Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Paid 0.3% Taxes On $1.34 Billion Profits
theodp writes "Facebook is unlikely to make many new (non-investor) friends with reports that it paid Irish taxes of about $4.64 million on its entire non-U.S. profits of $1.344 billion for 2011. 'Facebook operates a second subsidiary that is incorporated in Ireland but controlled in the Cayman Islands,' Kenneth Thomas explains. 'This subsidiary owns Facebook Ireland, but the setup allows the two companies to be considered as one for U.S. tax purposes, but separate for Irish tax purposes. The Caymans-operated subsidiary owns the rights to use Facebook's intellectual property outside the U.S., for which Facebook Ireland pays hefty royalties to use. This lets Facebook Ireland transfer the profits from low-tax Ireland to no-tax Cayman Islands.' In 2008, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg cited 'local world-class talent' as the motivation behind Facebook's choice of tax-haven Dublin for its international HQ. Similar tax moves by Google, Microsoft, and others who have sought the luck-of-the-Double-Irish present quite a dilemma for tax revenue-seeking governments. Invoking Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous common sense definition of ethics ('Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do') is unlikely to sway corporations whose top execs send the message that tax avoidance is the right thing to do and something to be proud of."
Oh so you would like to pay for the police, the firemen, the roads, and everything else? We can argue about a bloated government, no doubt. But to argue that we should pay zero taxes make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
For if we don't pay taxes you better be prepared to pay Vinny down the street a bit of money to make sure that you don't get mugged, robbed, or killed.
Simply put, you sir are a nutter! Even Adam Smith knew we had to have a government and had to pay taxes!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
You live in a complex society where the police are obliged to protect your personal property and your life, where food is not full of melamine, where we have a military that enforces our economic interests, where roads improve the flow of goods and services.
Pay for it.
--
BMO
Because it is flamebait! Some folks have this fantasy that you can get everything for nothing. Things cost money! As I was writing to the GP, sure we can argue about a bloated government. But to argue that tax avoidance is a good thing is not correct either.
Police, military, firemen, judges, etc, etc all cost money. Adam Smith who was a capitalist wrote in his papers that government and taxes were needed. The question is how much government, not whether or not government there is a government.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
...is to pass a law which states that the government will not provide material support or assistance to companies who offshore their profits.
Your container ship full of product headed to Europe gets hijacked by Somali pirates? Well, you can either ask the Liberian government (your ship's flag of convenience) or the Cayman Islands government (your international HQ) to help rescue your ship.
Website breached or attacked? The FBI isn't going to help.
The Chinese pirating your IP out the back door? Sorry, the State Department won't be lobbying China on your behalf.
You want a real government's help? OK, well then you have to pay taxes to the real government. Having a shiny sign on some skyscraper where 1% of your workforce lives, 50% of your profit is generated and nearly none of your income tax is paid means you're really not a local entity and won't get the government on your side.
Seems logical to me. Ireland is happy to get 4 million that they wouldn't otherwise get at all. Ireland's simply undercutting other governments. Makes sense.
But if you want to collect tax dollars from companies that operate in the .U.S.A., you might want to assess their global revenues, period. Global companies paying global rates makes perfect sense.
Otherwise, you're looking at a future without tax revenue. Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
On the other hand, you can look at this as simple capitalism. Ireland made a better offer. You lost. Suck it up, or learn to compete.
Either way, don't bring ethics into it. You're talking about taking someone's money for "the greater good". And you're forcing them to participate. If you're going to discuss ethics, you might want to start with your own.
I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization.
That a lot of deluded "rugged individualists" falsely think they are entirely self-made and have no obligation to pay back into society amuses me. Seeing them frustrated and resentful at paying taxes makes me smile.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Making corporations paying taxes on profits is double taxation and should not be done. Rather the profits should pass through to the owners (investors) and then the investors should pay taxes as if that was their earned income. Any retained earnings by the corporation (profits not passed through to investors) should be taxed as if it were earned income. This includes paying SS, Medicare, Medicate, workman's comp, federal, state and local income taxes.
While we're at it lets eliminate all the loopholes, subsidies and deductibles on the personal income taxes as well.
It is a fact of law in the US that the police are not required to protect you or your property (at least in most jurisdictions).
In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.
In Warren v. District of Columbia, it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, "the police have no duty under federal law to protect the citizens."
There are other cases that more or less have the same result.
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. Maybe.
I get it. You don't like paying for lazy people. Fair point, neither do I.
But what happens if you stop welfare? Crime rates go through the roof. People that can't eat get desperate and start doing things they'd never do otherwise. Poor people won't just starve and go away, they WILL rise up and take a lot more from you.
People are only complacent when they have something to lose. If you give them a little something to lose, then you can control them better. Create a society of have's and have not's and eventually the have's are all destroyed by the have not's.. It's happened throughout history, and apparently people don't learn from it.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
If they are making money off US citizens who are in the US then it seems they should be paying US taxes, but I bet the line is blurred when they are selling 'services' such as allowing marketers access to FB users...
;-)
Certainly when HP sells products overseas they are required by many of the countries in which they sell products to keep the bulk of the revenue for those products inside that country -it seems odd that US companies are allowed to get away with this in the US when they are not allowed to do this elsewhere?
Here is something I found in the way of background -although the source is somewhat disreputable
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/accounting-policy/tax-time-foreign-profits-PDF.pdf
I guess one of the big differences is that most other countries use the 'Territorial' tax system in which the home country's taxation of foreign profits is only the difference between the foreign tax rate and the local one -afaiu
Can someone without an axe to grind as far as laissez faire capitalism, etc explain how this works?
thx
Just WAIT til you find out how IKEA operates! Go on, look it up yourself, you wouldn't believe me if I told you!
Mostly random stuff.
Start using the NSA for some good and uncover the people involved.
In addition, start taking advantage of the nature of these tax domiciles as being easily knocked over by a superpower's military. Offer to disclose each conquered country's information to other regions such as the UK and EU. In any case, move in a way that thwarts any effort to move out assets to "somewhere else".
Finally, be willing to use extraordinary rendition to moot jurisdiction movement. This would be viable for cases such as Eduardo Saverin, and assets of companies sent offshore.
In any of the cases, there will be no shortage of people willing to defend their country from tax jurisdiction abuse. With plenty of people out of work - more than a few leaving from good jobs - opportunity exists to discourage/deny the use of creative accounting.
(If you really want to turn up the heat, ensure that nobody involved, whether directly or indirectly, will have any protection from the US)
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The problem isn't "more" or "bigger" government - but having a government that has the balls to stand up and say "pay your fair share"
Unfortunately - here in the UK we have the same problem... the people pay more while the corporations pay next-to-nothing
Actually there is. During Clinton's presidency they enacted Welfare Reform that required getting work to continue receiving welfare, no work meant no more welfare. We dropped welfare roles by record amounts and as far as I know there wasn't a spike in crime.
Or were you looking for an example like the guy who brougt it up where cutting welfare was bad? I don't know of any examples like that except maybe for current day Greece.
That tends to be the confusion. People forget that the US government is actually very weak. It feels powerful to average citizens, but is generally weaker then many of the quasi-state corporations living within its borders.
The less that a government can do the less that the power that the corporations have over the government matters to the rest of us.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
But to argue that we should pay zero taxes make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
Suggesting no corporate taxation is not the same as suggesting no taxation.
For if we don't pay taxes you better be prepared to pay Vinny down the street a bit of money to make sure that you don't get mugged, robbed, or killed.
Even if Facebook were paying more in taxes, that money wouldn't be paying police in my town. It wouldn't even be paying police in the town where Facebook's employees live. Or fire departments, or roads, etc. Taxes paid by Facebook employees, however, do pay for government services where they live.
Focus on taxing the money at the point it gets transferred to individuals and the only way the taxes can be avoided is to move the people... but if they move the people they move the costs as well as the revenues. Note that companies can't work around this by giving employees (or executives) cars, houses, etc., because those sorts of benefits are treated as taxable income.
Counties and cities can, and should, also use property taxes to get the cash required to maintain roads and other local infrastructure used by corporations and their employees.
Set corporate taxes to zero and focus on taxing the money as it flows out. This would include taxing capital gains. Then corporations would have no reason to move to Dublin... unless they really are looking to use Irish labor.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Unfortunately - here in the UK we have the same problem... the people pay more while the corporations pay next-to-nothing
This is a complicated issue in my mind, I'm conflicted. One the one hand, my thought is that as long as we're going to tax corporations, we should do so effectively, limiting/eliminating the tricks that international companies use to avoid taxes like this. Note: To me tax avoidance is using legal means to lower your tax burden. Tax evasion is using illegal means. Using the former is shady, but not illegal, and we should expect companies to be immoral when it comes to saving millions of dollars.
But I also have the thought of 'why bother taxing corporations'? We suck at it, and ultimately companies are owned by individuals, everybody from fat cat industrialists to the retired grandmother who bought $100 of IBM stock 50 years ago. That makes taxing corporations both regressive and ineffective - it's regressive in that it hits those who have low incomes and low amounts of stock(mostly in retirement accounts) as much as it hits the rich. Ineffective in that the big companies have all figured out how to shelter the vast majority of their profits legally. It's the small to mid sized companies that are handicapped by actually having to pay the high US taxes.
Maybe make the corporations collect sales tax instead? What about VAT? Maybe put proper tiers on non-earned income(IE capital gains)?
My idea is to split personal income taxes into two categories - earned and unearned. Earned is salaries, piece work, etc... IE you 'did' something to earn that money. Unearned is capital gains, interest, dividends, and such, money earned from the simple fact that you 'owned' something. Your first ~$10k of income in either category is taxed at 0%, after that it's tiered in parallel like the current system. Assuming an average return rate of 5%, that's $200k in investments before you start having to pay taxes on the return, which is a good amount for emergencies, college, early retirement, and what not.
If you make as much as Romney though, you're going to be paying near the top rate, no matter how you structure your income.
I don't read AC A human right
How about we just close the loopholes? If you have a US based company that is clearly operating a subsidiary, that subsidiary (even foreign) will be subject to US taxation. Far simpler strategy.
You miss the whole point of the story. This story isn't JUST about US tax being avoided.
paid Irish taxes of about $4.64 million on its entire non-U.S. profits of $1.344 billion
The problem here is that Ireland offers ridiculously low tax rates to attract investment and employment.
They realize that the spending and the taxes Ireland gains from income taxes and sales taxes paid by the employees and the jobs that are created helps Ireland more than the corporate tax. So they set crazy low rates cor corporate taxes and Facebook and Google set up data centers there.
I'm hard pressed to declare this a totally bad idea. If it works for Ireland, good for them. If it works for Facebook and Google, how can you blame them for doing exactly what the law was set up to encourage?
The US can fix their tax laws too. They could easily make it more profitable to keep the investment mostly at home. Irish tax and legislation isn't exactly secret sauce. Washington State gives Boeing and Microsoft and Amazon astounding tax breaks just to keep its citizens employed. So do a lot of other states.
Side note: There is a school of thought that says taxing corporations is counter productive, and taxing the compensation AND THE PERKS of people that work for the corporations makes more sense. (Lets not start the corporate owned cars, planes, yachts and houses rant m'Kay? I said "compensation"). When you get right down to it, the reasons corporations are taxed is to gain some measure of government control over them, not to gain any real tax revenue that would not otherwise be collected from shareholders or employees.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Greece is a perfect example. Also, take a look at the French revolution. Why did that happen? Because the peasants had no bread.
Yeah, but I suspect the poster, like most people, doesn't have the option of transferring all his money to a shell corporation in the Cayman Islands so he doesn't have to pay tax on it. If he did that, the IRS would probably put him in jail.
The law needs to be changed so that it is fair; either he should be able to do that, or Facebook should not.
contractors are not included in the official headcount yet for all intents and purposes they are govt employees. And they are not cheap.
It's simple - see through the bullshit and judge the size of the govt by what it spends.
I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization.
Please feel free to hand your entire paycheck to the government. There is no law stopping you. It will make you much happier knowing that you are getting much more civilization than your neighbor.
I suspect, however, that you really mean that you like the concept of taxes paid by others because it pays for the control over them that you appreciate (and that you call "civilization").
That a lot of deluded "rugged individualists" falsely think they are entirely self-made and have no obligation to pay back into society amuses me.
I have an obligation to pay back into society that which it asks me to pay and I have agreed to. There is no EULA or "shrink-wrap license"; no unilateral contract. If "society" wants to promote home ownership and does so by creating tax deductions, then I will use them and feel no sorrow at paying less in taxes. Ditto for energy-efficient appliances, weatherization, charitable donations, etc. If the sum of the deductions meets or exceeds the "tax liability", then why should I have any obligation to pay at all? After all, society has told me what it expects; I have met that expectation.
This same concept applies to corporations. Obeying the laws and paying what is owed is their obligation; paying extra because you want "more civilization" isn't.
Seeing them frustrated and resentful at paying taxes makes me smile.
Why would anyone be resentful at having to pay for things that you think they should pay for but they don't? How silly of them. And isn't it such a wonderful feeling of accomplishment when you can force them to do so, and feel superior to them at the same time?
Maybe a simple solution is to not tax corporations income at all and to pass the taxable income to the owners of the corporations like a partnership. If you own 10% of the company, then you must claim 10% of the net income on your personal taxes. If you own .0001%, then you claim .0001%. In this modern age of computers, corporations can issue 1099 statements with your weighted average share of income.
Doing so treats corporate income like any other business income for tax purposes and dividends just become a return on capital investment. The downside to all of this is that some very wealthy people won't be able to shelter their money in off shore corporations any more because they will have to claim it as personal income just like a sole proprietor or partner.
When talking about income taxes, yes, you are member of the society, you benefit from such things, you should pay taxes. Companies, however, don't benefit from army, from healthcare and from any other things that society provides. In fact, when nobody uses the company, the company ceases to exist. Taxing the companies only forces the companies to spend every year the most so they don't have to pay such high taxes. For me, it is not bad if for example Microsoft holds great untaxed amount of cash this year and invests it the next year or the year after. The company is already punished for not spending their money by inflation, the income tax is just bad tool and shouldn't be used.
Complete bullshit across the board.
Example: Halliburton rebuilding the Middle East
I work in the Healthcare analytics world, a healthy population has a DIRECT correlation to higher productivity from your workforce, ergo higher profits. This is why companies track Health and Productivity Management and implement programs designed to change employee lifestyles to be more healthy.
Drop the corporate shill routine that companies don't benefit from the government. They benefit a hell of a lot more than most citizens and at a lower effective tax rate.
As an individualist I'm certain you will feel quite at home away from us collectivist apes were you to transfer your residence to Somalia.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
actually, you're probably paying way more tax that you're required to pay - as seen by the recent scandals in the UK where various celebrities simply pay their money into an offshore account owned by a privately-held company and then take out a loan from said company, thus meaning their income is roughly 0, and therefore they don't have any tax to pay.
See, these schemes are quite legal, and the celebrities involved weren't required to pay any tax on an income on nothing, so why do you pay tax?
'course, said schemes are incredibly dodgy and caused a lot of backlash from the public who do see tax as a necessary evil, and rich people being able to scam their way to not paying anything as an even greater evil. The only real solution is to simplify the tax laws considerably so clever accountants cannot come up with these workarounds and loopholes. Oh, and to refuse to recognise the tax status of countries that have 0% tax systems, or to make companies that do "set up shop" (usually a post-office box) in these countries have a certain percentage of their workforce be employed there.
If you are really at a 50% tax bracket, you need to do one of two things (perhaps both). First, get a tax adviser and second, consider moving out of New York City or wherever it is that you're getting shafted for on local / state taxes. That's about 20% higher than it should be unless you have some really odd financial issues.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And some folks believe they should get a lot while giving very little.
This is called tax avoidance and is legal, immoral and unjust.
If Facebook thinks 0.3% tax is reasonable than their fire protection should be limited to a tall glass of water, their access roads should be reduced to trampled grassland and they should dispose of their sewage waste using government-provided paper bags.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
paid Irish taxes of about $4.64 million on its entire non-U.S. profits of $1.344 billion
The problem here is that Ireland offers ridiculously low tax rates to attract investment and employment.
This isn't due to a ridiculously low corporate tax rate in Ireland (it's 10% or more according to wikipedia, depending). The country with ridiculously low corporate tax is Cayman Islands (no corporate tax). Ireland's subsidiary pays licensing fees to the subsidiary in Cayman Islands, so that on paper the Ireland profit becomes miniscule, and thus the tax sums are low too.
Yes. The solution is helping people to be gainful members of society. We all know that.
The problem is that the current right wing philosophy is cut cut cut, with no money to spend "Teaching a man to fish". He just wants to take the fish away and say "Go get a job" when there are few jobs to be had, even for those that are motivated and educated.
I'm not arguing Welfare is good, but it's a far sight better than simply throwing people to the wolves.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It also can't have profits and can't pay taxes - it's a company, not a human being.
So I suggest we get rid of the notion of "companies". It's harmful to society. Instead, let's have the employees and the shareholders responsible for taking the profits and for paying taxes. That'll be a lot simpler, and would require them to actually relocate to the Cayman Islands before they can enjoy the tax benefits.
And if specific employees and/or shareholders find ways not to pay taxes, then the government can find ways to withhold services such as education, health, roads and sewage. Agreed?
wrong.
The government is accountable to the people, when all is said and done,. Money doesn't vote, people do.
We have seen time and time again where the government has fought and one against a multitude of corporation and their abuses.
With strong government regulations, you can limit damage corporations do. With out it it means corporation can do whatever they want. We have seen that. we have seen the results from that, it's not pretty.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guess thats we birth rates are down.
You might want to get a reality check on that opinion.
The Great Society worked. The money for it has been stripped by the pubs.
I used to be poor. very poor. No one I knew was having more kids for money. Even the most poor not that doesn't make sense. However low education, emotional stability and boredom can lead to more sex.
The problem we have no has NOTHING to do with Lyndon Johnson. A bunch of banker and financial 'experts' from around the world at the largest institutions lied, cheated, and stole. THAT is why we are in this mess.
Had Greece(and the world) been given correct data, they would not be in this mess. Note that countries with strongly regulated financial system weren't hit that badly at all. Countries with good education and health care system. The impact they did feel was do to the country with not so well regulated financial systems being hit.
It's the same thing. Every financial scandal that impacted the economy at large cause the pubs to scream 'it's the social program fault' and never at the actually liars who created the mess.
no no, all these problems are becasue poor people have kids.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, when a fire erupts at the Facebook HQ, simply don't send the firemen when Facebook calls and tell them to contract a private firefighting company. They will have the fire put down by that company and will simply pay an invoice for the services rendered. :-)
Actually, this is exactly what used to happen before (roughly, and depending on where you live) the early to mid 19th century. The earliest firefighters in modern times were either volunteers or employed on a private contractual basis (ie they would literally turn up at the scene of a fire and try to negotiate payment before putting it out). As insurance developed in the 17th century, naturally insurers started to provide their own firefighters to reduce the losses sustained to fire. The insurers in London, for example, set up a system after the Great Fire of 1666 whereby each had their own group of firemen and they placed "fire insurance marks" on each house so that they could identify whether their unit was supposed to fight a particular fire or not. Eventually the usual pressures of commerce meant that these units usually merged into a single unit covering the whole of London across multiple insurers in the early to mid 19th century, however, still under a model of privately funded provision.
What happened next could be viewed as an example of "corporate welfare"... the insurers lost large sums in a few particularly bad fires and they decided as a result of this that they would lobby the government to provide a beefed-up firefighting service at taxpayers' expense. At the same time, there was a growing movement to "profesionalise" the remaining voluntary provision in other parts of the world which led to them becoming paid rather than voluntary. Following the model set in the insurer-led markets, these areas paid their firefighters out of the public purse.
I would suggest that it seems the right thing to do to fund fire defence by extracting the costs directly from insurers on an incident basis rather than simply relying on general taxation - i.e. if my house catches fire, my insurer would then have to pay the government back the cost involved in calling the fire brigade out (you can argue about the corner case of how to deal with people who are uninsured and whether you fund their costs from general taxation, a levy on those who are insured, or by trying to pursue them individually). One benefit is that the insurers then have even more incentive (beyond just the threat of loss) to ensure that fire prevention measures are adequate. You could also compare this to the idea that the court system should be self-funding through filing fees etc. Just because it's a legitimate use of a government monopoly, doesn't mean it has to be funded through general taxation.
I think he's pointing out that taxes on corporations are just a form of double taxation where the taxation is "hidden" - you see more expensive goods and services, but have no idea what the cause is.
I'm in agreement, and I'm someone who would happily see higher taxes in exchange for better public services, and am as anti-corporate as the next guy. Corporate income tax just doesn't make any sense. Tax sales, tax employees incomes, tax dividends, etc, but the process of moving money around (which is, after all, what a corporation is) shouldn't, by itself, be taxable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1. Lower the corporate tax rate, and raise the unearned income rates in response. This fixes the problem with richer people paying an effective tax rate lower than poorer people and makes it less likely that companies would want to set up such complicated shell corps. It has the negative effect of hurting the retirement of anyone that has all of their money in non-Roth investments suddenly subject to the new higher rates.
That's a pretty common solution. I think this one also works and is more novel:
2. Require companies to pay taxes based on the nationality and/or country of residence of the majority of their executive officers and board of directors. The tax rate is based on the income earned by all subsidiaries. This means that Facebook wouldn't have to just set up shell corporations in other countries, they would have to find a board made up of non-US people, and likely move the top executives out of the country, too. And at that point, well, they aren't really a US company any more at all, and it doesn't matter if they pay US taxes on their non-US income. But really I don't think most companies would go to that effort, as that is far beyond their fiduciary duty to their American shareholders. While business is offshore-able, most people still want to live in the same country as their friends and family. I think this can be used to "fairness'" advantage in tax law.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I still wonder what's good about corporations paying taxes anyway.
Wouldn't it be more beneficial if they didn't pay taxes?
So, if corporations didn't have to pay taxes. They would hire more people or pay them more. Those additional hires or higher salaries will then be taxed again. So the Gvt. does get it's money.
The effect is, that corporations won't have to go offshore for the best tax deal and pay taxes there.
So we would benefit a lot more if the corporations stayed here - tax free - but in return hire more people or pay higher salaries.