Tim O'Reilly's Reflections on Apple's Tax Avoidance Tactics

This is a classic example of singling out one particular actor for blame when the problem is clearly systemic.<p>There is little value for society to spend its time saying, "Apple is bad because it minimizes, within the contours of the law, its tax burden." And, contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's assertions at the beginning of his piece, I don't say this because I think Apple can spend its money better than the US Government can. For this argument, I don't care either way because it's irrelevant; he merely dismissed a strawman.<p>The question has to do with our tax code. Is it achieving the goals that we created it to achieve? If so, then there is nothing to discuss, so presumably it's not. If it's not achieving its goals, let's look at the entire picture and talk about where its failures are and how we should change it. Attacking any one particular company is merely a distraction that impedes our ability to discuss the things that actually matter.

I'd love to hear about a PERSON who routinely went out of their way to overpay for a service. When was the last time you arrived at a store, saw a shirt, and said, "I'd like to pay you an extra $10 for this shirt because I believe in what you're doing."<p>Never.<p>For that matter, when was the last time you called up the IRS and said, "Dammit America, you're doing such a good job, I'm sending an extra $5,000."<p>Never. In fact, the most you or I have ever given extra is the $3 election fund.<p>Let's stop joking around, people. Companies, like people, are going to find ways to pay as little as possible, so long as it's legal. Let's stop blaming Apple and blame ourselves: reform the tax code to be simple, fair, and progressive.

A classic substitution, substituting an argument that government should exist for an argument that a government should get a given bit of money. It's not the same question, and following that substitution to its logical conclusion leads to the government needing 100% of the money. (And I do mean <i>logical</i> conclusion, not extreme conclusion. This is a fallacious argument.)<p>Those libertarians he references are strawmen.

His family example doesn't really work. If we had all agreed to throw this big party then each person who agreed stated his obligations to the party. If someone had not agreed to the party, they simply would have not payed and not come. This is not how it works with the government. You are forced to come to the party and pay for it to make everyone else happy. It does not matter that it cost you or that it is not what you want to do. You must surrender yourself for societies "greater good."<p>It is also worth mentioning that happiness is a subjective value. It is pointless to draw a conclusion about what make society happy when only individuals can be happy. If someone goes their own way, they are not leaving happiness on the table, they are seeking it out elsewhere.

I don't see how Tim's conclusions follow from his premises.<p>If we are supposed to think of general taxation and the overall amount of government spending as reasonably justified on the grounds that these things were the outcome of a democratic process which "the people" (somewhat indirectly) agreed on, doesn't the same logic suggest that <i>the loopholes</i> are similarly reasonable and justified?<p>Loopholes aren't a bug in an otherwise perfect system; they are <i>part of the negotiating process</i> that produces laws. If it weren't for the loopholes, legislators wouldn't be able to find support for tax rates as high as they are. The loopholes are there for a reason. The loopholes are <i>part</i> of the exact same "social contract" that produced the taxes.

The whole point of taxes is that we can't rely on voluntary donations to fund public goods. It's pointless to argue that people or corporations should voluntarily pay more taxes than they're legally required to pay.

I admittedly have a poor understanding of corporate taxation and offshore avoidance, but this example makes sense to me. Though government is not a family, and it is safe to say all parties will act selfishly. This may further his argument that there should be no tax exceptions or render it irrelevant, I'm not sure.

The family analogy is heart-warming, but scaled up to a societal/country level it can lead to destructive practices like nepotism and tribalism.