Slashdot Mirror
Outrage At Microsoft Offshoring Tax In the UK, Google Caught Avoiding US Taxes
Master Of Ninja writes "After the ongoing row about companies not paying a fair share of tax in the United Kingdom, and with companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google being in the headlines, focus has now turned to Microsoft. Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country."
And over here in the U.S., dstates sent in news of Google getting caught doing something similar: "Bloomberg reports that Google is using Bermuda shell companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes worldwide. By routing payments and recording profits in zero-tax havens, multinational companies have been avoiding double digit corporate taxes in the U.S. and Europe. Congressional hearings were held in July on the destructive consequences of off-shoring profits. Why aren't the U.S. and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the U.S. and European treasuries by allowing profits that did not result from activities in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands to be recorded as occurring there?"
"Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens...?"
Because where else would US politicians offshore their income? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
Sent from my ENIAC
So... lower corporate tax rates to the point where it's not worth the bother of jumping through these hoops.
No, actually I'm not. Not in the least. It's the way of things now, even when your motto is "Do no evil" or "What evil would you like to get into today?" Wall Street expects certain targets to be hit and the way to do that is cut corners and use loopholes.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Here's a thought; if you want companies to pay more taxes then make taxes reasonably low enough that companies find it more bothersome to play legal shell games than simply pay a tax.
In the end all the talk of taxing "the rich" or "greedy multi-national corporations" or some other bugaboo is absurd on the face of it, because you are seeking to attack the very people that have the legal and financial resources to simply shift money elsewhere where governments are less greedy themselves. In the end by heavily taxing people or groups with lots of money you simply get less from them than you would have otherwise. It sure sounds great on TV news bytes though!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe the corporate taxes should be set at a more favorable rate. 20% of something is still more than 35% of nothing. (or whatever the current tax rate is.). Additionally we could simplify the tax code so these companies don't need to spend millions on their accounting and tax lawyers. Unfortunately we'd probably have to shoot all of the politicians first as this is where many of them came from, and are paid in campaign contributions to do.
I know this is crazy, but maybe the problem is the taxes. It doesn't make any sense at all tax corporate profits when you could just as easily tax the income shareholders make from the profits, or capital gains in the event a corporation doesn't post dividends.
Maybe more countries should move to a VAT system. That way, it doesn't matter what they make. If the product is sold in the nation, it gets taxed, period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
The reason these loopholes work is that multinational corporations can allocated their costs to high-tax countries and profits to low-tax countries. For example, a US operation "licenses" some software from a subsidiary in Cayman Islands or pays for "consulting services" that end up eating up all of the profits. Through these tricks a US corporation ends up with near-zero taxable income, while all the profits are transferred to tax havens.
The solution is to tax ALL profits, regardless of which country they were supposedly "earned" in. That way, transferring profits to Bermuda or Luxembourg will have no effect.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
That's the argument we use for file "sharing", so let's not turn it on its head for tax. You want to earn it, make the argument for it.
There is no inherent merit to paying taxes. They are a necessary evil to fund useful public works, and should be kept to an absolute minimum. When States becomes bloated, inward looking, ever swelling monsters that squeeze the pips until they squeak, tax avoision becomes an act of moral rebellion.
Brits in particular tithe up to 75% of our "income" to the State, when you factor in income tax, national insurance, council tax, water and sewerage rates, VAT, insurance tax, parking fees, and fuel and customs duty on everything imported or moved around. And that "income" is what employers can afford to pay us after they pay all of their protection money to the biggest racket in town.
So good on Microsoft and Google and Amazon and all the other companies who are throwing two fingers up at the grasping State. Let it wither and die, as long as it rots from the head down.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Try that suggestion when the whiners actually CAN.
As much as you hate to admit it the elite DO have special privileges not available to the unwashed masses.
Someone's gotta pay for global military to be sure air bandits, pirates, and dubious govts don't steal corporate commerce as it moves around the world. And these companies have plenty of cash to pay taxes. Though not sure how deal with dubious governments....
mfwright@batnet.com
They may be evading sums as large as $99!!!
Because where else would US politicians offshore their income? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
I'm NO friend of Mitt Romney - to put it mildly. But let's not blame him for something that's not his doing.
1) Because Romney was running for president, US law REQUIRES he put his money in a blind trust.
2) Also under US law the trustee has a "fiduciary duty" to do his reasonable best to protect and grow Romney's money for him. That includes seeing to it that is not taxed substantially more than the law requires. If he can save, say, 40% of the trust's earnings from being taxed away by using a LEGAL tax haven in Bermuda, and trustees of such trusts are expected to know that, he is REQUIRED BY LAW to do so.
So let's not have cheap shots against politicians and financial managers who are only doing what the law REQUIRES them to do.
There are plenty of things politicians have done that we can LEGITIMATELY go after them about - which have zapped us to the tune of trillions of dollars - at $3,175.40 from EACH citizen for EACH trillion. Let's not the dilute the discussion, and give them something to use to discredit their critics, by flaming them over drops in the bucket that AREN'T THEIR FAULT.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is a very, very bogus report. "Outrage"? Come on! Is it legal? Yes. Is there some kind of "moral requirement" that we all maximize the taxes we have to pay or suffer "outrage"? Don't we all look for all the deductions we can legally get away with? WTF is all the bogus "outrage" at perfectly normal, legal behavior?
Microsoft is an American company.
Being an American corporation, it is their officers' duty to use any means legally available to maximize the profit. This include, without being limited to:
a. tax avoidance - (tax evasion is illegal. "Tax avoidance" using the loopholes but still within the boundaries of the applicable laws is not)
b. cost externalization
c. risk externalization
And, just in case you didn't know: in US, corporations can legally run for Congress ; for the present, the fact they are lobbying instead has to do with their public image; but one cannot exclude a time when one/some corporation(s) are economically strong enough to actually give a fsck about the short term impact on US market and actually get into a body that can repeal a good chunk of legislation that's "upsetting" for them.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
You should find this behavior reprehensible.
This is not a tax avoidance strategy available to people with incomes below a a couple of hundred thousand dollars, which is almost all of you. We have a massive debt, and infrastructure we currently (rightly or wrongly) rely on the government for. Someone has to pay those things. If large corporations and high-income individuals aren't, that means we're forced to pick up their burden simply because we can't afford the same tax avoidance strategies.
So, regardless of how you feel about taxes being theft or whatever, this should be outrageous and unconscionable.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Trouble is, governments can be sociopathic bureaucracies just the same.
Circumcision is child abuse.
This isn't a problem with the companies in question - it's a problem with the game. As soon as a company has a presence in more than one country, the company needs to start making decisions about taxation. It's not an option not to make these decisions - one way or another, they have to be made. There is no option for them to simply "not play the game". They must.
And once they start playing, they find themselves in a crazy maze of exceptions, loopholes, provisos and special cases. If you want to cut down tax avoidance (not evasion) then you need to simplify the taxation system to the point where these loopholes don't exist. Of course, that'll never happen, because politicians for the last century have been busily creating loopholes in order to favour their particular patrons, and closing those loopholes would result in screams from said patrons.
The problem the politicians see isn't that these loopholes exist, it's that companies are using them who haven't paid politicians for the privilege.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If you don't want companies to use loopholes in the tax code to legally avoid taxes, don't put loopholes in the tax code. Let's all remember that those loopholes and deductions were all heartily lobbied and bargained for. If you didn't want them passed, why didn't you send funds to your representative in order to vote against them?
So, these companies employ competent accountants, tax attorneys and financial managers to preserve their shareholders' earnings. That's exactly what they're supposed to do.: It's called meeting their fiduciary duty.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
All of this crap is legal, that's why they call it tax 'avoidance'. It's not right, or fair, but it is legal.
Did a little checking: Actually a presidential candidate is not REQUIRED to put their money in a blind trust.
In principle Romney could have kept control and ordered his accountants to not use a tax haven.
The downside is that he'd be nuts to do so. In addition to the loss of money from such deliberate mismanagement, he'd be leaving himself open to legitimate attacks on any OTHER decision he made about the money, along withaccusations of conflict-of-interest when he makes political decisions. (Avoiding both conflicts of interest and the appearance of them is the whole point of blind trusts.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Stealing" from the treasury! What a load of BS. Google/Microsoft are no more "stealing" from the treasury than you are because you haven't gone out and bought me something.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
No economist thinks that corporations pay taxes, tho they may argue whether employees or customers bear the larger burden. Corporations choose between alternative projects based on the after-tax ROI. If they do not get the required return, they don't do the project or adopt a tax-reduction strategy.
Mod parent up! That's a very good metaphor.
So, stop paying taxes, then. Surely you can come up with a more productive way of rectifying this imbalance than by acting like a crab in a bucket.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country.
So, if the country's tax laws do not require these companies to pay their "fair share", then how exactly does one define their "fair share"??? Exactly how much more should they pay than what they are legally obligated to??? How large of an over payment would satisfy these critics???
...more and more implicit or explicit class warfare crap in the news. I suspect it's not coincidence.
"...Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal..." - THAT is where blame for these corporations ends, period. Do you deliberately pay more for milk than you need to? Do you volunteer some extra taxes because the government is in a bind? Of course not. These corporations do what they do to save money however they can - and as long as they stay within the bounds of the rule/laws, disparaging them is pointing in ENTIRELY the wrong direction.
Look instead at the incompetent government that WROTE THE RULES, morons.
Hey, I "get it". I'd cheerfully decimate the companies that bundled their crap investments, the 'rating' agencies that rated them AAA, and the bond traders that cheerfully swallowed instead of spitting. Then I remember: they were all largely conducting LEGAL business according to the rules and laws set forth by ... our incompetent government.
THEY would have suffered the natural result of their actions in the market, but then they were PROTECTED from their results (gotta make sure they get their bonuses, ya?) from...our incompetent government.
Want to know why I'm a libertarian conservative? Because in 45 years I've become convinced that while often it is well-meaning, almost all government is incompetent, and therefore the least possible government is best. Which is better, semi-anarchy where one is free to build ones own future as best one can, or some sort of perpetual serfdom to the landed classes that see us only as rubes to exploit, cows to milk, or votes to pander to?
-Styopa
Really it is the shareholders and owners that should be taxed, not the corporations.
There are all sorts of problems with taxing corporations, one of which this article touches on. There are plenty of others. One of them is that taxation of corporations encourages them to get involved in the political process. Another is that it encourages them to make decisions based on which venue will give them the best "deal".
In the US anyway I think that taxation of corporations should be eliminated. Taxes should be raised on individuals (shareholders and owners) to compensate.
With this in place the idea of corporations as citizens would be weakened considerably.
Ideally this would be combined with a Constitutional amendment reversing the effect of the Citizen's United decision.
So you want one set of sociopaths to approve the other set of sociopaths. Awesome. Oh, wait, that's pretty much the system in both directions already. Oops.
I just don't understand this trust in government in anyone out of their mid teen years.
And no, ideologues, that doesn't mean I wuv the po wittle corporations.
Yes, but... management has a lot of discretion over the best method to maximise profits. There is no requirement to maximise short term profits, so management can easily say that paying taxes improves the good will that the company enjoys and thus will maximise profits over the long term.
The reason companies tend to obsess over quarterly profits is because management is measured (and profits from) short term measurements of stock price.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
One such power includes having the government's force of arms to do your dirty work for you.
Or have you forgotten that tax evasion is a federal felony?
The shareholders are overseas.
Have gnu, will travel.
Can we just get back to saying "while" instead of using its pretentious trendy douchey variant? Sure, if you're British, and you use it regularly, fine. Otherwise, get over yourself.
Yes, but... management has a lot of discretion over the best method to maximise profits. There is no requirement to maximise short term profits, so management can easily say that paying taxes improves the good will that the company enjoys and thus will maximise profits over the long term.
The reason companies tend to obsess over quarterly profits is because management is measured (and profits from) short term measurements of stock price.
I do understand the reason, but I fail to see how - given the circumstances - one can expect any other reaction from the management. Given the percentage of shares are actually traded in a speculative way, you think that any management team would actually be able to escape the "focus on short term profit"? Not even Apple is immune to this pressure on long term.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Have gnu, will travel.
Interesting. Bill Gates was quoted by ThinkProgress in 2012 saying that the rich should pay more taxes. Funny how that doesn't apply to his company. Somehow it's okay for him and Ballmer to shift money offshore while he says the following:
"In an interview with the BBC, Gates noted “taxes are going to have to go up” and thus he’d prefer that they “go up more on the rich than everyone else.” There needs to be “a sense of shared sacrifice,” he said, adding, “right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should”:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/?mobile=nc
I just don't understand this trust in government in anyone out of their mid teen years.
"if you can't trust the Governments of the world, who can you trust?"
-- Young Einstein (Yahoo Serious)
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
governments are sociopathic bureaucracies just the same.
And frankly, every single one of us does it when we can get away with it, as well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Is solely because of overspending.
Which causes the government to raise taxes.
Which cause people and corporations to do more to shelter their income.
How about we just eliminate the corporate taxes altogether. Instead ensure that all money paid out to individuals is properly taxed as income, apply sales tax to all purchas
I would sure love to be paid for work done in US and according to US rates, but report it as income in Ireland instead, and only pay income tax there. Now, care to educate us dumb proles on how we actually go about arranging such a deal?
"Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal" then STFU and change the law, asshole. Why the hell should anyone pay more than legally required? Oh wait, because you're demagoging for your own perceived benefit. I have an idea - why don't you *FIRST* let us all know both how much you make and how much you pay in taxes, and then we can talk about the evils of others. Is this really what Slashdot has come to? Holy fuck.
My definition of trust is that it is a gradient, rather than binary...
I get a tiny winy say in government. I get no real say in what happens in corporations.
Well, that was a much longer and carefully structured comment on the preview screen. What's the point of a preview if what's on the preview gets truncated when you hit submit?
Oh well, I'm not going to retype that long and detailed dissertation.
My point is that management does not have a legal duty to maximise short term after-tax profits as you claimed. But, yes, most management have a strong financial incentive to maximise short-term profits (just not a legal duty).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Heh. "The man" is those companies' paid lackey. That's why you get to foot the tax bill, with no convenient holes to dodge it through, while they can set up these schemes completely legally.
In a true free market, government is bought and sold just the same as anything else. One dollar, one vote. And you don't have enough dollars to be of interest.
My point is that management does not have a legal duty to maximise short term after-tax profits as you claimed. But, yes, most management have a strong financial incentive to maximise short-term profits (just not a legal duty).
Theoretically, you are right. Practically... as you yourself admit... it's only a theoretical gimmick.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Hasn't this sort of thing been going on for quite a while with large companies? Heck, even smaller companies. It's always in the best interest of the business to keep as much of their profits as possible, and since it's only slightly trivial to buy a politician, loopholes will exist for the foreseeable future.
Yes, if someone's going to be outraged they should be outraged at the laws that allow it rather than the companies that do it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As long as the money just circulates through and never falls into any person's hands, who cares? At some point some human being is going to want another mansion or yacht. When they reach their hand into the pot that's when you grab them and take the government's cut.
Nobody is going to waste their life shuffling funds around and endless loop of shell corporations with no intention or method of eventually extracting some of it.
Imagine a Kennedy or Romney getting a house foreclosed on because the local government requires property taxes to be paid in cash. Or unable to restock on champagne and caviar because the clerk at the checkout doesn't accept "I own umpteen offshore corporations" as a valid method of payment. Or cleaning their own pool because every pool boy wants cash, no numbered Swiss accounts please.
The folks running these tax scams aren't doing it for kicks. They're doing it because they want to live high on the hog. As long as the taxes on their luxury lifestyles are in fair proportion to the taxes on us regular folks and our regular lifestyles who cares how the corporate books are structured.
Incidentally all those offshore shell corporations are setup by lawyers and accountants who ultimately want a cash paycheck to buy stuff with. If the CEO can buy another yacht by laying off the hoard of lawyers/accountants that spend their days fabricating shell corps he/she certainly will.
BTW, I support taxing cap gains same as income. If you had X dollars yesterday and X+Y today you owe tax on Y. I don't care where it came from or how you got it. If you're a human being you owe your fair share tax on $Y.
2) Also under US law the trustee has a "fiduciary duty" to do his reasonable best to protect and grow Romney's money for him. That includes seeing to it that is not taxed substantially more than the law requires. If he can save, say, 40% of the trust's earnings from being taxed away by using a LEGAL tax haven in Bermuda, and trustees of such trusts are expected to know that, he is REQUIRED BY LAW to do so.
Really? Can you cite a case where it was decided that banking domestic was breach of fiduciary duty?
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
Whence this notion that taxing is stealing? The US Constitution certainly authorizes taxation.
Are we all entitled to getting something for nothing? Enjoy all the benefits of living in a country, and nobody has to pay for it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We know tax evasion has been an issue for a long time, and we have not been able to fight efficiently against it. Every legal measure was optimized against by big corporation army of lawyers. And now we just started fighting on a front I did not see coming: tax evasion/optimization is now a PR shame.
That is efficient. But what puzzles me is that it can only happen with the help of the media. And the media are in the hands of corporate interest, which benefit of tax evasion/optimization. How was that vicious circle broken?
If I were a billionaire I'd hide all my money from those greedy bastards too.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay my taxes, give a shitload of money to charity, and still live a lifestyle that would be the envy of almost everyone who ever lived.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That being said, there is some nasty stuff going on on wall street that very much needs to be strangled. Manipulations with total return swaps and similar instruments that put cash into the hands of folks with massive investment holdings without having to report the cash as income. I certainly don't understand all the machinations, but I fully support giving the IRS teeth to dig into the results, not the methods.
If you've got three yachts, five mansions, and twenty three luxury cars you'd better have paid income tax consistent with your level of spending. If it looks like income and it smells like income then as far as I'm concerned it's income. I don't care what elaborate financial transaction ultimately resulted into that valuable asset finding it's way physically into your hands.
If your houses collectively are worth 1000 times what my one house is worth and you're paying 1000 times the property taxes then I'm happy. If you're playing some trickery where they're not "really" your houses, you merely have exclusive access to them and control over them but they're "actually" expenses on the balance sheet of a Burmuda Corp that you own through seven subsidiaries then I've got a problem with that.
The top 1% of tax payers earn what - 75% of total earnings in the US? They should be paying 75% of all income taxes. No, 20% is not plenty - even if that figure is accurate. The more you make, the more you pay.
Heh - I went googling for the actual percentage of total income taxes paid by the top 1%. I found a site with a wilder spin that I've read before - it claims they pay 38%, or almost double what you've stated. Which, only goes to prove that someone with an agenda can make any claim they like, and back it up somehow.
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change. Set it somewhere, anywhere - then ENFORCE IT FOR EVERYONE!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Well, why do large countries sign free trade agreements with tiny little countries? Tear up those senseless agreements and the problem will go away.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries"
That's glorious turnaround: instead of considering taxation is theft - supposedly it's non-taxation that is theft.
The top 1% of tax payers earn what - 75% of total earnings in the US? They should be paying 75% of all income taxes. No, 20% is not plenty - even if that figure is accurate. The more you make, the more you pay.
75%? Seems hard to believe. At any rate, the top 1% of taxpayers don't draw on 20% of the budget. They pay more than enough. We don't have a revenue problem in the US - we have a spending problem.
There's a simple solution: eliminate the corporate tax rate and increase sales tax and income tax. That way, all the taxes related to activity within a country stay within that country. And that way, people would realize how much they are actually paying, because whether you call it "corporate tax" or "sales tax", in the end, the people end up paying those taxes anyway.
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change. Set it somewhere, anywhere - then ENFORCE IT FOR EVERYONE!
Trouble is if you setup xx% high enough to be useful, you smash the lower end of the middle class and everyone earning less.
Flat income taxes are regressive. Losing 25% of your income is not a burden for someone pulling in a million a year, but it's crippling for someone pulling in $30k/yr.
If companies are allowed to keep more of their money in the US then that will likely be spent in wages and products that support additional wages.
No, it'll be spent on executive bonuses sent to their foreign bank accounts.
The last few years of GFC (heck, and the preceding couple of decades) have handily demonstrated how companies will act. Huge wage increases for the handful at the top, soaring profits, sweet fuck all for the average worker.
Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens
Uh, why aren't they changing their own laws so that these profit-allocation schemes are not allowed anymore? If some country wants to run a low or zero tax rate - that's their business, isn't it? But allowing a company that runs its business in your country to record its profits elsewhere is your problem.
Same thing with Hollywood accounting. Sure they are scumbags for doing it, but what about the scumbags allowing it in the first place?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
duty to use any means legally available to maximize the profit.
You're either ignorant or a liar. No such duty exists.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
When the government takes money from people without their consent, it's not stealing, it's euphemistically called "taxation." But when someone figures out a clever way to avoid taxes---legally avoid them, mind you; these companies aren't breaking the law---that's called "stealing" by the U.S. Government, the biggest thief known to mankind.
I normally have nothing good to say about companies like Microsoft and Google, but in this case: Good for them. Starve the beast of every dollar you can.
Liberty in your lifetime
I didn't see that coming. I think the Ed Asner cartoon has had a lot of impact out there and Fox news, bless their hearts, helped to make it more famous by picking out the urination scene as their angle for attack. I don't think I would have ever heard of it were it not for Fox news.
This stuff has been going on for a very long time. From time to time a story on the subject comes out that points out the same things... "it's legal" for example. But now we have fake outrage and a congressional inquiry.
But the thing is, we're talking about congress. They crafted these legal loopholes and stuff. They use them for themselves. Both republican and demograt alike.
Color me surprised if they actually do something about it. It will quietly go away and they will either table the situation for later or they will claim no jurisdiction over the matter of international blah blah blah... not like it has ever stopped them when it came to the RIAA/MPAA interests.
1. UK, France, Germany, etc. cannot declare that I owe them anything because I have no presence there.
I have no presence in the US, not having lived or worked there for 20 years. However, because I haven't (yet) handed back my US passport, the US thinks I ought to be subject to income tax. No other developed country claims the right to tax people who neither live nor work in the country.
The US clearly thinks that US interests and laws trump those of any other country. For example: the US demands access to international bank data, but refuses to provide foreign countries with data from US banks. Typical.
The corporate tax problem could be resolved entirely within US borders, but doing so would require actual effort and sensible legislation by the politicians. However, they might have to offend some of the companies that bankroll their re-election campaigns. Far, far better to blame "international" people and corporations, and to attempt to shove the problems off onto other countries. In any case, the US does not have a revenue problem; the US has a spending problem, and the politicians certainly don't want to make actual, serious cuts in spending.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries
Hmmm, let's see, companies are using legal avenues to prevent the government from stealing their profits, and you call that "stealing"? I thought this kind of "logic" was less prevalent in people who are actually capable of putting together the words that form a /. article.
The products were sold to UK customers.
The products were delivered to UK customers.
The products are operated by UK customers.
It's like saying "I've sold you a coffee here today, but actually I'm 5000 miles away, so I don't have to pay sales tax on that". In fact, it's almost exactly that.
And, again, nobody has said that any of the listed companies did anything *illegal*. But there are doing billions of pounds worth of business to UK customers and not paying a single penny of tax, unlike their UK competitors doing the same thing with UK employees and UK administration.
It's not illegal, it's just a circumvention of a tax system that hasn't been designed to take account of it. And if allowed to propagate, would mean that every company in the world would operate from a handful of countries that charge no corporation tax, and your personal tax bill would quadruple or more.
If you're doing business selling your products to customers in a country, it's not weird to expect you to pay appropriate taxes on those products the same as if you were based next-door. Not doing so, like the UK currently doesn't, is just a way to lose all the large businesses, lose millions of jobs and lose billions of pounds in tax and (hence) start riots because the people who have to pay the difference instead (i.e. me) get pissed off about it.
It's like me starting up a software firm in the UK, selling millions of units making me billions of profits, but doing so in the US. It would cost US jobs, US tax income and US business competition (by undercutting them because I pay no US tax).
Starbucks in the UK competes with Costa Coffee. Costa Coffee is UK-based, with UK employees, and pays full UK taxes. Starbucks doesn't, because it "pays itself" royalties to use the name to a foreign subsidiary (of itself) that equal 100% of its profits in the UK. Hence, they have no recorded profit on millions of pounds of annual sales, they pay themselves all the "profit" into a country with better tax laws for them (saving them millions), and stiff the competition nicely (thus encouraging them to do the same and cause a mass exodus of jobs and companies off-shore).
It's not illegal. It's bordering on immoral. But it's DEFINITELY a stupid way to tax if a corporation making BILLIONS from your people and stiffing the competition hasn't paid you a penny in tax, which you then have to get from other companies or the population by raising taxes and making the problem even worse.
The real problem is *what* is taxed. Income is bogus. I don't see why, when I go to work, the money I earn is taxed at a higher rate than the income derived by a rich person's trust fund. No, "income" is a bad tax. What we need is a "net worth" tax. 2 or 3 percent should do it for everyone, including companies, because, companies are people too. They have 1st amendment rights according to SCOTUS, let them pay up as well.
Everyone calculate their net worth and pay 2-3% no exemptions.
Is it really the case that zero-tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are 'stealing' from countries like the US or UK? They are providing an alternative to double-digit corporate taxes in other countries, but can they really be accused of stealing if they are charging 'zero' in taxes?
Was Microsoft 'stealing' from Netscape when MS bundled a browser with the OS for free?
Do food pantrys 'steal' from grocery stores by giving away what the grocery store sells?
Ken
It's become the mantra of angry trust fund anarchists. If you don't like the laws of your own country, change them. Even Warren Buffet, while he's extolling the virtues of rich people paying more, is massively invested in offshore tax havens BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL TO DO SO.
duty to use any means legally available to maximize the profit.
You're either ignorant or a liar. No such duty exists.
Sir, I demand apologies for your gratuitous insults.
eBay v. Newmark, page 60 bottom continuing page 61, reads (with my emphasis):
Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. The “Inc.” after the company name has to mean at least that. Thus, I cannot accept as valid for the purposes of implementing the Rights Plan a corporate policy that specifically, clearly, and admittedly seeks not to maximize the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its stockholders—no matter whether those stockholders are individuals of modest means 106 or a corporate titan of online commerce.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Because where else would US politicians offshore their income? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
I'm NO friend of Mitt Romney - to put it mildly. But let's not blame him for something that's not his doing.
1) Because Romney was running for president, US law REQUIRES he put his money in a blind trust.
A blind trust and offshore account are two entirely different things.
A blind trust is designed to prevent you from being exposed to charges of insider trading by buying or selling stock in companies you have insider knowledge about. You can do that without having to hide it overseas in countries where the US tax man does not know how much is in there or what interest is being paid on it.
I dont read
We don't have a revenue problem in the US - we have a spending problem.
You've bought the conservative lies hook, line, and sinker.
The fact is, while this country is spending too much on its military (more than the next 13 military-spending countries combined), its main problem is, indeed, a revenue problem. The tax rates and the tax revenues as percent of GDP are lower than they have been at any time since the Great Depression.
So unless you are one of those who honestly believes that we'd be better off with, essentially, no federal government at all (in which case I disagree with you, but at least respect you for having beliefs consistent with your policy preferences), we need taxes to be a lot higher than they are if we want to continue to function as a first-world country.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Flat is flat. Regressive is regressive. The meaning of regressive taxation is that the percentage of income paid as taxes goes down as income raises.
Consumption based taxes are usually regressive. I would be curious to know if the US has a regressive or progressive tax policy after summing all taxes and involuntary contributions. I bet it is regressive, primarily due to capital gains and the use of tax shelters.
Zero tax havens shouldn't exist, period. If Google can park their lucre for nothing, you really think drug, sex, and arms cartels aren't as well? If Bermuda, et al are touting tax-free havens, I doubt they do much heavy lifting in 'following the money', if you will. Stop giving cockroaches easily accessible dark corners.
That would reduce the taxes on the top 1%, not increase them.
Plus it is hard to define "income". You set up a company of which you are the head and instead of working for a salary your real employer pays the company. That money gets business rates, not personal tax rates. Then the company buys a nice house on some island somewhere and offers free summer stays for its employees. It buys you a private jet and writes it off as a business expense. It also pays you in cash, but in some tax haven so you don't have to pay US income tax.
That is the fundamental problem with trying to tax rich people. Most of us get paid a salary or via a contract so it is easy for the government to see exactly what we earn. Rich people have all sorts of assets and arrangements that make it much harder to tax them effectively, so even if you a flat tax rate it wouldn't really help. The people with the most would still pay substantially less than the rate you set.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He could just have told the guy managing his blind trust money not to be a dick and pay a reasonable rate of tax on it. The guy wanted to be President of the United States, the least he could do is lead by example... Unless that was in fact what he was doing. Ah, I see now.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What is the point of enabling political sociopath's when we can, instead, deal with the chaos of free markets? It's like trading the fresh air for Mustard Gas... The fear mongers have instilled a constant thirst for a hierarchical society, which as we have proven in the bazaar, totally works against innovation and civilised progress. In the US it is your constitutional duty to NOT pay the treasonists who currently invest our government. I celebrate any corporation doing the same!
But the point of a blind trust is that you don't know what the trustee is doing with your money, and you can't tell him what to do; so the trustee could very well consider that he has a fiduciary duty to reduce tax liability by placing the money offshore.
You can vote for the President, you don't get to vote for a corporqations's CEO.
Democratic government might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sir, I demand apologies for your gratuitous insults.
OK, I apologies. It was unnecessary. Maybe my blood pressure is too high.
But.
Note however:
the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include/b acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.
emphasis mine.
There's a long way from that to "any means available to legally maximise profit". It's one of the many duties, but not the only one and not to the exclusion of all others.
The idea that companies must maximize profits at all costs is a meme which needs to die since it simply isn't correct.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
You utter tool. If you think corporations represent freedom, you really haven't been paying attention.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
Whence this notion that taxing is stealing? The US Constitution certainly authorizes taxation.
Are we all entitled to getting something for nothing? Enjoy all the benefits of living in a country, and nobody has to pay for it?
Saying that all tax is simply the government stealing your money at the barrel of a gun is a way of showing your libertarian credentials, the same way as a neo-Nazi will get an "HH 88" tattoo to show how bad ass he is to his neo-Nazi friends..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Do you take a deduction for home mortgage insurance? If so you are doing it because the tax code allows it. What is happening to Romneys money and the 1%ers is the same thing. It is 100% legal and they are doing it. If you want to take a stand and complain about corporations doing legal things to avoid paying more taxes, do not take the mortgage interest deduction next year.
That is a dishonest, or a naive very question and statement.
We are talking "profits" or "income" taxes. Businesses are taxed on net profit, always have been. If you gross income in 1.2 million, and your expenses are an even million, then your income is only .2 million. You cannot, you will not, be taxed on the 1.2 million.
Your apparent misunderstanding is part of the GOP's propaganda. They want to scare small business owners into believing that they will be taxed to death, and the scare tactics are working.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You do know that sales taxes are ridiculously regressive, right?
If someone who makes $50k/yr spends $25k of that on taxable goods, that's 50% of his income. Do you really think that someone making $500 million/yr spends $250 million on taxable goods? I mean, it would be great if they did—that would be some damn good economic stimulus right there—but in reality, the richer you are, the smaller a percentage of your income you spend on taxable goods. Generally, the rich put large chunks of their income into various financial vehicles.
What all this means is that with a sales tax being the sole method of raising money for the government to operate, the poorer you are, the higher your effective tax rate will be. Sure, the rich will pay somewhat more in absolute terms than the poor, but vastly less than they would with a properly-operating income tax system.
Furthermore, because of this, total tax revenues would drop precipitously. Now, you may be one of those who believes that would be a good thing, but me, I like having roads, bridges, police & fire services, a social safety net, and all the other stuff that a properly-functioning first-world government provides.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Why? Hmmm... Lemme think.... Oh, that's right - these giant corporations OWN the fucking government as they pay for the politician's races. And many of these politicians end up sitting on boards of directors for these same corporations after their stint in congress where they make the connections that enable these huge corporations to extract profits.
Duh.
TFTFY
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Politicians, corporations and rich people immediately point out that all of this activity is 100% legal by the current US tax code. Certainly immoral - but who cares? They're running away with all the money, that's all that matters to them.
Do you itemize your deductions? Have you ever altered your behavior over the course of a year in order to be eligible for a specific deduction at tax time? Declared your personal vehicle as being used for business purposes?
None of these things are immoral, all are legal, and none of them are required by law. At what point on the greyscale of "complex to implement" does tax avoidance become "shady"?
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
I've paid taxes my entire life, whether I made $4000/year or $60,000/year. I see 33% of my paycheck disappear to Uncle Sam each week. That '47%' comment is so disgustingly inaccurate, I don't know why it has gotten air time any further than that greedy prick uttered the words.
I have no presence in the US, not having lived or worked there for 20 years. However, because I haven't (yet) handed back my US passport, the US thinks I ought to be subject to income tax. No other developed country claims the right to tax people who neither live nor work in the country.
Yes, but you still maintain the right to return to the US at any time, and if whatever country you're living in goes through a political revolution and you run to the embassy, there is a decent chance that they'll fly you out even under gunfire. Certainly the US passport will carry weight in negotiations.
If you don't want to pay taxes, just repudiate your citizenship.
What exactly do you think the word "citizen" means? Citizenship is more than a relationship of convenience. It is supposed to be about a community of people who pledge to come to the aid of one-another. If you have income, then you've pledged a part of it to assist the rest of the community. If you don't want to participate, then just register that with the nearest embassy and you (and the citizens of the USA) are free of your pledge.
If that helps you sleep at night, have at it, good sir.
Sure, why not.
If I were a billionaire I'd hide all my money from those greedy bastards too.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay my taxes, give a shitload of money to charity, and still live a lifestyle that would be the envy of almost everyone who ever lived.
Ayn Rand will be weeping in anger in Heaven/Hell now.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As much as it burns my butt that some of these companies can get away with paying a pittance (or no) taxes, "fair" never even enters the equation.
"Fair" is whatever they can get away with, within the framework of existing tax law.
Don't like it? Don't bitch. Fix the laws.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
May I also point out that these corporations are under ZERO legal, moral or ethical constraint to pay the maximum amount of taxes possible. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to minimize their tax liability.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I think the OP's point was that you could replace "US" with any other country, and your "benefits of citizenship" argument would still stand. Yet, none of these other countries require that you pay income tax if you neither live nor work there. The US is still an anomaly in that regard.
Not many of those corporations relish the prospect of losing the right to do business in the USA.
And since that will never happen you have no point.
And if the rich leave the country, who gives a shit.
Are you really so stupid as to think they will leave the country? Only the income will. It's what has happened already, and is accelerating.
People with lots of money have the ability to do a lot of things that people without a lot of money cannot... a simple truism that it seems many on SLashdot are unwilling to recognize.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are ignoring the huge and lucrative gray area of avoision which is the fuzzy area between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion.
Literally thousands of tax attorneys spend their entire careers coming up with borderline schemes whose legality is undefined and is constantly being determined and redefined by the courts.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Flat is flat. Regressive is regressive. The meaning of regressive taxation is that the percentage of income paid as taxes goes down as income raises.
Fine. I'll take flatness in utility over flatness in rate because that's closer to "economically just" (i.e., the same level of economic pain is felt by each member of the taxpaying community) and reduces wealth inequality (this being important because I want to halt our slide - and eventually reverse it - towards third world inequality levels). I know that's harder to calculate than a flat rate tax, but I'm willing to live with an approximation because I believe the results are ultimately better.
That is all.
Then include a single deduction (the minimum living wage deduction) that applies to everyone. the first 10-20K is untaxable. Solved.
He could just have told the guy managing his blind trust money...
...absolutely nothing. Blind trust. Blind.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The difficulty in choosing something like "net worth" is that it is essentially a self'-reported value, unless you want to give monitoring powers to the IRS or some other third party to vet your claims.
And even then, what constitutes to "net worth"? If we're talking assets held minus liabilities owed, then my student loans should keep me tax free for several years after I graduate next summer. What assets would be counted toward calculating net worth? How would I go about determining the value of my books, or my computer software? I know what I paid for my computer 6 years ago, but how much has it depreciated?
If, by extension, you're suggesting that people start recording and monitoring what they own and at least the aggregate value of it, similar to what businesses do, I'm all for it. Too many people don't know what they own, or if it's worth anything.
And frankly, every single one of us does it when we can get away with it, as well.
I don't. I just met with my accountant for my company's year end books and didn't do any of the things I knew I could get away with which were not legitimate. For example, I had a few thousand dollars worth of receipts that were non-business expenses but would have looked legit. I did not file them, because I am an honorable man.
Don't project your own dickishness onto others.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
> I have no presence in the US, not having lived or worked there for 20 years. However, because I haven't (yet) handed back my US passport, the US thinks I ought to be subject to income tax. No other developed country claims the right to tax people who neither live nor work in the country.
I already explained that this is completely backwards. This rule should apply to corporations, not individuals.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Our current crop of US politicians has ramped up the class warfare feeling in this country to the point that many believe that everyone (or every company) that makes more money than they do needs to pay more in taxes. Google's "fair share" of the tax burden is satisfied when they comply with the tax laws and pay whatever the laws say they must pay. If you don't like the tax structure, elect new representatives who will change it. If I was big enough to move my income to an offshore tax haven legally (as Google appears to have done, and also the Kennedy family trust, FWIW) then I would do it. No one wants to pay more than the legally required amount of tax. Do they?
No, problem moved slightly up the income ladder.
Then they should manage their money better.
I care whether it's crippling for someone to meet the expenses of a basic, comfortable lifestyle.
I don't care whether someone's life of luxury is marginally impinged by an inability to buy a fourth.
I never said it was "mine".
Precisely this. A service/licensing/sales tax between corporations just like there is for an individual's purchases. With a higher tax rate when money goes from a national corporation to an international corporation (i.e. when money leaves the country). Preferably high enough that no profit is made.
Though include an increasing tax on profits, since those represent money taken unnecessarily from the public.
What's the remaining problem after that? Once you've subtracted out the minimum living wage from being taxed, how can taxes on any income above that be "crippling"?
You can establish a blind trust with restrictions on the activity of the trust, such as investing in specific sectors, or in specific regions. It's the specific transactions that are "blind".
you most certainly can tell the trustee not to use off-shore tax havens if you so choose.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax
Learning is better than going to school.
tl;dr;hate learning;
Regressive taxation has nothing to do with the effect it has on humans. It is entirely about percentages and there is no room judging what is fair or unfair. Regressive is not a value judgement.
At any rate, the top 1% of taxpayers don't draw on 20% of the budget.
No, they don't. They draw on almost 100%. Who's running your telcoms and radio and TV stations? The 1%. We need the FCC to keep them in line. Who owns those big trucks that haul everything and cause most of the road damage? The 1%. Who leases public lands for oil exploration? The 1%. Who need the coast guard? The 1% almost exclusively. Who does the military protect? The 1%.
Who need the FBI? Not the bottom 1%! In fact, the FBI and DEA and BATF only benefit the 1% and the bottom 1% fear them.
The bottom 1% (probably the bottom 10%) use almost no government at all. They don't have any use whatever for the police, because if a poor man calls the cops he's usually the one to go to jail (and your local government gets federal grant money for cops and cop equipment). Social programs for the poor are very niggardly in the US compared to civilized nations.
When my grandfather was a young man, only the rich paid federal income taxes. How about we go back to doing it that way? Government benefits primarily the rich, the rich should be paying the lion's share of it (if not all, like in Grandpa's day).
We don't have a revenue problem in the US - we have a spending problem.
We have both a spending and revenue problem. I'd legalize, tax, and regulate drugs, disband the ATF and the DEA and the TSA and most of Homeland Security, but I'd keep FEMA (who benefits the most in a catastrophe, the guy with the ruined ten million dollar house filled with expensive items, or a renter whose most expensive posession is probably a used car? I'd cut the military in half or smaller. I'd cut most grants, and all grants to corporations. What would you cut?
But we can't cut our way out. As another poster already mentioned, federal taxes are lower than at any time since Truman. The rich are just being the greedy, selfish bastards one has to be in order to become or stay rich.
Free Martian Whores!
Where may I obtain a copy of this "pledge".
FWIW, this ridiculous income tax situation is one of the very few reasons that I'm resisting the idea of becoming an American citizen despite the fact that I never plan on leaving.
(Likely) insufficient tax revenue to meet expenses. A system designed to accelerate wealth gaps and minimise class mobility.
I didn't say they'd be crippling in that context. They'll certainly be disadvantageous, however.
A flat income tax is regressive in the context of the entire tax structure.
If flat taxes are so fair, how about we have a flat tax on assets instead ?
(Likely) insufficient tax revenue to meet expenses. A system designed to accelerate wealth gaps and minimise class mobility.
Likely, based on what? With a flat-tax and no deductions (save the one I mentioned) I believe the government would end up with more revenue than it does now. It would also become (due to the single deduction that helps low-income people more) a progressive-tax as the more you make the higher your effective tax rate goes (until it flat-lines at the flat tax rate). Not to mention that it would allow most of the IRS (and its expenses) to go away.
Believe ? Based on what ?
Or are you advocating a flat tax rate up around the 30-35% mark, where people in the upper income brackets effectively end up now ?
Or you could just have a progressive tax system in the first place, without trying to complicate it with deductions and other shennanigans.
Surely you jest. There's plenty of other taxation that needs to be evaded other than just income tax.
Apologies accepted.
Thanks for pointing out the difference between the "maximize value for stakeholders" and "maximize profit" - it's quite subtle. So subtle that, in real world, I guess many corporate officers don't realize there is one; as a consequence I'm afraid this is actually more than a benign "hot grits/OMG ponies" meme
(other that that: I didn't say the maximisation of the profit is the only duty, don't waste your time in demolishing this straw man)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
You're talking about illegal things, and passing them off as legal. I'm sure if you have a house, you took a deduction for the mortgage.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As if the company you work for will ever pay you enough to make a choice.... ever try to buy health insurance when you're in the lower classes?
Make enough to buy a decent gun and pay the rent at the same time?
Make enough for a car? 3/4 of my co-workers at my last job didn't. They were all in their 40's and 50's working at a plant with zero debt load and milli0ns in revenue from gov't contracts.
There's plenty more examples of how your corporate overlord will keep you down thru a puny paycheck.
C|N>K
The difficulty in choosing something like "net worth" is that it is essentially a self'-reported value, unless you want to give monitoring powers to the IRS or some other third party to vet your claims.
This ship has sailed, the government already knows your net-worth. That is a different argument, of course, and I probably agree with you.
And even then, what constitutes to "net worth"? If we're talking assets held minus liabilities owed, then my student loans should keep me tax free for several years after I graduate next summer. What assets would be counted toward calculating net worth? How would I go about determining the value of my books, or my computer software? I know what I paid for my computer 6 years ago, but how much has it depreciated?
It sounds like a daunting task, but it isn't really. Most people make this accounting for insurance and tax purposes already. If you owe more than you own, then you pay no tax.
If, by extension, you're suggesting that people start recording and monitoring what they own and at least the aggregate value of it, similar to what businesses do, I'm all for it. Too many people don't know what they own, or if it's worth anything.
I'm pretty sure that a study would find that some number, say $30,000 single and $50,000 married, covers most people in the united states when it comes to non-accounted assets. Everything else generally is on a ledger somewhere that is already reported to the IRS. You have NO IDEA how much privacy people have lost since Nixon's "Drug War."
No, they don't. They draw on almost 100%.
This is idiotic. You have no idea what the government spends money on, do you?
In New Zealand, things which are purely for tax avoidance are illegal. They get banks for that all the time.
...and as a Kiwi, I'd like to respond by saying [citation needed]
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I've yet to see it written down in full. Nevertheless, those around you will use force upon you to ensure your compliance with it. In the end that's all government is, but I've yet to see a better way to live. To try to get rid of government is to simply accept the government of the local warlord.
free summer stays for its employees
Renumeration. Taxed as income.
It buys you a private jet
Renumeration. Taxed as income.
It also pays you in cash, but in some tax haven so you don't have to pay US income tax.
Renumeration. Taxed as income. If there is tax-treaty with that country, tax already payed in foreign country on that income is tax-deductable (or vice versa).
flat tax rate it wouldn't really help. The people with the most would still pay substantially less than the rate you set.
And while I'm at it, I'll suggest a _progressive_ tax rate.
Is Tax a Cost?
What do you think a company does when it's costs go up?
They are accountable to their shareholders to produce an acceptable rate of return to their stockholders.
They raise prices in order to maintain the same rate of return. If they don't, the shareholders put their money elsewhere. Bye Bye Jobs
You should expect a BUSINESS to everything it possibly can to maximize the rate of return to the investors who put up their money. In fact, you should DEMAND it.
Please, please leave your emotions at the door when you are talking business. Business is about the NUMBERS not the EMOTIONS. Some folks are greedy and evil. Some of these people have jobs and do greedy and evil things. In the long run, they do not prosper - because as a whole we don't like doing business with evil greedy people.
And while I am ranting... This whole idea that a large group of people called a "corporation" are evil, whereas a large group of people called "the government" is not, is so completely and utterly at odds with common sense it is beyond my comprehension. Government, by the way, is about BUYING VOTES - That's why they can't manage a budget. They have no reason to manage a budget. Their goal, unlike a Business, is buying your vote at the lowest possible cost.
Flame away I care not. Try thinking with your BRAIN and not your HEART.
Murphy was an optimist
So really, if all of these mega corporations were somehow forced to pay every last penny of tax that they were legally bound to pay, then governments would be receiving massive cash injections via those taxes.
At the moment it certainly does feel like the common people get taxed on income, fuel, alcohol, houses, tobacco, and anything else that the government can think of taxing people for, and that those taxes get increased every year because the government is always short of cash and needs a bit of a boost.
Wouldn't it sort of fix the problem if megacorps were paying the taxes they owed? Purely hypothetically of course, because i'm aware that government would never _lower_ taxes on fuel just because they were now receiving massive tax monies from megacorps. Hell, they'd probably just keep raising them at the same pace anyway.
And who doesn't believe that the tax system is totally corrupt anyway? Massive sums are probably siphoned off, hidden away, spent on items the public would deem questionable at best. I mean, i've never heard of any transparent statistics that are completely accountable for, and could easily be verified by the general public like say:
we have 9 million people working in City. The income tax from these people was £X in 2012, Fuel tax income to the government was £X etc.
Total tax income to the government in 2012 was £X.
We spent it on:
transport
------------
£X bus maintenance
£X roadworks in Cities 1,2,3
healthcare
-------------
£X hospital building maintenance at City1 general hospital
£X etc
you get the idea. Seriously, if anyone knows that these statistics exist in black and white for any government, please say so.
Getting into politics and climbing the ladder of political success is in my eyes an ancient human mechanism of gaining power, influence and personal wealth. There is no place in that mechanism for pure altruism, or the concept of "for the good of the people". Sure, the money does get spent on public infrastructure to a large-ish degree, but that is out of neccessity for keeping the balance of power within the political elite, so that the mob does not rise. The concept of altruistic government seems to only exist in Star Trek.
"Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
There are a lot of statements here about what we need to do to reform the government or the tax codes. Unfortunately, changing the tax code will just change behavior in response, which puts a cap on how much can be squeezed out of the stone. I'll offer a different view: all this discussion of which percentage should be paid by which entity is pointless. The government doesn't need any more money. If we somehow managed to collect significantly more in taxes from corporations like Google (very doubtful), they would just squander it like they did the money they already collected.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
"Why aren't the U.S. and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the U.S. and European treasuries by allowing profits that did not result from activities in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands to be recorded as occurring there?"" More effective measure: If your base is in our shores, pay us the tax.
You have no idea what the government spends money on, do you?
I live in Illinois' state capital. Half the people I know work for the government. You know where most of the money goes? Politicians' rich cronies; the Bloom Building, for example. The government, under Governor Thompson loaned a rich guy (who is now in prison, got caught up in the Blago mess) the money to build it, then paid rent on the building until it was paid off, then bought it from him at a very inflated price.
That's where your tax money goes -- to the rich. Food stamps don't benefit the poor, they benefit the poors' employers, who would otherwise have to pay more.
Section eight housing doesn't benefit the poor, it hinders them while helping their landlords (I've known Section 8 landlords and tenants). An apartment that might fetch $300 on the open market rents for $250, the landlord gets $500, and rents are driven up for everyone, especially the poor. Who, by the way, are paying the landlord's property taxes and interest as part of their rent, while the landlord gets to deduct the taxes his tenents paid for him from his income tax.
The God damned system is rigged. You, sir, are the one who has no damned clue where your tax money is going. It's going straight into the pockets of the 1%.
Free Martian Whores!