Slashdot Mirror
Amazon, Google and Apple Won't Need To Pay Tax, Despite Goverment Threats
girlmad writes "Despite moves by government to get Google, Amazon and Apple to admit they make sales in the UK and US, and therefore should pay tax on these earnings, this article argues these are empty threats and that any taxes paid will get returned to the tech giants in government grants and subsidies. Tough luck to the small firms out there."
And for those of you who think this is partisan-minded, the "other" guys (hah! what a joke) would have done exactly the same.
Not everyone hates the government. The executives of big companies are actually so fond of them that they even take their government chums out to expensive restaurants and parties on their private yachts.
It's just the poor people who hate the government, because they're all nasty and poor and horrible.
And the middle classes, whose tax money is going on unpopular schemes like wars and helping poor people.
Oh, and the professionals/entrepreneurs, because after years of hard work, sacrifice and risk-taking that will stop many in their tracks, those who do succeed are then considered "rich" and taxed sharply, while the people who are actually rich have enough mobility to avoid those same high taxes, which is why the very high tax rates don't actually raise much money for the government anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Apple and Google enjoy the general public services just like the rest of us. This includes public roads, utilities, postal services. They exist and thrive in a society that is only possible through the strength of an organized nation-state such as the United States of America or Great Britain. This doesn't include any of the subsidies that I'm sure they manage to get or the fact that as a couple of the largest companies in existence, they have the ability to successfully lobby lawmakers.
While most could agree that tax revenue could probably be better spent these days, the fundamental concept of taxes is not stealing. Taxes are the price of civilization.
It's just the poor people who hate the government, because they're all nasty and poor and horrible.
Arthur: Bloody peasants!
Remind me why class warfare is alive and well and why everyone hates the government so fucking much?
Because a key tactic in class warfare is the 0.01% getting the government to do their bidding.
I've been following this whole shitfest in the UK quite closely for the past few months, and one amusing thing has consistently struck me - the government are trying to be the goody-goody party in all of this, claiming that the companies involved are being evil and ethically corrupt when it comes to "fair share" taxation, while at the very same time flat out refusing to acknowledge that those companies are not doing anything illegal under the current tax regime.
The government also has ruled out changing the tax law to prevent the current behaviours,because then they lose the trivially easy PR they get from "taking the companies to task" infront of Parliament and the media.
It's time to admit that the current tax law doesn't work once you are above PAYE (that's the government standard taxation for employees - normal people in the UK do not have to do any filings because it's all done by the HMRC for them and tax is taken out of their pay checks each month).
Setting up a company in the UK costs about $40. Doing annual returns for that company costs about $350. By working for that company for no wage, and taking out directors dividends, you save serious amounts of money through not having to pay income tax as the Corporate tax rates are significantly smaller than the income tax rates. This scheme is so heavily and widely used, even MPs in all parties got shamed earlier this year when they were named using it - but it's still completely legal.
No one should be expected to voluntarily pay more tax than they legally are required to, and no one should be shamed for not paying more tax than they are legally required to - if you want someone to pay more tax than they are legally required to, then legally require them to pay more tax! Don't beat around the bush, change the fucking law.
Good for Apple and Google. The government didn't earn the money they want to take. The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers?
For example, the government pays for police that will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want.
They pay for those directly through property taxes, and indirectly through payroll taxes, proportional to what they use. Corporate income tax is not used for any of that. And they mostly use private shipping companies for their products.
Just because some taxes are reasonable and necessary doesn't mean that any/all of them are.
The article doesn't say, but it appears that when it says "tax" it is referring to *income* tax. For some reason, a lot of people forget that corporations, unlike people, pay income tax on NET rather than gross. In other words, the corporation pays all of its expenses, then pays income tax on what is left over. Those expenses include your salary, your benefits, new capital projects, and so on. Meanwhile, the real tax burden of the organization is much higher when you add in all the other taxes they are paying: sales tax, property tax, tariffs, and so on. The story that these corporations aren't paying very much in "taxes" is a gross distortion. They just aren't paying very much in income taxes, which is by design.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Oh, and the professionals/entrepreneurs, because after years of hard work, sacrifice and risk-taking that will stop many in their tracks, those who do succeed are then considered "rich" and taxed sharply, ...
I really don't put Mark Zuckerberg and all the other "professionals/entrepreneurs" in that category.
And everyone works hard, takes risks and sacrifices. Everyone. It's just a question of what to sacrifice.
I have a relative - one of those "professionals/entrepreneurs" - as he puts it, "I worked 30 years and had a few lucky breaks to achieve my 'fame' (that's the way he put it)"
He's also on his third wife and a few screwed up kids.
Unfortunately, for every "success" story, the people don't realize that there are thousands of others who did exactly the same thing but failed; sometimes to ruinous consequences. And yet folks point to the few successes and say "look! anyone can do it if you just had the gumption!' Like everyone who's failed wasn't worthy; and everyone who's succeeded did so because they were worthy of said success.
Are you going to tell me that someone who just happened to be at the right place at the right time is a success because of his hard work?
That's an insult to those out there who are truly working their asses off and taking risks.
And the "professionals" you mention. You mean doctors? They take no risks. If you are lucky enough to have been born with the talents to do well (No matter how hard I worked, I couldn't pass Organic Chem.) in that field, you are pretty much guaranteed a nice lifestyle. It's no coincidence that MDs are always on top of the lists of highest paid professions. It has nothing to do with brains because if that were the case, then Physicists would be on the top.
Simple really: things look as different from the bottom as they do from the middle and the top. Your poor hate being poor, your middle class are typically striving to make it up another rung, and your rich don't want to fall from their perch. Your poor work with the idea of 'making it,' so that they can be free of the mentality of being poor, as well as the belief that with moving up the ladder means less problems; it does not, it just means different problems. When you're poor, you think as soon as you get another $10K, you'll pay back all your friends, be extra nice, relax, etc.: the reality is, when that $10K comes, your friends will find you, and any voluntary remembrance for their aid becomes an involuntary shakedown, during which the worst of humanity is shown to you. The middle class want to move up, going from middle middle class to upper middle class, or whatever; they try to curry favor on both sides: they want rich friends, the right connections, etc., but they also want to 'remember where they came from' with the poor, as some sort of pride of having worked their way up. The rich want to avoid becoming poor or middle class; it's one thing to be down several million from the fortune you inherited, it's another to not be able to afford to visit Europe whenever the whim strikes you.
Each class has certain 'requirements' as far as being a part of it. This is why someone who acquires a fortune through a lottery is not suddenly thought of as being a part of the upper class; chances are, that money will be gone in a few year's time, and no attempt at understanding the change in class occurs.
As for why everyone hates the government, why, that's simple: your host government is typically the one wielding the most amount of power over your life (save yourself, or your deity), and as such, is the scapegoat for everything that does wrong in your life during your day, from the stubbed toe you got rolling out of bed, to the parking ticket you received. He who has the power, gets the blame! It sucks, but it seems to hold true. Heck, the upper class has worked for ages on how to displace power from blame...that's why you have 'management' running companies, instead of the owners themselves. And their successes have been...somewhat lackluster, to be honest. Lately they've been getting nailed for it...see how many companies have gone tits up, and how the political class is basically losing any semblance of currency with the populace.
I am John Hurt.
Wow, I'd like a 35% tax rate; ours in NL starts at around that percentage, and goes up to 52%... with that upper bracket kicking in real fast at around â55.000 taxable income.
"Taxable income" is the important term. Talking about the tax rate is pointless when you don't add what "taxable income" is. In one country, the cost of driving to work is deducted from your income to calculate "taxable income". In another country, they are seriously thinking about adding the benefit of having a free parking space where you work to your income to calculate "taxable income". In one country, mortgage payments are deducted from your income, in another country they aren't.
"Tax rate" on its own is meaningless. What you need to know is how much tax people in comparable situations actually pay.