Assuming that the R&D expenses result in benefit for society as a whole, then there's nothing immoral.

What is immoral is when someone decreases their contribution to society (in the form of taxes) through something that either does not benefit society as a whole or which is actually harmful.

In the US, you can deduct mortgage interest from your income.

That clearly benefits the homeowner (lower taxes), while is harmful to society (less tax revenue).

So are people who take the mortgage tax deduction being immoral?

In that case I consider enabling its members to own a home is one of the proper roles of society. So I would argue that is an example of society doing its job (although indirectly).

This is getting off topic, but why is home ownership a benefit to society as a whole?

I would argue it a selective tax break that benefits the homeowner 100%.

No problem. I think this is a useful discussion.

As I see it, it's not so much that a given instance of home ownership benefits society as a whole so much as it is that I see enabling its members to own a home is a core purpose of society. So I guess I could say it as: it benefits society as a whole because if it doesn't exist then, in my opinion, the society is by definition dysfunctional.[1]

When I say that enabling its members to own a home is a core purpose of society, I don't so much mean this from a white picket fence "American dream" perspective or from a home as investment perspective; although I think both of those perspectives have merit.

Rather, I think it's important that an individual has somewhere that they have autonomy, that they can modify as they see fit, that they cannot be arbitrarily evicted from, where they are their own boss, etc.

Without that:

- I think that it would be difficult for an individual to have enough autonomy to really be a full member of society.

- I think it would be difficult to say that an individual really has any stake in a capitalist society if they do not own any capital.[2]

[1] A more obvious example of similar reasoning might be food. The fact that a given person is able to eat isn't necessarily particularly beneficial to society as a whole. However, I think that most people would say that unless the vast majority of people are able to eat, then a society is dysfunctional.

Clearly in this instance there is some benefit to society as a whole from an individual being able to eat; since that allows them to work more efficiently. However, I think you could also say that home ownership provides psychological and practical benefits that allow individuals to work more efficiently.

[2] I realize that strictly speaking a home isn't capital (unless the owner runs a business out of it); however, I still feel that it can provide a "stake in the system" in the way that other property like clothing or even a car do not.

Because they have never raised R&D in the first place, hell, they most likely never did R&D and never will but now they have a so called R&D department. Congratulations, your income taxes sponsore that type of low-hanging fruits frauds.

It immoral for the people who make the rules to accept bribes* to make those rules what they are.

*Call it campaign contributions, or lobbying, or whatever you want. It's paying money to get rules made in your favor, which is bribery.

Ok, so if a company suggested lower tax rates and convinced a politicians to change tax law, but didn’t bribe them at all, then it’s not immoral?