but you've got to actually explain, not merely state differences and conclusions.

> Who says I can't articulate the difference?

The comments have not included one so far. What you've said is that one thing is not the same as another, but you have not included an explanation of what difference you see there as being, or how that difference leads to one thing being moral and the other immoral.

> What is lawful != what is ethical.

> The effort a corporation expends to avoid taxes, such as those under scrutiny in the matter at hand, are not at all homologous to electing to take a dependent exemption for an individual citizen.

> Reducing one's tax bill via deductions and elected credits is not the same as going to great lengths to create special structures that enable a corporation to avoid tax bills altogether.

You've said they're not the same, but you haven't explained what the differences are, why the differences are significant to this discussion, and how the differences should support your analysis of the morality. Your comments leave it to the reader to infer what the differences are between one thing or another, and draw conclusions from them that support your point.

I read your comments as expressing the point, "These things are not the same, and one of them is immoral, and if you don't agree with me already then I don't see the point of explaining." It's fine if you want to hold that opinion. However, someone wrote a comment disagreeing with that point of view, and you've attempted to rebut it. People write comments on HN because they like to analyze and understand, but your comments don't include more than a pure opinion on your part that one of these behaviors is wrong without saying why. It's not very constructive to share an opinion without being willing to explain why you think it, especially given that you responded to people who sought to discuss it.

I think a strong argument was made against your point. I will restate it: "Governments have the ability to levy taxes. If they need money they should levy a tax. It's that simple. There is no 'right amount' that a company should be paying that is more than the law requires them to pay."

I think that's a pretty good point - don't you? What is your argument for why companies should pay more tax than they're required to pay? You seem to believe that there's some morally correct amount of tax that companies are morally obligated to pay, other than the amount specified by law, but you haven't provided a justification for why that is so, or for determining what that amount is. You have just said that corporate tax avoidance is different (in an unstated way) from individual tax avoidance. Even if we agreed that they're different in many significant ways, the morality or immorality of tax avoidance does not automatically follow from recognition of differences.

You could articulate your point better by starting with, "It's immoral for corporations to seek to lower their tax burden because..." and then follow up by explaining, "It's still moral for individuals and sole proprietors to seek to lower their tax burden because ... " It would illustrate the issue much better to explain what the essential difference is, and why that difference leads to it being immoral. What are the criteria for tax avoidance in an organization or company to be immoral?