Slashdot Mirror


New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

HughPickens.com writes: Reuters reports that plans for a major rewriting of international tax rules have been unveiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that could eliminate structures that have allowed companies like Google and Amazon to shave billions of dollars off their tax bills. For more than 50 years, the OECD's work on international taxation has been focused on ensuring companies are not taxed twice on the same profits (and thereby hampering trade and limit global growth). But companies have been using such treaties to ensure profits are not taxed anywhere. A Reuters investigation last year found that three quarters of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies channeled revenues from European sales into low tax jurisdictions like Ireland and Switzerland, rather than reporting them nationally.

For example, search giant Google takes advantage of tax treaties to channel more than $8 billion in untaxed profits out of Europe and Asia each year and into a subsidiary that is tax resident in Bermuda, which has no income tax. "We are putting an end to double non-taxation," says OECD head of tax Pascal Saint-Amans.For the recommendations to actually become binding, countries will have to encode them in their domestic laws or amend their bilateral tax treaties. Even if they do pass, these changes are likely 5-10 years away from going into effect.
Speaking of international corporate business: U.K. mainframe company Micro Focus announced it will buy Attachmate, which includes Novell and SUSE.

324 comments

  1. It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That Novell and SuSE start paying the billions of taxes they owe.

    1. Re:It's about time by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      "Would" is a very specific word, and I would put money on the conditional not being satisfied, at least not as completely as expected.

    2. Re: It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leftist scum!

    3. Re: It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rightist douche bags.

  2. Most taxes are legalized theft by sabri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.

    Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money.

    If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by DogDude · · Score: 5, Funny

      Put down the Ayn Rand, and step away slowly.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      You know, you can actually do a FOIA and request a lot of that information at a county, state, or even federal level.

      Individual program taxes will never happen, though, because in the US the biggest suck on our tax dollars is the Pentagon and the military, and a lot of people like me would be happy to opt out of that. I would not, however, opt out of SS and Medicare/Medicaid, since I'm supposed to (in theory) get that money returned when I need it the most.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      These types of agreements, if put in place, will be most useful when countries want to further raise their corporate taxes.

    4. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the stupidity and naivete of what you say is staggering.

      You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

      You would not end up in some libertarian fantasy of a self regulating society. You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      Blah blah blah. Everything you say is pure fantasy, and doesn't mean anything other than your overly romanticized notions of a world which never was, and which never could be.

      I swear, Libertarians (and the idiots who read Ayn Rand) are some of the most deluded people around, second only to religious people who reject science because the facts contradict their stupid book.

      If you think a modern society is possible without taxes and some things being paid for by society, you really are a drooling idiot.

    5. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Obvious counterpoint to your ideological statement: without taxes all theft is legalized.

      The construction of a an idea of theft exists as an artifact of a social system. To pretend that something is "yours" without a legal delineation of ownership is silly.

      Obvious counterpoint to your pragmatic statement: details of budgets need to change more rapidly than taxes.

      Additionally, combining surpluses and deficits from different programs minimizes overhead.

    6. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please tell the truth.

      Link 2015 proposed
      Military is 16%, SS is 33% (double military by itself), Medicare is 27% also more than military.

      Link 2014 actual
      SS is $866 Billion, military is $627 Billion, Medicare is $531 Billion.

      Also note SS is mandatory 100%, while military is discretionary 100%.

    7. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The military is the biggest part of the US budget? Gee.... our government disagrees with that, according to the budget they publish.

      http://www.usgovernmentspendin...

      Total defense spending, 22%. Pensions, 25%. Healthcare 27%.

      And this does NOT include Social Security or Medicare (separate funds, they keep telling us).

    8. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Informative

      The debt is mostly from wars that were not paid for.

      It also ignores the 50 percent of military budget that is in the "black budget", as well as the NSA and the other four three letter agencies we don't tell you about.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      ...as well as the NSA and the other four three letter agencies we don't tell you about.

      ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, MTV, FBI, CIA, IBM, D&D, WoW, LoL.

    10. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      No we told you about those

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    11. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why are you being modded down? The wars are almost entirely off budget. Maybe they'll make up for it with asset forfeitures..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total defense spending, 22%. Pensions, 25%. Healthcare 27%.

      And this does NOT include Social Security or Medicare (separate funds, they keep telling us).

      Look again. Social Security is lumped into Pensions and Medicare is lumped into Healthcare on those charts.

    13. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money. If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.

      Sounds like a good, fair, and equitable plan. Last year the police and the military funded by the government prevented through their very existence at least 365 breakins into your business. The tax you (the business owner) owe is approximately 25% of your revenue. Please pay at your earliest convenience!

    14. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      SS is not mandated by the Constitution, where Defense is. Good to know we have our priorities right.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't defense spending also include pensions and healthcare?

    16. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      RLY?

    17. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are you being modded down? The wars are almost entirely off budget. Maybe they'll make up for it with asset forfeitures..

      They can't handle the truth. They believe in fictions written by some old lady who collected social security and received other government subsidies she railed against.

      That's my guess.

      But, yes, the US has an unfortunate tendancy, since the War of Independence, and the Civil War, continued to the present, of always fighting wars off budget. Which is where the budget deficits come from. Social Security pays for itself and has always had a surplus, and still does.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    18. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please. It doesn't matter what is or isn't mandated by the Constitution. Congress will selectively interpret "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" in any way they see fit.

    19. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The gp didn't say not to tax anything - it IS a good idea that taxpayers realize the taxes they pay. Payroll taxes hide a tremendous amount of taxation that most people have no idea they're paying.

    20. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      So about the same but with less taxes then?

    21. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by clovis · · Score: 2

      General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.

      Once in a while it is time to go pedantic.
      Words have meanings. We can string words together without regard to their meanings, and create an aphorism that sounds good, but it leads to logical incorrectness and a misunderstanding of how things work. It would be better if you were just gibbering.

      Taxation is not theft. The two words describe different circumstances and processes. The outcome may be the same (your stuff is gone), but they are two different words with different meanings.

    22. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by BringsApples · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'll give it a go.

      You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

      In a taxless society, there would be no one to run it other than those with wisdom and experience. But they wouldn't "run" the society as we understand it today.

      You would not end up in some libertarian fantasy of a self regulating society. You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      Again, I think you're missing the point. Roads? Why would there be this need for roads? If you walk through the forest a path will naturally develop. And schools? Why would we need schools? Do parents get paid to teach their kids now? I mean, in this taxless society that we're talking about, the need for a lot of things that we have today diminishes.

      Blah blah blah. Everything you say is pure fantasy, and doesn't mean anything other than your overly romanticized notions of a world which never was, and which never could be.

      Go look up aboriginals, American Indians and/or any other indigenous peoples. Also, if you think that there has always been taxes (as if they're a part of nature) then you are the one that's overly romanticizing the situation. Taxes were invented long ago, for sure, but to say that they've always been there, is wrong, and just sounds obnoxious.

      If you think a modern society is possible without taxes and some things being paid for by society, you really are a drooling idiot.

      This is where no one can argue, you are 100% correct. However the word "modern" is the reason. But there's no reason that we cannot have a society housing a group of people that have no "currency".

      If you want to have a nice civil group of people, working to have food and shelter, this can be achieved without money. The American Indians used to live in a society where they had no money, but they were successful at trading with other tribes. Sure they fought, but there was an underlying mutual understanding that their way of life had a goal of staying in tune with Nature. "Money" is not a part of nature, otherwise all races of beings would have it, not just humans.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    23. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

      There is a place where Libertarian and Ayn Rand philosophies are in practice.
      It's called Africa.
         

    24. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominem attacks are much easier than actual debate. Why bother understanding and arguing a counterpoint when you can just call the other side names?

    25. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      ... in any way that gets them reelected.

      A bit closer to reality.

    26. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Payroll taxes do not hide anything. I think most people realize they pay FICA taxes. It usually is listed on the check. As a student, I was surprised not to see anything taken from my work/study when I normally would have expected some payroll taxes.

      Plus, FICA taxes tend to go toward a program. Although, I do think Congress does tap into that trust fund.

      We need to stop the tax inversion. Although, I'm not sure if I'd be okay with retroactively applying anything. But tax inversion needs to stop before it creates too much problems. (Also, let's close tax loopholes for individuals.)

    27. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say the OP is stupid and naive, but proceed to criticize ideas that have nothing to do with the actual post. There isn't any implication of a "society without taxes," and the post is clearly not libertarian (let alone Randian).

      Try reading before commenting.

    28. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear, people like you (and the idiots that fail to understand what is written/spoken) are some of the most deluded people around.

      The parent did not say "abolish all taxes" - just spoke about general forms of taxes such as income tax which do not pay for schools nor roads nor police nor fire departments, etc.. Those are funded by use-based taxes (e.g. gasoline tax) and assesments (e.g. property tax).

      You really are a drooling idiot.

    29. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by cogeek · · Score: 1

      They don't even care about re-election any more. They pass laws that benefit their donors and get a nice cushy "consulting" gig when they retire.

    30. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It seems very wealthy have become very good at gaming the system. Watching the PBS program "The Roosevelts" it mentioned of the time when very wealthy controlled almost all commerce and markets. Then there was everyone else that got "Morganized" with lower wages and grueling work hours with almost no chance to get ahead, i.e. whatever earnings made had to be spent at company store. Teddy Roosevelt broke this trend with "big government" and these guys JP Morgan, Rockefeller, etc. said TR doesn't have that power in the Constitution. But TR said Constitution was for the people. But nowadays we see growing wealth inequality and favoritism like "corporations are people too" and this trend of going back to what it used to be in late 1800s is not a good sign. Though all the Ayn Rands say, "too bad" but do consider US doesn't have industrial base like it used to.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    31. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

      - government has no place in anything that private individuals need and provide for themselves and others absent government.

      Energy, clothing, food, shelter, education, transportation, roads, schools, investments, entertainment, mail, anything at all that people need, individuals need, individuals, people create and once they create it, if others like it, they can also buy these solutions from the individuals that created it. That is what businesses are: individuals solving individual problems that become solutions for the entire societies.

      Your complete lack of understanding of these simple realities of life and your dogmatic belief in something 'grander' than you are, are blinding you and obviously somebody so blinded cannot see the forest for the trees. "Libertarian" is just a moniker. The point is individual freedom.

      Free people create stuff based on their own creativity.

      Slaves only work hard enough not to get beat up too much (just enough not to be taxed too much).

      Looks to me you prefer a 'society' of scared, ignorant children rather than a society of grown up people actually thinking for themselves and building stuff they need and trading with other grown ups for stuff they built.

    32. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The VA is filed under healthcare, but it's properly part of the military budget. Officer pensions are included under pensions, but they are properly part of the military budget. We wouldn't have to pay for the VA if we didn't have injured soldiers, and we wouldn't be paying officers pensions if we had a smaller military. Much of the national debt is military expenses from wars we didn't properly fund (we're still paying off the first gulf war and Reagan era cold war expenses, as well as the more recent stuff) and a huge portion of our tax bill goes towards paying interest on the national debt. Smaller military, fewer wars, less debt.

      When you separate out the portions of healthcare, pensions, debt, etc at are attributed to military, then yes, our military is one of the biggest portions of our budget.

    33. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Please. It doesn't matter what is or isn't mandated by the Constitution.

      You have just proposed lawlessness, and implied that it was okay. I hope you realize exactly what you're saying.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    34. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      So about the same but with less taxes then?

      Yeah. Who needs roads when you have a private helicopter, or cops when you can put guns on that chopper?

    35. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Payroll taxes do not hide anything. I think most people realize they pay FICA taxes. It usually is listed on the check

      You've proven my point; there is a whole set of payroll taxes your employer pays that is NOT listed on your check stub. There's *your* FICA deduction plus a matching FICA amount paid by your employer, which you do not see on your stub. Then there's *your* SS deduction, and again a matching amount paid by your employer which is not listed. Your employer also pays an unemployment tax which is not listed on your stub.
      The point is, all of these payments are, from your employer's point of view, how much it costs to get you to work. You're effectively paying all this extra tax because the money comes from you going to work. But you don't even know about it.

    36. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by magarity · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But tax inversion needs to stop before it creates too much problems. (Also, let's close tax loopholes for individuals.)

      Furthermore, the "tax inversion" only happens because the USA is one of three countries in the world that tries to collect tax worldwide. Let's say a UK headquartered company, for example, has an office in the USA and makes some sales. The UK's IRS does not try to tax that revenue made in the USA, only the revenue in the UK. The USA's IRS, on the other hand, insists on collecting tax on revenue made by a USA headquartered company whose office in the UK made some sales. You see how this puts the USA based firm at a large disadvantage? They have to pay USA level tax everywhere in the world, where the local competing companies are paying only the local level tax.

      What needs to happen is to stop tax inversion by stopping this horrible practice by the IRS. USA taxes should only apply in the USA. And USA corporate tax rates, among the highest in the world, need to come way down.

    37. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The first Budget in Obama's term put the war spending on budget.

      They were off budget during Bush's terms but one of the first acts Obama did with a democrat congress was to put them on budget.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

      Now, people may think "good, we need to account for that money anyways" but the fact is they were always accounted for in the end. The problem with this is the rules of congress say you have to pay for new spending. With the wars off budget, when congress decided to do something new or increase something, they had to either decrease somewhere else, raise taxes, or assume an influx of revenue with a realistic chance of it happening. Now, when the wars wind down, congress can simply spend the money as new spending without having to at minimum look for it.

      Note, I saw some articles saying that we are still using some supplemental appropriates (off budget) for spending on the wars. I am led to believe this is minor compared to the on budget spending for it.

    38. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey idiot, good job with the numbers. Why not just forget that SS made more than it spent during the same period? And the war? How much did it make? Sure, probably made a pretty penny...for the war machine. As long as you're ok that you're not going to end up with a single penny of that, I suppose you can rant all you want against your own welfare.

    39. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by udachny · · Score: 1

      A child is going to have parents and if a child has no parents then there are relatives, friends and finally private charities that can take care of orphans.

      The only 'veritable idiot' here is you, somebody who still does not understand what reality is.

      Most certainly nobody at all under any circumstances, regardless of what is happening in the least should ever be compelled under the barrel of a gun to pay for anybody's life, including lives of any number of children.

      A child is a responsibility of his or her parents and if they cannot deal with it, other people step in, but nobody should be forced to.

    40. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have the screwed up state we have today than to go back to the agricultural ages. If you want to regress in technological progress, there are large tracts of land in the US where there are no humans in a 10 mile radius. Please put yourself (and others like you) there. Also, please get off the internet, since it wouldn't be the way it is without money.

    41. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by maharvey · · Score: 1

      What do you think parents are for? Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the state.

    42. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Once in a while it is time to go pedantic.
      Words have meanings. We can string words together without regard to their meanings, and create an aphorism that sounds good, but it leads to logical incorrectness and a misunderstanding of how things work. It would be better if you were just gibbering.

      Theft
      In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

      Tax
      A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.

      Donation
      A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons,

      Taxation is not theft. The two words describe different circumstances and processes. The outcome may be the same (your stuff is gone), but they are two different words with different meanings.

      It would seem to me that if you do not want to pay your taxes but do so under threat of law, it would be theft. If you do want to pay your taxes voluntarily, it would be a donation. Of course this is using common understanding of definitions.

    43. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sabri · · Score: 2

      Taxation is not theft.

      Well, the dictionary disagrees with your:

      to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force

      The government is taking my property without my permission, and it gives itself the right to do so. The government partially does it secretly, and if I don't comply I will go to jail.

      But you took my words out of context. I am talking about "general forms of tax". For example income tax, sales tax and all taxes that have no specific purpose. Buy an airline ticket? You pay security tax. Fine, fair and square. I choose to buy an airplane ticket and the government has to provide security, ATC etc. So I pay taxes for it. But why the F should I pay income taxes to the government can bail out "Too big to fail" crooks?

      I am not opposed to paying taxes in general, I'm just opposed to that "we're taking your money and put it in our wallet, and we'll see later what we'll do with it. But trust us, it's in your interest" crap. You want my money, I want to see (and preferably have a voice as to) what you're doing with it.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    44. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by clovis · · Score: 1

      The link is to the word "steal", but because theft is the act or result of stealing, we should go with "steal"
      steal:

      to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force

      See the part about "without permission or right". It's "without permission" and "the right" part (among other things) that makes taxation and theft two different things.

    45. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      A Libertarian society would have *NO* schools? What are you smoking? I don't think even the statiest of statiests would say that if they are in the least bit intellectually honest. That statement doesn't even deserve a sincere rebuttal. I'll just chuckle and shake my head.

    46. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by dryeo · · Score: 1

      If you look closely at the constitution you'll notice that while the navy was easy to fund, the army not so much and the air force not at all (how hard would it have been to pass a constitutional amendment making or at least clarifying the air force constitutional?) . They also added an amendment clarifying that people should own arms so they could be part of an effective militia. You founding fathers as most enlightened people of the time, understood well that keeping a standing army was an invitation to tyranny and sure enough the military industrial complex is one of the major pushers to tyranny today.
      Besides do you really need to outspend the rest of the world for defence?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    47. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sabri · · Score: 2

      It's "without permission" and "the right" part (among other things) that makes taxation and theft two different things.

      See, this is the interesting part. I think we'll both agree that the permission part depends on me giving permission, so we won't need to discuss that. The next part is more difficult.

      I have a two year old. We're weaning her off the pacifier, but occasionally, she manages to slip into her bedroom and finds a pacifier. When we ask her who gave her the pacifier, the reply is "I gave it to myself!".

      The government is doing the same thing. It's the government that grants itself permission to take away my property. Putin gave himself permission to enter Ukraine.

      In my first year of law school, I learned that legal scholars define something they call a "social contract", which says that in a civilized society, everyone has a contract with each other to "do the right thing". So again, I'm not debating whether or not we should pay taxes. I'm simply saying that the way things are going today, are open for improvement (to be very British).

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    48. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't PROPOSING anything. He is DESCRIBING the current situation.

      100+ years of undermining the foundation of the Constitution has left it just to be interpreted as the whim of someone.

    49. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Instead, tax-per-use: road tax...

      You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      So if we had a road tax, roads wouldn't work and wouldn't get funded? That's like saying if a restaurant charged for cheeseburgers, they would taste awful and nobody would buy any.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    50. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by ruir · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem is not taxes being legalised theft AFAIK. If you use up your brain, it is quite obvious that for some to escape the system, others have to pay far more. In fact, probably more than 50%.

    51. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The gp didn't say not to tax anything -

      Well, sure, but that would be so much easier to argue against, so ... shhhh. We'll pretend he did.

    52. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What do you think parents are for? Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the state.

      That's great. What do you do with the children of irresponsible parents? Do you just let them starve when they turn out unemployable?

      And what do you do with mentally retarded cripples? I guess they can beg, except that they probably won't quite master that and will probably end up trespassing on some self-righteous gun owner's lawn and get shot (since everybody is their own police in this utopia).

    53. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by bigpat · · Score: 2

      It is hard to convince people they are better off knowing how much is really being taken from them. But the worst things about indirect or obfuscated taxation are that it is harder to have an informed electorate when taxation is hidden so indirect taxes undermine Liberty and democratic systems and it is harder for even the most well informed to accurately judge whether the tax burden is equitable, progressive or regressive. As far as I can tell the tax system is primarily responsible for the erosion of the middle-class in the US because it is a regressive burden on the middle-class more so than the very wealthy. But try convincing a wealthy person that the higher tax bracket they see and combined taxation is actually less of a tax burden on them than the middle-class. Most people just don't understand how insideous and distorting indirect taxation can be to all our perceptions.

    54. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      But, yes, the US has an unfortunate tendency, since the War of Independence, and the Civil War, continued to the present, of always fighting wars off budget.

      That's not even remotely true.
      The US has, for most of its history, levied taxes for the explicit purpose of paying for wars.
      The Federal Government didn't exist during the Revolution, so the individual states raised taxes.
      I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of pre-20th century war taxes, because they were on things like slaves, carriages, sugar, and whiskey.

      Just remember, every dollar you spend for something you don't need, is a dollar spent to help the Axis
      To pay for the Korean War, Congress heaped taxes on top of the already high WWII rates.
      President Johnson cut domestic spending and created surtaxes specifically to pay for Vietnam.
      AFAIK, George W. Bush was the first President to categorically refuse to raise any taxes to pay for his wars.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    55. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      I know what you do NOT do, you do NOT put a gun to OTHER people's had to steal their money from them to 'help' anybody whatsoever under any circumstances. No amount of misery can be justified to destroy individual freedom.

      If a person is irresponsible and has children, too bad for those children, however that's what other family members are for. Beyond that there are private organisations that try to help children. Governments cause massive pain for children by destroying the economy that they and their parents live in.

    56. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Taxation is not theft. The two words describe different circumstances and processes. The outcome may be the same (your stuff is gone), but they are two different words with different meanings.

      Taxation doesn't have to be theft, but when the government acts in such a way that people no longer consent to be governed, taxes become theft.

      If the government passed a law that allowed your bank to legally take all of your checking/saving/stock accounts and they did so, it may not be "legally" theft, but they'd be thieves all the same.

    57. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look up aboriginals, American Indians and/or any other indigenous peoples. Also, if you think that there has always been taxes (as if they're a part of nature) then you are the one that's overly romanticizing the situation. Taxes were invented long ago, for sure, but to say that they've always been there, is wrong, and just sounds obnoxious.

      Does that not include the Inca Empire? The certainly did build roads and bridges, pay taxes, and provide welfare for those who were unable to work. Some of their tax records still exist today, encoded as knots on strings.

    58. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      USA taxes should only apply in the USA

      And especially not to revenue earned (or, to be fair, booked) in the Cayman Islands!

    59. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by galabar · · Score: 1

      I think perception is much more important politically here. If I'm a politician trying to "stick it to the rich," I want a marginal tax rate as high as possible. I don't really care about how much the rich are paying -- only that my constituents are convinced of my progressivity. Many of my friends on the left mention the "90%" tax rates of the 1950s. However, they don't realize that with the then tax breaks, this was actually much lower (and it was the rich that could utilize those tax breaks). They want high taxes on corporations, but don't realize that they are the ones paying those taxes. Indeed, for those who have been the most honest with me, they believe that the less the public knows the more the government can take, and that, to them, is a good thing.

    60. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      But the stupid sheep don't realize it. Lower taxes would bring lower prices AND higher salaries - in effect that what politicians promise every election, but the sheep think that politicians are some kind of magic shamans who generate wealth by touching it. (which is called the "multiplier effect" - some people are actually dumb enough to believe it)

      Also the billionaires spend huge amounts of money on "charity" to keep the sheep as dumb as they are. (Think of Bill Gates' "Common Core" or the the George Soros NGOs)

    61. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by RoLi · · Score: 1

      You'd end up in a shit hole of a society in which things like roads and schools don't work and don't get funded.

      Isn't the US the country where the public schools are so bad that people pay twice for schooling (once for public via taxes and the second one for private schools) to give their children a chance for education?

      Basically you made the GP's point by mentioning the school-system.

    62. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Normal people don't need the gun to their head to realise that parentless children and the mentally disabled wandering the streets is going to cost everyone more than simply paying for them to get care. It seems the only people who have a problem with taxes are so short-sighted to see that taxes for basic social services are saving them money and trouble by getting everyone to do the logical thing, even if the people in question have drunk the Ayn Rand Kool-Aid and can't figure out that no one lives in a vacuum, and everyone relies on everyone else to survive and prosper.

      You are a terrible human being.

    63. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You can see where your money goes by looking at the budget break-downs issued by those who take the tax (national or local government). You also have a say by voting. It's really not difficult. If the government had to send you a break-down of how they planned to spend your money, it would cost a fortune, and you'd end up paying more for less. I fear for your child's future if you can't even understand that. You sound like the Libertarian version of Elliot Rodgers. *shudder*

    64. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proportional to stock holders.

    65. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is the rules of congress say you have to pay for new spending.

      Sorry, old man, we haven't finished discussing old spending.

      And I'm very disappointed to see you too, carrying on with all this democrat/republican bullshit. Most of us have outgrown that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    66. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Close tax loopholes for the rich.
      2. Create negative income tax that affects those below poverty level, funded by higher taxes on the top ten to twenty percent or something.
      3. Increase federal subsidized loans for students, decrease federal unsubbed loans.
      4. Cap federal student loan interest rates at inflation based on the CPI. What we borrow is what we pay back.
      5. First 2 years of tuition would be free at qualified accredited universities. (Requirements such as good standing, etc.)
      6. (True) universal healthcare. Maybe something like the Green Party proposes.
      7. Prescription drug patent form.
      8. See #7 above.
      9. See #8 above. (It should be that important.)
      10. Allow self-employed individuals earning less than $12k to take a $2000 business deduction in lieu of itemizing business expenses.
      11. Cap credit card interest rates, for the debt in excessive of $5000, at a rate of perhaps 12.68% APR/whatever. So, if someone has debt of $8k, whatever the current rate is, only affects the first $5k. The other $3k has interest calculated at 12.68% or roughly 1% per month.

    67. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'll give it a go.

      You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

      In a taxless society, there would be no one to run it other than those with wisdom and experience. But they wouldn't "run" the society as we understand it today.

      Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha,

      LoL, "Wisdom and Experience".

      No, the people that will run it are those with the desire for power and the force to defeat all the others with the same idea. We have a word for this, despotism.

      All the societies you quote lived as pre technology civilisations. You may notice I used the past tense, none of them exist any more as independent people. The Native Americans had quite a few wars. Unless you expect every single American to divide into small tribes and live off the land you're going to end up with a government forced on you by others... Just like what happened to the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines. We've been doing this since the Roman times.

      Awaken from your dreamy state Libertarian, what you claim will not work in reality. Any attempt at what you propose will end up as a series of dictatorships at best, outright fascism at worst.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    68. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      It's the government that grants itself permission to take away my property.

      The counter-argument would be that property is defined by the government, i.e. society as a whole, not the individual. You may consider the piece of land you sleep on to be yours in some intrinsic way, but there is plenty of debate on whether property is an inalienable right, if such rights exist.

    69. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Increases in old spending is new spending.

      And i'm more concerned with on budget verses off budget where one makes it permanent and the other makes them pretend at least to put some thought into it regardless of what party they are.

    70. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...regardless of what party they are.

      Well see, the thing is that you are singling one out. I don't see the point in that. I mean, unless you want to argue about the crap that went on 30 years ago. Personally I'm not interested in picking over old bones that go back 10,000 years.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    71. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly agree, except middle-class income brackets are too high and having a broad middle-class is as important for freedom and democracy as much as not having a permanent and broad underclass of poor. And do you mean increase the EIC... Because it is already pretty much a negative income tax for the very poorest already. To that I would add a minimum wage of at least $15 per hour in the next two years and fix it to inflation after that.

    72. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about all those corporations that pay zero tax?

    73. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The government's budget is planned spending. Because the military is "critical", they get to use huge amounts of "unplanned" spending. Back when I was in college, we went over actual spending, and based on average prices, the amount of money we spent on the entire military over a 5 year period was enough to cover everyone in the USA with free college and 100% coverage healthcare for 10 years. Actual military spending is, or at least was, more than social security, but if you look at the budget, social security is much more.

      There's a lot of loopholes.

    74. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Your claim that I am a 'terrible human being' noted. So what does that make you given the fact that your claim is based on my comment, which states that no human should be forced to be a slave to another human by anybody, especially by the violent power of the state?

      What does that make you, a 'better' human being, to want to use the violent power of the state to force people to give up portion of their live involuntarily for any supposed benefit of anybody at all or for any reason whatsoever for that matter?

      At the very minimum it makes your position extremely inconsistent within itself, claiming that being what you are a 'better' comparing to what I am, while declaring that people need to be forced by violence (that is what state is - violence), subjugated to the will of the collective and not be allowed to decide how to control their own lives?

      Then again, no socialist ideas are consistent within themselves. The so called 'green' socialists are of the opinion that people are destroying the planet. They want to use the violent power of the state to subjugate the individuals, to turn their productivity to the state, so that the state would decide what to do with it, supposedly for the benefit of the environment somehow (while the worst damage to the environment comes from the operation of the state, nuclear disasters, wars, pollution). They do not see the inconsistency of their ideas at all. They want the state to control the resources, but obviously for the state to do so, it needs to throw bones to the subjects, the bones being subsidies.

      So tax those, who are productive, steal their productivity (lives, time on this planet, creativity) and allow the state to subsidise others? How is that consistent with the 'green' ideology, which is of the opinion that human activities cause ecological problems on this planet? They would be consistent if they in fact decided to completely remove subsidies, we get more of what we subsidise.

      Providing subsidies causes an influx in births, those who live on subsidies do not have to care as much how to provide for the offspring, their birth rates are higher. It is an inconsistent position to provide for more subsidies from those, who already control their own birth rates to those, who will not if given subsidies.

      But of-course socialist positions are never consistent.

      As a side note, I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago, I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago, I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me, which is, by the way, why I am an individual, not an ant in a colony.

    75. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I want most people who make significantly more than me to pay at least as much, proportionally, in taxes. I'm pretty much at the peak Federal marginal tax rate (my wife and I both earn close to the Social Security cap). I'm not near the income for the top marginal Federal income tax rate. A rate much lower than 90%, but covering more, would work nicely.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    76. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you really want to feel the taxes, start a business of your own, or work as an independent contractor. You will pay the full Federal payroll taxes (but you do get to deduct half of them from your income for income tax purposes). You're also going to have to save up and pay the IRS your income taxes throughout the year. It's more of an emotional impact than seeing deductions on your pay stub, and not even all of them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Social Security funds are, by law, lent to the government at a reasonable interest rate. Effectively, any surplus goes into the general pool rather than to recipients.

      In the not-too-distant future, Social Security will not run a surplus of payroll taxes in over expenses and disbursements. This is going to have a direct impact on the Federal budget, and I've seen arguments that we'll have to cut Social Security (and Medicare, etc.) benefits back to balance the budget.

      Therefore, I'm not real sold on the Social Security independence thing. From my viewpoint, it's just another Federal tax, and highly regressive at that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    78. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US was very aggressive about selling War Bonds during WWII, basically borrowing money to fight the war from the US public. There were also serious restrictions on what a US resident could buy (no new cars, tires, gasoline and food rationed, etc.). Johnson had "Guns and Butter" as part of his public policy. I'm not looking up figures, but the US didn't normally finance wars on a cash on the barrelhead tax basis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    79. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You do realize that some of the indigenous people had taxes, don't you? When Powhatan was running a small empire around modern Virginia, the tax on deerskins was 80%, meaning that you got to keep one deerskin from every five you skinned.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    80. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I certainly did not single out any party. I stated fact and that was all. One president used off budget and another put it on budget. No mention of party was made at all despite plenty of oppertunity to do so.

      I suspect you know the parties of the names mentioned and are somehow offended by one of them. But that is all you- not me.

    81. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Thank you for parsing that out. Too bad nobody will listen if it goes against their preconceived notions that civilian entitlements take up all our budget.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    82. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      "Pensions" and "healthcare" also includes military pensions and healthcare, too. I was born in a giant Army hospital. Where do you think the money for that hospital came from? Not the budget allocated to buying war planes, I can tell you that.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    83. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      It was "accounted" for in the ever-growing US debt burden, unfortunately. That's like buying a brand new car and listing it in your assets, while ignoring the $20,000 loan you have outstanding. Hooray! You accounted for the minimum car payments and maintenance payments in your monthly budget - but not the interest payments, which are making that debt grow ever larger.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    84. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by magarity · · Score: 2

      4. Cap federal student loan interest rates at inflation based on the CPI. What we borrow is what we pay back.

      Below market rates is already the biggest problem with student loans; don't make it worse. Easy-to-get student loans make the schools see easy-to-get money which causes a positive feedback loop: tuitions rise because so much loan money is handed out because tuitions rise becase so much money is handed out because tuitions rise.
      There was a great article in last month's Economist about the direct correlation of student loan availability and tuition increases since the student loan program was instituted. The rates of increase have been WAY over any other price increases in the economy.

    85. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by magarity · · Score: 1

      Good for them for figuring out how to get that deal. Corporate income taxes hurt the poor and low income more than anything else.

    86. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No mention of party was made at all...

      ...the first acts Obama did with a democrat congress....

      Sorry, but I could not resist...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    87. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      This doesn't tell the whole story. The Obama Administration is operating off the 2008 budget passed by the Democratically controlled house and senate, and hasn't passed one since. They did this so they could maintain Federal Spending at the 2008 level, and let the mandatory yearly budget increases to continue to grow at 2008 levels. This has never been done before in the history of the country and the budgeting process. It's one of the reasons the debt is increasing so fast, tax revenues went down during the great recession (that is still going on) but spending went up based on 2008 increases.

      They then played a little political game where they submit absurd budgets that have no chance of passing (Which are voted down by an overwhelming majority of his own party) - and blame the other side for not passing a budget. It's the Washington two step of the highest order.

      The story is about a PROPOSED budget. A budget hasn't been passed since the 2008 Congress.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    88. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and under the Obama administration taxes on the wealthy have been increased.

      What has the result been? Growing income inequality.

      Sometimes the PRESCRIPTION for fixing a problem is just WRONG. It takes a brave person to admit this.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    89. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      I think you would find these numbers very difficult to substantiate...meaning they appear to be produced to support an agenda and very likely by a dubious source given their divergence from what is generally accepted as "near the truth". That said...I have attempted to assemble broad abstractions such as these as well, but accounting rules, lack of transparency, and complexity of the gov framework rendered my results so grossly unreliable I could not in good faith publish the findings as objective. I wouldn't put too much faith in his (Christopher Chantrill possibly) findings without a LOT more process information. I refer the reader to a very interesting book by Marcia Stigum...the Money Market...to get a better idea of the abstraction process behind government published numbers. This is a serious problem...just not likely the one usgovernmentspending.com says it is.

    90. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I know what you do NOT do, you do NOT put a gun to OTHER people's had to steal their money from them to 'help' anybody whatsoever under any circumstances. No amount of misery can be justified to destroy individual freedom.

      Nobody is stealing your money - you're paying taxes. The rest of us will recognize your right to retain the rest of your property if you recognize your responsibility to help care for the indigent. If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?

      But, call it theft if you like. It really doesn't change the fact that you have no choice but to comply.

      If a person is irresponsible and has children, too bad for those children, however that's what other family members are for. Beyond that there are private organisations that try to help children. Governments cause massive pain for children by destroying the economy that they and their parents live in.

      I imagine that you'd be a little less lofty in your views if you had one of those irresponsible parents. Heck, some kids don't have any parents/family at all.

      The fact is that all the property/etc you've worked so hard to obtain is only yours as the result of you having been born to parents who raised you well, and who gave you genes that allow you to support yourself. Absent either of those, and especially absent the latter, you'd be as well-off as an ape that shares 98% of your genetics. As a result, I certainly have no moral issues with requiring anybody with the ability to take care of themselves to spend some of their effort taking care of others, using force if they do not wish to do so.

    91. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The various services of government cost more than most people would be able to afford in use taxes. To have the society we have today, the poor need to be subsidized by the wealthy. That's what progressive taxation is about.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    92. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly fine. I stand corrected. The sad thing is I skimmed the post 3 times and missed it.

      Oh well, its still a point of reference and little more. Certainly not partisan like the anon was attempting to make out.

    93. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Nobody is stealing your money - you're paying taxes.

      - wrong, income taxes are legalised theft of life, creativity, time on this planet. It is slavery imposed by the violence of the collective on behalf of those, who perceive it to be to their advantage, whether it is so or not and against those, who are in a minority. This is how income taxes started in USA in the first place, top 2% of people were forced to be paid up to 7% of their income in taxes so that the vast majority wouldn't have to pay alcohol and some import taxes anymore (of-course the result is that everybody pays insane amounts of taxes, both on income side and on consumption).

      The rest of us will recognize your right to retain the rest of your property if you recognize your responsibility to help care for the indigent

      - wrong, nobody has any responsibilities towards anybody unless they are your children, then you have responsibility to them.

      If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?

      - because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.

      That's what society used to be: very few people owned any property, everybody belonged to the select few, who had the so called 'birth right' to it. You couldn't earn property, you could only be born into it or be given it by somebody who was born into it.

      Meritocracy is a much more fair system to everybody, except for those, who lost that birth right of-course.

      But, call it theft if you like. It really doesn't change the fact that you have no choice but to comply.

      - wrong. I do not comply, I use the 5 flag strategy to ensure that something like you has a very limited access to my property.

      I imagine that you'd be a little less lofty in your views if you had one of those irresponsible parents. Heck, some kids don't have any parents/family at all.

      - irrelevant.

      The fact is that all the property/etc you've worked so hard to obtain is only yours as the result of you having been born to parents who raised you well, and who gave you genes that allow you to support yourself.

      - parents, fine. That is none of anybody's business.

      What you are born with physically is of nobody's business.

      Absent either of those, and especially absent the latter, you'd be as well-off as an ape that shares 98% of your genetics.

      - I am yet to see an ape that is forced to pay income taxes.

      As a result, I certainly have no moral issues with requiring anybody with the ability to take care of themselves to spend some of their effort taking care of others, using force if they do not wish to do so.

      - irrelevant what you have or have no moral issues with. I already know what your 'morality' is. Socialist/Marxis morality is violence and theft, nothing else. I have no qualms and no doubts about your level of 'morality' and thus I do what I can to avoid such as yourself.

    94. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?

      - because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.

      I do not debate that libertarianism is in my own best interest. That does not make it morally right. There are many who cannot own property because they do not have the ability to purchase it, because they do not have the ability to earn money. I do not accept that these folks should be left as destitute.

      Ultimately libertarianism fails because it puts the right of property above virtually everything else. In the name of liberty it ends up reducing virtually everybody to slavery.

    95. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

      To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.

      Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?

      Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.

      Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.

      Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

    96. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I do NOT mean increase the EIC as the EIC is for earned income. I'm talking about a negative income tax regardless of employment.

      Those who are unemployed would have to bother to file to get this...

      Federal Poverty Level - Federal AGI = X
      X/ 2 = Credit amount (with a $5k/person; therefore, only affecting individuals who earn less than $1500)
      Requirements...
      Must not be counted as a dependent on someone else's tax form
      22+ years old
      18-21, living away from relatives
      17-, emancipated and living away from relatives

      I dislike the term "middle class" or "class". It separates us. Call them middle-income earners. Even so, I'm not one of those. But still, I don't know if that's an issue. The bigger issue should be focusing on the rich and charging them more in taxes. Yes, I'd say it's "class warfare", if I want to use that term.

      I oppose a $15/hour minimum wage flat out. Maybe if it were on large businesses, like Wal-Mart and the like, but not on everyone. Especially small businesses. But if we're talking about the federal minimum wage, I saw it should be adjusted for inflation every couple years. But I think we should focus more on encourating individual states to make adjustments for wages.

      I favor a split minimum wage. One as-is now, and one for larger businesses. I also think we should do things such as...
      Overtime pay at 32 hours/week.
      Guaranteed 11 hours from clock-out time to clock-in time unless the employer wants to count it as overtime.
      15 minute paid breaks for every 3 hours worked.
      Payroll taxes to pay for a government-sponsored sick-pay. I'm thinking 1:25, so for every 25 hours worked, you get one sick hour at 60% pay.
      I also think it'd be nice to require 1 vacation hour for every 50 hours worked. So if an employee works 250 days a year, they'd 5 days off as required by law.

      We could perhaps simplify taxes like this...
      Federal AGI
      Minus out-of-pocket medical expenses
      Minus qualified tuition costs
      Minus interest paid on any debt--debt that exceeds $5000.
      Minus qualified charity contributions not exceeding 10% of your federal AGI.
      A standard deduction of 250% times the poverty level, plus one. Example: A single individual would take the poverty level for two people, then multiply it by 2.5. Then subtract this against the AGI.
      Then have various rates on taxable income. But none of this stepping stuff. Something like The first $5k is taxed at X%, the next $10k is taxed at Y%, and so on. This way there is no incentive to try to drop into a lower tax bracket.
      Well, not sure if this is the best idea, for simplifying taxes.

    97. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do some work online, not well paying work, as an independent contractor.

      With that being said, I'd like to see an option that in lieu of itemizing business deductions, any and all self-employment income would have a $2000 deduction OPTION in order to lessen self-employment tax.

    98. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

      You say that you earn money/property by spending your time and effort, and that gives you the right to own money. What did you spend to earn yourself in the first place? You were born with what you have, and did not do anything to earn having a healthy body and brain, vs being born a mentally retarded cripple.

      Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

      If you take collectivism to the ultimate extreme we all end up as slaves to the community. If you take libertarianism to the ultimate extreme we all end up as slaves to the guy who owns all the resources.

      I don't argue that you need to allow people to have some ownership of the fruits of their labor so that they have something to work for in the first place. The problem is that if you give people exclusive ownership of the fruits of their labor then anybody who isn't able to earn a living just starves to death, or basically ends up being treated as a pet.

      The problem with the system that you advocate is that the march of technology steadily makes a larger and larger number of people unnecessary to the economy, if you view the sole purpose of the economy as providing goods and services to people who have money (remember, the vast majority of the wealth is owned by a small portion of the population). This leads to increasing disparity of wealth. Maybe in 100 years if the Earth has a population of 10 people each tended by an army of robots you could argue that those 10 people were the hardest workers and the most deserving of living in paradise. However, if you accept that people ought to be able to get by with less than a continent each then you could have a society where far more people can get by happily by just accepting that the folks who own all the robots should use some of them to help everybody else out, even if they don't really want to.

      Non-progressive taxation is also economically inefficient. If somebody is able to earn a billion dollars, that doesn't mean that they will efficiently use the billion dollars that they earned. In fact, letting them sit on that pile of money actually takes away their motive for ever working another day in their life. There is no reason that they can't get by with less than 100% of the fruits of their labor, while still allowing them to have far more than the average person.

    99. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think tuition is rising due to less revenue being provided directly to the college.

      Assuming administrative costs are out of control, we could address this by changing how colleges are accredited, or accredited for financial aid purposes.

      Making student loans more difficult to obtain may prevent tuition from going up, but it'd have the consequence of dumbing down our nation.

    100. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by hawkingradiation · · Score: 1

      Isn't your idea equivalent to no government? The idea behind government is to pool resources. Sure and who is charging for the service. Probably according to you it is not a government. Who then, is in charge of making sure we aren't held hostage on a road tax? Environmental tax? Nice idea. The whole idea behind protecting the environment is to foresee a common problem, then work towards a goal that will mitigate that problem. If we collect an "environment tax" for a so-called problem, how do we know it is going to solve that "right" problem? Besides isn't the whole idea behind a corporation is that they are fallible, that is they can die. If one of your issues suddenly become moot, we have a whole infrastructure dedicated to collecting those taxes and providing the service = less change. Most sane people (and I hate to label others the opposite) know that pooling of resources and hence some form of "socialization" is the best way to get things done, whether it be money from a general populace to an owner who prioritizes, or a government that collects taxes to do things that benefit others, and themselves. Suppose we need a road, or other infrastructure that benefits both you and your competitors, but building it would transfer wealth away from your business, would you build it? Probably not because it would put you at an immediate competitive disadvantage. Want to form a bigger group to get it done, no problem, there are bigger competitors. No one wants to be a sacrificial lamb. Can you see an answer to that problem?

      --
      Society use your Sciences
    101. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Canada. Its not hidden, just noone cares. The information is there. Ignorance is BLISS! right?

    102. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago
      roughly the time that your lord and savior started to attract attention in the US house.

      I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago

      after a fellow cult member cited one in a discussion of one of your lord's speeches, perhaps?

      I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me

      other than, of course, your lord and savior.

    103. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat it. I just write it off as some Freudian thing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    104. Re: Most taxes are legalized theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here! Here! Great point! To take it one step further, general non-specific taxes (especially without spen-accountability) is not just stealing but politicians means of bribing the populace vote (via runaway entitlement programs).

    105. Re:Most taxes are legalized theft by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The military is the biggest part of the US budget? Gee.... our government disagrees with that, according to the budget they publish.

      http://www.usgovernmentspendin...

      Total defense spending, 22%. Pensions, 25%. Healthcare 27%.

      And this does NOT include Social Security or Medicare (separate funds, they keep telling us).

      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com is not something that the US government publishes.
      The about page lists the owner/author as the same person who blogs here: http://www.roadtothemiddleclass.com/ Which appears to be a very conservative/libertarian type blog.

      (I don't feel like typing out a long detailed explanation of the budget, or finding one to copy paste...again... but just to point out 1 thing that may not be obvious to people: 22% defense spending is not taking into account the actual cost of the military. One example: it does not include the VA Healthcare System... which is kinda large....add up all the stuff that keeps our military ticking, and the number is much larger than 22%)

  3. Just like the Geneva accords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll publicly adopt them but somehow "fail to ratify" no doubt.

    1. Re:Just like the Geneva accords? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Oh my, changing things is complicated and doesn't always work?

      No, but seriously, you're wrapping a clear possibility in a blanket of cynical forgone conclusion.

      Governments aren't actually interested in no one collecting taxes on their corporations.

    2. Re:Just like the Geneva accords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cynical, that much is true. But it was wrapped in an example, the Geneva accords, which everyone always thinks "of course we uphold that" but it never gets done.

  4. This is why my hair always stands on end by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

    Whenever I hear the phrase "double taxation" thrown around as a reason to do away with a tax. Because almost universally, it's because you can hide your money from both kinds of tax by playing the middle between the two things that get taxed.

    1. Re:This is why my hair always stands on end by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 0

      My hair stands on end when I have to read the subject and piece together what you are talking about.

      No one gives a shit about why your hair stands on end.

      And "almost universally" means "fuck if I know".

      If you can read, come back when you have something to say. I feel like you may have a point, but it's the antithesis of a well articulated statement.

    2. Re: This is why my hair always stands on end by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The perfect example of this is the tax on dividends which should be exactly the same rate as other income, but it was argued that it was already being taxed as corporate profits so the rate was set lower. The perverse effect is that people that actually make a wage or salary would pay higher income tax rates compared to those who can shift their income to dividends.

    3. Re: This is why my hair always stands on end by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Your statement makes no sense. How can I "shift my income to dividends" exactly?

      Double taxation refers to this: I get paid $1,000. I paid taxes on that. I put it in a savings account. I get $10 in interest. Taxing that $10 is double taxation.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  5. Whats with the aside? by realilskater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why tack on the Micro Focus news? That is news all on its own and only remotely related to this topic.

    1. Re:Whats with the aside? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Soulskill wants you to know how he feels about the deal.

    2. Re:Whats with the aside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad I can't use my mod points on the editor

    3. Re:Whats with the aside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, Microfocus. They are a special type of troll. They like to try and squeeze money by lying to customers who long ago purchased software from the companies that they've since swallowed up. "Oh, you couldn't have bought that type of license, we don't even offer it!" "But we bought it before you stopped selling with that licensing model." "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of our lawyers. Please talk to them instead"

  6. Just like Geneva.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll all publicly embrace them, but somehow fail to ratify in the end.

  7. Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people are trying to escape their obligations to society, just build a wall to keep them in.

    1. Re:Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walls can't be built higher than corporate jets can fly.

    2. Re:Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one has the intention to build a wall.

      Really, this system only works in a totalitarian system. In democracies you first must get the parliament vote for a wall, then the president must sign the wall act, then the law can be excercised. By then everybody who can walk is out.

    3. Re:Easy solution! by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      This is why we invented surface-to-air missiles.

    4. Re:Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With bitcoin, money moves with the speed of light.

    5. Re:Easy solution! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Walls can't be built higher than corporate jets can fly.

      That's what drones are for

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:Easy solution! by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin won't stop us from dragging the rich from their palaces and putting them to the sword.

    7. Re:Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Corporations are just tax collectors for the welfare state. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do either through lower wages, higher prices, lower dividends or lower returns.

      Don't get fooled by the slight of hand here when the authoritarians just want more money to fund their own power and lifestyles.

    8. Re:Easy solution! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin won't stop us from dragging the rich from their palaces and putting them to the sword.

      But it'll stop you from getting their money.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    9. Re: Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This

    10. Re: Easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And put armed guards in those walls. Like a prison.

      Fab "solution".

  8. Not the only strategy by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are other ways to generate more tax revenue from business operations in the US: quit making elsewhere so much more attractive. The US has the second highest effective business tax burden in the world (second only to the United Arab Emerates, which mostly taxes foreign oil operations). Gee, I wonder why businesses born in the US look to mitigate that in whatever ways the law allows. If the law no longer allows it, there will simply be more companies actually moving, entirely, to places with a lower burden. Then the government will still miss the revenue, and they'll miss all the tax revenue they're already getting on the income taxes levied on and other economic activity generated by all of the company's current domestic employees, partners, vendors, service providers, etc.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Not the only strategy by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      And this amendment to international agreements would force countries to lower their corporate taxes to actually be desirable to companies that want to do business within it. This has as consequences that corporate tax income will remain mostly constant, since the lower taxes will be paid by more corporations, while every non-multinational company will basically be getting a tax break, thus stimulating your own nation's economy at the level where it'll do some good: The local level.

      The countries it'll hurt are, for example, my own. The Netherlands isn't tax-less, but we do have corporate tax laws which make us suitable for tax avoidance.

    2. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a race to the bottom, my friend. You don't out-compete countries with less than a few million inhabitants and no significant social programs.

    3. Re:Not the only strategy by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a race to the bottom, my friend. You don't out-compete countries with less than a few million inhabitants and no significant social programs.

      You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Canada's racing to the bottom too. As soon as our debt and housing bubbles pop, we're going to wish we were the US 4 years ago.

    5. Re:Not the only strategy by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      How would jacking up income tax rates help with that problem? It only makes it worse.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't say it would make things better or worse, but people holding Canada up as good economic planning should actually take a look at how bad things can get.

    7. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot only look at one aspect of a country and say, "why can't the United States adopt their model?" Canada and the US have different corporate and personal tax rates, they have different financial structures at the federal and state level, and the systems to transfer money from federal to state; they have different tax deductions, social support systems, and foreign aid programs.

      The US corporate rate is 35% and Canada's lower corporate rate is a recent trend within the last decade, it used to higher than the rate in the US.

      Tax avoidance is not unique to US companies. Many EU nations with low corporate rates see this game played by their domestic corporations too. All companies would like to pay zero taxes and this drives them to hide their cash wherever they get the best rate.

    8. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe a more accurate description of Canada is a frozen wasteland. Though, given a few decades of accelerating climate change Canada could turn into a hell hole.

    9. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like Norway? There's a 28% corporate tax rate, compared to the US 40%.

      Also, I don't get what the number of inhabitants have to do with anything - the expenses should scale linearly with the number of inhabitants, except for some that give you benefits of scale.

    10. Re:Not the only strategy by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I think that a fair way to approach taxation for multinational corporations would be to tax the revenue/profits earned in each tax jurisdiction according to that jurisdiction's rules. Instead of the concept of a jurisdiction providing services to enable corporate operations, view it as the jurisdiction providing consumers to corporations. That way, profits Apple earns from consumers within California are taxed the same way even if Apple moved all of its operations to Ireland. However, to avoid the huge burden on small companies from reporting to several hundred tax jurisdictions, set a lower limit that jurisdiction reporting is only required when revenues from a jurisdiction reach $20M for a company (or whole aggregation of shell corporations).

    11. Re:Not the only strategy by larkost · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it is really easy to move "profit" from one place to another. A common ploy is to have one part of a company that is in a low-tax area to charge other parts of the company "licensing fees". In some cases this "licensing fee" means that the other parts of the company now make no profits.

      If you try to tax revenues rather than profits, then you wind up really hurting (true) low-margin companies, and wind up under-charging (relatively) high-margin ones.

      The best proposal I have seen yet is to tax companies on a percentage of the global profits based on the percentage of revenue earned in that tax district. However this would be really difficult to enforce in a reasonable way because 1) How do you audit all of the books in all of the countries to make sure they are not just hiding things? 2) It is still difficult to define profits, especially when you have multiple countries laws to deal with. 3) There is a major possible loophole in just moving all of the profits from one company to another using the same "licensing fee" trick, and having the licensing company have a presence only in a tax haven country.

    12. Re:Not the only strategy by Jodka · · Score: 1

      It's a race to the bottom, my friend. You don't out-compete countries with less than a few million inhabitants and no significant social programs.

      You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?

      Other third-world hell-holes: Estonia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia. They have the five least burdensome taxes among the 34 OECD nations according to the Tax Foundation’s International Tax Competitiveness Index (pdf, rankings on page 5).

      Canada ranks 24th. The United States ranks 32nd with an overall score of 44.6% (to Estonia's 100%), better than only Portugal and France.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    13. Re:Not the only strategy by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Point of revenue taxation with full cost and profit declaration at the point of revenue. So don't want the revenue, fine, leave. Who cares where the company is based, who cares where the product is manufactured, with full declaration of costs and profits and all taxes paid at point of revenue it makes no difference. Add in fair trade requirement where imported product is required to compete with locally produced product based upon the application of all costs of local legislation and transport costs will localise production.

      It is not about the psychopathic lie of which country provides the best corrupt tax basis, it is all about which soundly based and managed countries produce the best revenue opportunities, the ability to sell product and services.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Not the only strategy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      And yet business continues to move south (or be bought out by American companies). Tax is just one of the costs of doing business and when everything else costs 1/3rd more being able to save 1/6th in taxes isn't as inviting.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    15. Re:Not the only strategy by crioca · · Score: 1

      You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?

      The nominal tax rate is immaterial, it's the effective tax rate that's the material factor.

    16. Re:Not the only strategy by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Right. Just the other day the Motley Fool published effective tax rates. That takes into account not just federal taxes but aveerage state/provincial tales and other tax-related burdens that actually get paid in real life by actual companies doing actual business in all the countries they list. The effective rate for businesses in the US is 40%. The second highest, behind only the UAE.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop spreading this myth about high US tax rates. The US tax rate liars and fools use is before the plethora of deductions available to corporate and private people alike. The true US tax rate is a mere 12%. Tax rates in other countries do not allow for the massive deductions the US hands out to the mega wealthy and corporate citizens.

    18. Re:Not the only strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support all the tax avoidance humanly possible. The more, the better for all of us. We need to starve the beast to get it under control.

    19. Re:Not the only strategy by samwichse · · Score: 1
  9. Rather than address the underlying problem by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the tax thieves aak "regulators" make new rules. Why not put some thought into changing the tax codes to be on a par wtih Ireland, Switzerland, etc instead of trying to preserve the high tax state?

    1. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 0

      instead of trying to preserve the high tax state?

      Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP in a very long time. Lower than most of the first world. What high tax state are you talking about? 'Cuz it's clearly not the US.

      And, we are running a gigantic deficit. We have to pay our bills, because paying the interest on credit cards is stupid, period. So, cut spending, then we can bring taxes back down to the current level.

      And may I repeat: Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP. Far lower than during the 50's and 60's, when we experienced the fastest sustained GDP growth rate of any first world country *ever*. So any Laffer Curve argument you want to make would just make you sound ignorant.

    2. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Switzerland survives because its main export is untraceable (sort-of) banking. Ireland is still close to being financially untenable. Not exactly worthy models to emulate. No one is served by a race to the bottom.

    3. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      In this competition the involved countries will only lose.

    4. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because paying the interest on credit cards is stupid, period.

      It is stupid if you are paying credit card rates. The US government pays insanely low interest rates and a few times, they've been negative! If someone pays you to borrow money, you'd be stupid not to take it.

    5. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And may I repeat: Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP. Far lower than during the 50's and 60's, when we experienced the fastest sustained GDP growth rate of any first world country *ever*. So any Laffer Curve argument you want to make would just make you sound ignorant.

      Really? Doesn't seem that that far out of line. Now taxation per capita, adjusted for inflation, is way up. And spending is even growing faster...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by shizzle · · Score: 1

      If someone pays you to borrow money, you'd be stupid not to take it.

      Yea, cause it's unthinkable that interests rate would ever go up.

      I don't have the data handy, but I believe that the term of US debt has been shrinking as the debt has gone up, so we actually have to refinance a pretty substantial fraction of our debt every year. So when interest rates start to rise, we're screwed...

    7. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      instead of trying to preserve the high tax state?

      Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP in a very long time. Lower than most of the first world. What high tax state are you talking about? 'Cuz it's clearly not the US.

      And, we are running a gigantic deficit. We have to pay our bills, because paying the interest on credit cards is stupid, period. So, cut spending, then we can bring taxes back down to the current level.

      And may I repeat: Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP. Far lower than during the 50's and 60's, when we experienced the fastest sustained GDP growth rate of any first world country *ever*. So any Laffer Curve argument you want to make would just make you sound ignorant.

      How do you know what the growth rate in the 50s and 60s would have been had the tax rates in the US been lower?

      What's that about being ignorant?

    8. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Really? Doesn't seem that that far out of line.

      Really? You're not very good at math. Average from 1950 - 1969: 17%. Average over the past five years: 15.22%. (17 - 15.22) / 15.22 = 11.69%. Twelve percent higher seems like a lot to me.

      Now taxation per capita, adjusted for inflation, is way up.

      So is income, which is why I, and the chart you linked to, and anyone who understands economics, uses percentage of GDP.

      And spending is even growing faster...

      By all means, cut spending. I'm all for it. Until we get there, though, we can't just not pay our bills.

    9. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      It is stupid if you are paying credit card rates. The US government pays insanely low interest rates and a few times, they've been negative! If someone pays you to borrow money, you'd be stupid not to take it.

      The problem is that those interest rates change; our debt is revolving. When the interest rates go up, we're going to have to have to pay down the debt while our interest nut is climbing. So either we'll be showing a higher risk of default or we'll devalue the dollar; either way, the interest will climb even more. This has been repeated dozens of times in history. Every time a country has tried it, with the possible exception of Japan right now, it has ended badly. And most economists think that in Japan is about to hit the wall -- they're going to be our canary in the coalmine.

    10. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      How do you know what the growth rate in the 50s and 60s would have been had the tax rates in the US been lower?

      I only deal in empirical evidence. The warnings about higher taxes killing GDP growth are demonstrably false by comparing observed results over the past 70 years.

      What's that about being ignorant?

      Imagining things that might have been does not count as presenting evidence.

    11. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      If we decide we can't (or don't want to) pay our debts, it won't be us that is screwed.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    12. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by shizzle · · Score: 1

      If we decide we can't (or don't want to) pay our debts, it won't only be us that is screwed.

      FTFY. True that not paying back our debts would screw our borrowers, but (1) a lot of US debt is held by Americans, so we would partially be screwing ourselves directly, and (2) people and countries that don't pay their debts generally find it a lot harder to borrow in the future, so there'd be some slightly less direct self-screwing going on too.

    13. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can't have it both ways. If you lower corporation tax you either have to cut services or raise other taxes. There is a minimum outlay required to keep the roads drivable and legal system going etc. which corporations demand.

      Ireland gets a lot of EU subsidy and the international companies based there are just shells. They bring no jobs or social benefits. Switzerland has high wages and high taxes on individuals.

      Corporations want to be in our counties. They want local, skilled workers who can afford to live a reasonable life and be productive. They want education, roads, healthcare, services. They should pay for them, and won't leave if forced to.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      thieves

      You mean the self-centered elitist pricks who want all the benefits of living in an advanced society while paying for none of its costs.

    15. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if part of the debt is held by Americans. The government could, should they choose, replace the one dollar bill with a trillion dollar bill, and reimburse only Americans (as a handout) for the resulting inflation. Then pay each of our foreign debtors one dollar, and keep the change. Of course that would be a dick move on the government's part, but that wouldn't be new. A bonus of doing this is that people won't want to lend the US money, and therefore they'd finally have a balanced budget.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    16. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I see - average over a 20 year period compared to the average over a 5 year period. Perhaps try equalizing the timelines?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Switzerland survives because its main export is untraceable (sort-of) banking. Ireland is still close to being financially untenable. Not exactly worthy models to emulate. No one is served by a race to the bottom.

      Um, no. That is dead wrong.

      The entire financial sector including pensions and insurance is less than 10% of Swiss GDP. By the way you cannot "export" banking. For things you can export, there is a table of Swiss exports here or in diagram form. Regardless the USA has been incredibly aggressive against the Swiss banking sector in recent years, completely ignoring borders and national sovereignty in order to enforce the absurd US citizenship based taxation policies. They've arrested Swiss bankers and threatened many, many more even though they broke no laws in the country where they live and are based. The result is that Swiss banking secrecy (or privacy if you're of a libertarian bent) is basically dead, especially for Americans.

      Regardless, the Swiss economy is still doing fantastically well.

      Meanwhile, Ireland was doing just great up until their stupid politicians panicked and guaranteed the debt of one of the major banks, without really thinking through just how huge that debt was. Ireland was brought low by the banks but didn't build their economy on them.

      So both your stereotypes about other countries with lower tax rates are not supported by reality.

    18. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      the tax thieves aak "regulators" make new rules. Why not put some thought into changing the tax codes to be on a par wtih Ireland, Switzerland, etc instead of trying to preserve the high tax state?

      Not sure I'd compare against Switzerland particularly:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    19. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Historically low total tax as a percentage of GDP in a very long time

      I think that sentence disqualifies the rest of what you have said. In any event, let me try to put this in a simple way so that you can understand.

      When your income is 30K units you probably own a mediocre TV.
      When your income rises to 60K units you probably own a nice TV.

      If your income continues to rise, are you going to a) continue buying a new, more expensive TV because you can and/or b) just keep buying more TVs in total? You would need to in order to maintain the same TV consumption as % of total personal GDP.

      So the take of the government off the top as a % of GDP is an incredibly stupid way to look at this.

    20. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      you either have to cut services or raise other taxes

      Maybe taking the punch bowl away makes governments more responsible about what they spend our money on?

      And if the choice is between getting 0 (because a company leaves entirely) or a lower rate, isn't a lower rate better?

      And with a lower tax rate, who benefits? Must be those naughty shareholders right? Hmm

      The largest component among U.S. retirement assets remains IRAs, with $5.68 trillion for the first quarter, according to the ICI report. The second largest is the $5.37 trillion in DC plans, and the third-largest component is government defined benefit plans with $5.2 trillion in assets.

      Private-sector DB plan assets remained essentially flat at $2.66 trillion for the first quarter of 2013. Since the beginning of last year, DB assets have hovered between $2.6 trillion and $2.7 trillion, the report said.

      (pionline.com)

      It is estimated that roughly 55% of pension assets are in equities - either directly or indirectly thru hedge funds.

    21. Re:Rather than address the underlying problem by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      I... well, yes. Having read up to get ahead of my stereotypes, I have to concede you are correct, on pretty much all counts. Thanks for the rebuttal.

  10. no taxes = no protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remove their ability to file lawsuits, file for patents, trademarks, copyrights, unless 1/2 of their gross sales/profits made in the government are paid to the government.
    Otherwise they are not a recognized legal entity in that government.

    Problem will quickly solve itself.

    1. Re:no taxes = no protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      edit: are reported to the government and taxed.

    2. Re:no taxes = no protection by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Problem will quickly solve itself.

      No, we can't have that. What would millions of "public servants" do if we run out of problems?

      The state thrives by it's own incompetence. Let's take welfare:

      Before the state was involved, private charity was taking care of the poor: And poverty actually declined! In the 19th century the society went from "on the edge of starvation"-poverty to "not being able to afford a car"-poverty. Nevertheless the "progressives" decided that the poverty is unbearable and that the state had to solve the problem. After half a century after the "New Deal" and more and more welfare laws the US has been effectively transformed into a welfare-state. And poverty did not decline, it rises! While the free society created a strong middle-class that dominated society in the second half of the 20th century, the welfare-state has created a society dominated by bankers and billionaires.

      But the state thrives by it's own failures. And the failure of the welfare-state is just an argument for MORE of it - and so it will go on until the whole thing collapses like the Soviet Union.

  11. Perspective by mfwitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A company has to convince people to hand over their resources.

    A government just decrees its income under threat of violence.

    1. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A government just decrees its income under threat of violence.

      I perceive wafts of libertarian stench.

    2. Re:Perspective by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Not really. A government just "deccrees" it's income as a responsibility of doing business within it's borders. Unless you're talking about 3rd world dictatorships or warlords, Violence has nothing to do with it.

    3. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GP, just like the corporations, would exist and be generating just as much revenue even if there were no government. They were all born fully-formed and educated, capable of traveling long distance without the use of roads, generating their own power and clean water*, and enforcing agreements and fairness all on their own without the help of those scum called government who want to leech off the money generated by their hard work.

      *You should have seen GP running his desalinization plant, made all by himself, at 6 months old. So cute and completely independent of any government infrastructure.

    4. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. A government just "deccrees" it's income as a responsibility of doing business within it's borders. Unless you're talking about 3rd world dictatorships or warlords, Violence has nothing to do with it.

      REALLY?!?!?!

      Try openly not paying your taxes and see how long it is before you get VIOLENTLY hauled away and tossed in jail by gun-toting SWAT teams/jack-booted-thugs/law-enforcement-group-of-your-choice.

      Country/jurisdiction doesn't matter.

      Sovereign governments don't take threats to their revenue stream lightly.

      Violence has everything to do with it, you naif.

    5. Re:Perspective by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Corporations are constructs of the state. They are chartered and incorporated under provisions the state created.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wafts? That was more like a dump truck full.

    7. Re:Perspective by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Dice didn't get its corporate charter out of a McDonalds Happy Meal. Those papers were issued by a government. Therefore, all corporations are creatures of the state, and tainted by the state's monopoly on the "legitimate" use of violence.

    8. Re:Perspective by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      When was the last time a corporation was VIOLENTLY tossed in jail?

    9. Re:Perspective by mfwitten · · Score: 2

      Yes, people willingly hand over their money in exchange for the goods and services that they value.

      Education, transportation, sanitation, power generation, water management, contract enforcement (or "justice") are all just industries; there is nothing magical about them—specificially, there is nothing magical that government brings to them, unless you consider the forcible appropriation of resources to be "magical".

      Maybe society would have more money for those things if resources weren't instead forcibly appropriated for mass surveillance of people's private lives, drone-bombing "citizens" without due process, and ripping millions of families apart because people were caught carrying the "wrong" plants in their pockets—just to name a few of the "services" for which you're being forced to pay.

      In short, you are confused; you are confusing the desire for valuable goods/services with a desire for forcible appropriation of resources. Taking people's resources by threat of violence is not a suitable foundation for civilized society.

    10. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, you are 100% oblivious to the existence of places like Somalia; a libertarian wet dream. The most corrupt and violent places in the world are VERY libertarian. If you enjoy it so much, you ought to live there for awhile :)

    11. Re:Perspective by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      tax collectors or their enforcers will eventually show up with guns if you don't pay. the guns imply that force will be used if you don't comply. force == violence. it happens everyday in the United States. just because most people submit when they are arrested, doesn't mean the threat of violence isn't always there.

    12. Re:Perspective by mfwitten · · Score: 1

      Somalia is the result of a failed state, what was formerly known as the Somali Democratic Republic, which was governed under a single-party, Socialist rule. The resulting mayhem has nothing to do with libertarian or anarchist principles, particularly the Non-Aggression Principle. Indeed, warlords are still governmental; they forcibly appropriate other people's resources under threat of violence.

      In areas of civilization where governmental organizations have not been terribly imposing, Somalia has shown massive improvement even compared to the surrounding countries that have relatively stable governmental organizations; the collapse of an unworkable, savage organization like the "government" of Somalia was probably the best thing ever to happen to Somalians despite the statist culture that has persisted through the calamity.

      That which actually gives you a functional civilization is a large number of individuals trading voluntarily amongst themselves to better their own situations; profit is not merely the transfer of wealth, but rather the creation of wealth.

      Government is simply a bad company that doesn't go out of business because it is able to confiscate your resources by threat of violence; it doesn't give you the goods and services for which you personally think you are paying, but you have to pay them anyway—it's totally absurd and unconscionable.

    13. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...

      FTFA:
      "We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted, and a matter that could have been addressed with a simple contact a caring human being representing the government," he said in his statement. "Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means with the full force of the US Government and several armed law enforcement agencies costing the tax payer millions of dollars and putting a job creating US manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

    14. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it has nothing to do with being full of niggers, you're right.

    15. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are quaint but they don't actually work in the real world. Their first failing is that everyone doesn't think like you do. Their second is that you (and everyone) are far, far more likely to be on the losing end of any unregulated system; any such system in the real world quickly devolves into armed gangs roving around taking whatever they want, and Somalia happens to illustrate what this looks like perfectly. It's a popular libertarian fantasy to think you'd be truly free and on the winning team enjoying the abundance of life without the awful government bringing you down, but reality has proved throughout history that to believe that is naive at best.

    16. Re:Perspective by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Corporations aren't usually afraid of guns and I'm pretty sure none of them have been arrested.

    17. Re:Perspective by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's easy to not pay taxes, you do it the same way as not paying a business, don't use their services. You don't have an income, you don't pay taxes, simple and no one will violently throw you in jail for not using the services that allow an income.
      Actually most countries will allow you to make a small amount and still not pay taxes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    18. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stockholm Syndrome is strong in this one.

    19. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When subjected to the threat of violence, people willingly hand over their money in exchange for the life and freedom they value.

    20. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're conflating two things.

      Taxation is a legal requirement for citizens and corporations. Like "not murdering people", "driving with due care and attention", and all the rest of that law stuff.

      Breaking the law will bring a law enforcement response, which is a thing we like, because we want our laws to be enforced, else we become lawless. We also like it that people who give sign that they will resist that response with violence get firm treatment, which may escalate if they choose to persist. I like it that people shouldn't get away with breaking the law and then resisting the consequences.

      Now, if your police are routinely heavy-handed, then that's a problem with your enforcement system, which you need to fix politically. Here in the UK, armed response is only deployed when there's a credible threat of armed violence. Round here, tax evasion would be enforced through the post, not gun-toting police - you'd get a court appearance. If you proceed to flout or ignore the courts' judgements, then that'll get enforced, but guns would only turn up if you resisted with weapons.

      But this is reasonable escalation of law enforcement. You're not getting the violence for tax evasion. You're getting it for violently resisting the judgements of the courts, which is a totally different thing.

    21. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way is Somalia libertarian? A libertarian society is based on the rule of law and individual freedom that is only limited by how actions of one individual limit the freedoms of another. Somalia is an anarchist society with very little effective freedom for its people

    22. Re:Perspective by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      In your Libertarian utopia, who enforces the Non-Aggression Principle? How are they funded?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    23. Re:Perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Indeed, warlords are still governmental; they forcibly appropriate other people's resources under threat of violence.

      Which means you've got a market for governments. There are several, and anybody with enough guns and wielders can try to form another. I thought this was what libertarians wanted for government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you on mass surveillance and the War on (some) Drugs, that's not a matter of principle so much as a matter of implementation. The government is going to have to have some surveillance abilities, and there are always going to be illegal things, and we're disagreeing with how wide the surveillance and what should be illegal. Governments do things various people like and things various people dislike.

      The government can do several things industries won't. First, the government can require payment from everybody who benefits from the services, eliminating the economic free rider problem. On an extreme case, if the Department of Defense billed citizens, I didn't pay my bill, and the Canadians invaded, the US Armed Forces would try to stop them short of the Twin Cities area or not, regardless of my payment status. They couldn't just let the bloodthirsty Canucks ravage my house while protecting the others, so the Defense Department couldn't exist by simply sending out bills and hoping people paid.

      Second, the government can operate without a profit motive, and can limit the profits of monopolies. Consider basic utility service. If I think I'm paying too much money to have electricity delivered to my house, I can't just go to a competitor. Utilities are generally natural monopolies, and having multiple electric service would be highly inefficient, expensive, and troublesome. However, if the power company wasn't regulated, and didn't have competition, they could charge many times as much for electrical service and I'd just have to pay (the house won't work for long without electricity).

      Third, the government can provide services at a reduced rate for people who can't afford them, whether because they're too poor, require too much service, or for some reason serving them is unusually expensive. A private corporation would usually have to be legally compelled to do this (and it happens, electrical service and emergency rooms being examples).

      Fourth, the government is uniquely able to remove economic externalities by either regulating how much is allowed per business or charging money so companies have to internalize the costs. If a company dumps toxic waste in a river, it causes a great deal of harm, little of it to the company or stockholders. Typically, a company would be forbidden to do that, having to do something else with toxic waste (chemically neutralize it, for example), or taxed in some way to make it less profitable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. Military, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.

    Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money.

    If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.

    And a military tax too, while you're at it.

    With this cry for war against ISIS , I think people should really see how wars hurt economies. And maybe people will think twice about getting involved in wars - especially unnecessary ones. And I'd hope that it would give people a reality check the next time they rant about those "people" and "entitlement programs" wasting money.

    Then again, no one ever bothers to see waht the truth is because it's much simpler to listen to the propaganda and makes one feel less guilty since well, they are actually the problem (all those old people who watch Fox News all day long who listen to the liars about all those good for nothings on entitlement programs when they are the ones who are sucking this country dry - and they are the ones wanting wars because of "American Exceptionalism", "fighting evil" or some such jingoistic horseshit they grew up with.)

    Oh! And let's take any budget shortfall out of Medicare, Social Security and retirements. No debt ceiling increase Mr. Teaparty old fart? Well, it comes out of your social security - none of this shutting the government down because you're afraid of "Obama Care" because some liar says it will hurt your entitlements.

  13. double non-taxation by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those that were unaware, this is my explanation (it should be mostly correct)

    double non-taxation, otherwise known as a "Double Irish"
    It takes advantage of weakness in Irish law that allows companies to not pay taxes on subsidiaries that are outside Ireland.
    So a large multinational corporation, located the United States, needs to subsidiaries for this to work.
    They open one subsidiary in Ireland.
    They open a second subsidiary in a low, or no tax country like Bermuda.
    The Irish company owns the Bermuda company.
    The Bermuda company owns the US Companies IP rights for outside the US.
    The Bermuda company licenses those rights to the Irish company.
    The Licensing fees the Irish company pays to the Bermuda company are as close to 100% of the profits the Irish company makes as possible. Everything over that amount gets changed at the Irish corporate rate of 12.4%
    The profits all get transferred to the Bermuda subsidiary where there are no corporate taxes. So they avoid all taxes on that money and other governments can't come after them because there are treaties between most countries that prevent them from charging a company based in a different partner country for taxes. This is to prevent situations where you'd pay taxes in both countries for the same money. Bermuda isn't a part of those treaties but Ireland is. So this loophole in Irish law is upending the entire Global tax system.

    1. Re:double non-taxation by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are way off on this.

      First,

      It takes advantage of weakness in Irish law that allows companies to not pay taxes on subsidiaries that are outside Ireland.

      IIRC, the US, Ethopia, and Eritrea are the only countries that charge taxes on foreign subsidiaries, so it is not a weakness exculsive to Ireland. And if you think about it, it is rational not to tax the foreign subsidiary. If a profit is earned in country X, country X shoudl get the tax. If not you get the complex and ineffectual of the US.

      Second, what you are talking about about abusive transfer payments, not about the "Double Irish", which this treaty is trying to fix. Ireland is not some great "loop hole", just low taxes. And by "Double Irish" I think you really mean the "Double Dutch", which requires a Irish and Dutch subsidary - they recognize income differently. This is, since they have different standards on when to declare income from whom they can structure income so it is never recognized by the tax authority. That is a true loop hole.

    2. Re:double non-taxation by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is an easier way to sum up the "Double Irish".

      Ireland taxes companies based on where they are managed, but the US taxes companies based on where they realize profits and loses (as do most countries). A US company will set up an Irish subsidiary but manage it from the US, or anywhere else outside of Ireland, then transfer it's intellectual property to the subsidiary, who licenses use of said IP back to the parent company. The parent company realizes no profits in the US after paying licensing fees to the Irish subsidiary, so the US collects no taxes. The subsidiary is managed from a foreign company, so Ireland collects no taxes. That's it in a nutshell.

      There are further complications where a second Irish subsidiary will be formed plus a Bermuda based shell company, but those are just for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. A further trick can be used with a Dutch company, aka. a "Dutch Sandwich", to minimize taxes even more.

    3. Re:double non-taxation by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I guess I over complicated it by simplifying it? lol... anyways, yes, what you're saying is what I meant to get across. My goal was to clarify how this works to whomever may stumble across it, and figured I'd have errors that replies like yours would correct. Thanks!

    4. Re:double non-taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And?? You still can't bring this money into the USA tax free from Bermuda can you? How does this law make more money for the USA?

  14. Not that hard to fix by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    Simply pass two laws:

    1) If a country is owned by more than 50% by citizens of X country, then it must pay taxes on all it's profits of the entire world, under Country X's laws.

    2) (This one I really like) If a company is not incorporated and paying the majority of it's taxes within a country, than it can not under any circumstance: A) lobby in that country, or in any way attempt to affect legislation or rules of that country B) nor can it t make any political - monetarily or directly - on any political subject for the 8 months preceding any primary or general election.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Country X. Population one. Has no taxes. Population owns several large companies, but has no executive control over any.

    2. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problemo. All good lobbyists are consultants anyway...

      I'll just hire one of your nationals at a good wage. Can't donate to elections...? You'll let my profitless subsidiary that licenses my IP contribute, right...?

      You won't? Well... fine... I'll create a new corporation of which I'm the sole board member, with a purpose of benefitting the parent corp...

      Look -- you can't /hack/ that system with law. It won't work

    3. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person decides to sell ownership of several large companies and becomes the richest person in the world?

      That doesn't make any sense.

    4. Re:Not that hard to fix by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So, any serious multinational can have the stock distributed enough to get past your first law....

      As to your second, at least in the USA, you're going to be blocked by the First Amendment to some extent. After all, "lobbying" is done by people no matter where the money comes from. As is "political activity".

      IN other words, you need to think the problem through a little more carefully...

      By the by, are you aware that if Google (for example) were paying ZERO taxes in the USA now, and the laws were changed so that they were taxed at 50% on worldwide revenues, their tax obligation would pay to run the Federal government for a bit less than 16 hours.

      Do note that Google is paying some taxes in the USA, and corporate tax rates are rather under 50%. Which means the actual benefit from taxing Google's worldwide income would not be nearly so significant as you might think....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Not that hard to fix by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      No, I thought everything I said through. You ignored reality and substituted rather bad fiction about what the law is.

      Large corporations are owned by these things called shareholders. It takes a LOT of work to make a company so multi-national that it's stock will not be 50% held by one country.

      Secondly my law is NOT blocked by the first amendment, unless you are claiming that the US first amendment applies to non-citizens? Because I hate to tell you it doesn't work that way. The 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act proved that.

      It is perfectly legal for the US to tell other countries, their citizens and therefore corporations that are registered in another countries they can not lobby American congressmen. Doing so can be .

      Also, when people pay lobbyists, it is generally recognized as an agent of the original person, so NO you can't just pay someone else to do that, as your payment to the lobbyist is itself illegal, under my scheme.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if the companies aren't worth anything. i.e. in debt to the executives.

    7. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you didn't think through anything at all. First, you're assuming stock ownership is consistent through time, which it never is for a publicly traded corporation. Secondly, even if you did somehow come up with a time-weighted accounting of ownership citizenship, how do you account for reporting? Are you expecting every hedge fund/mutual fund/pension fund/mom and pop/trading vehicles/VIEs/derivatives/etc... to report "fully-diluted" ownership status of every single owner of those funds? How about funds of funds? How about management of those funds?

      For the second point, while I like your idea, I still think it's full of holes. Firstly, how are you going to catch this? Secondly, isn't this pretty much the case already? Third, what do you say to things like net neutrality? Should you prevent foreign corporations to lobby for net neutrality? Fourth, what is "majority"? It's not like taxes are the same everywhere.

      So, no. You didn't think through a single thing at all.

    8. Re:Not that hard to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless you are claiming that the US first amendment applies to non-citizens? Because I hate to tell you it doesn't work that way.

      The First Amendment applies to neither citizens nor non-citizens. It applies to the US government. So yes, the free speech rights of non-citizens are protected too. FARA does not contradict this.

  15. Tax? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    Taxes on businesses and profits are taxes on:

    (1) Wages, pay and conditions
    (2) Investment
    (3) Employment

    I think all taxation should be personal taxation; that a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all.

    That should enable the tearing up of what in the UK is a 10,000 page tax code, most of it concerning various bribes, shakedowns, let-offs and special cases for businesses. I think if you can't make a tax code that can be written on one side of a piece of A4 paper, you're probably being paid by the hour to write it.

    1. Re:Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company still benefits from government protections and services. Companies use the legal system for lawsuits as both plaintiffs and defenders. Companies use infrastructure to deliver goods to their customers, to import materials to build goods. Companies benefit from military protections of countries. Companies benefit from local education systems to provide knowledgable people (arguably).

      Taxes should help build and maintain a functioning society that benefits everyone and improves quality of life. Does it always? No.

    2. Re:Tax? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Companies use infrastructure to deliver goods to their customers ... Companies benefit from local education systems to provide knowledgable people (arguably).

      But the company doesn't do anything with the money except spend it on growing the company, or in compensation to employees and investors. When those investors or employees take money home from the company, it's taxed. And if those same people take that already taxed money and invest it that or another company, and it makes money, they get taxed again.

      The company doesn't benefit from services and education, etc., the people WHO TAKE HOME THE MONEY do (at which point it's taxed). They other group that benefits are company's customers, who spend money (on which they've already paid other taxes) to buy goods or services from that company. And that means nothing until, again, somebody takes it home as pay (taxed) or dividends (taxed) or cashed out stocks (taxed).

      The company's actual profits shouldn't be taxed because all that money does is sit there until somebody either spends it on the company as reinvestment (which isn't taxed anyway), or it gets turned over to somebody designated to receive it - at which point it IS taxed as income.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Tax? by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to end taxes on corporations if we also end corporations.

    4. Re:Tax? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

    5. Re:Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but at a lower rate. Investment income is taxed lower than standard wages. Not to mention other tax shelters, write-offs and other loopholes added. Net result... businesses and the people who profit from them pay less of a tax-rate then the normal folk but end up using more of the state/country resources. Corporate welfare.

    6. Re:Tax? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes but at a lower rate. Investment income is taxed lower than standard wages.

      Right. Usually, that's because:

      1) We want people to risk their money making investments to start and grow businesses. That creates economic activity, which is taxed.

      2) If the person risking their money on such an investment loses it (as most do - most new businesses fail), they do NOT get to write that loss off on their own income taxes. It's just gone, goodbye. 3) The lower rates only apply if you let the investment site for a good long time. Those who throw money in and yank it back up pay a much higher rate.

      businesses and the people who profit from them

      Employees ARE people who profit from a business. In fact employees account for the vast majority of the outbound cash that most businesses spend. And its taxed at normal payroll rates. And the taxes levied on the money those people are getting out of the company are a big part of what pays for the public infrastructure that they (as the people who are making money daily in the business) use. Why do you think that city, county, state, and federal programs to encourage business presence and growth aren't hesitant to wave, for some period of time, taxes charged directly to the business? It's because the net result of establishing that business in place and keeping it there is MUCH MORE TAX REVENUE - from all of the other activity and employment that results.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Tax? by towermac · · Score: 1

      "a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all"

      You nailed it. And no, I'm not for letting the rich off easy.

      By taxing corporations, that helps make them into people. Taxation without representation. We used to think that was a big deal.

      I think corporations have way too much representation now. And yet they can't vote. Corporations are all owned by people, who can vote, and are legitimate tax targets.

      Another thing; income is not income until a person gets it. Tax the people, not pieces of paper...

    8. Re:Tax? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Every point you make can be reversed.
      Employees don't do anything with their wages except (eventually) spend it therefore growing the business of where ever they spend it and then it's taxed when the business makes money. If those employees take their money and open a business, then it's taxed.
      The people don't benefit from services, education etc excepting when it's useful to the company. No one to hire you, well what good is the education? And when they get a job, the money means nothing until they spend it, allowing a business to profit and pay taxes.
      The employees money shouldn't be taxed as all it does is sit there until it is spent which creates profits for a business and they can then pay a tax. If the employee uses the money to start a business, then it gets taxed based on how profitable the business is.
      Really only businesses should pay taxes as they are the ones who benefit from people having money to spend.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:Tax? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your philosophy, in practice what happens is that companies become massive tax avoidance holes. People put their personal wealth in investment companies, which simply accumulate and accumulate income with no tax being paid except on that which the owner withdraws, which once you've bought a house, farm, car, helicopter and country club membership is not all that much.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    10. Re:Tax? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's start small and local. Among the benefits for taxes I pay is the fire department. They will attempt to put my house out if it catches on fire, as well as other services (first responders for my heart attack, for example). If there's a company with a plant, they probably also need protection from the fire department. Shouldn't they pay for this? In a heavy industrial area, should the fire department be responsible for putting out fires without being paid by the companies involved? Are the individual residents expected to pay? The fire protection benefits the stockholders, but there's no way of billing them for the expense (my payment for the Otter Tail County electricity company would be hardly worth billing out, and I don't live there and don't contribute to it with taxes) without taking it out of the company.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Tax? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If there's a company with a plant, they probably also need protection from the fire department. Shouldn't they pay for this?

      Yes, and most cases such services are paid through property taxes. If the company owns the plant and its grounds, they pay substantial property taxes. If they lease the property, the property's owner does (and passes those costs along in the lease).

      We're not talking about property taxes, we're talking about income taxes.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Tax? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The difference is that when you make someone who starts up a business pay all of the country's taxes, they're forced to simply pass that along to consumers as higher prices. The consumers pay the taxes regardless, always. Businesses can't exist without people buying their goods and services.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:Tax? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The reverse is also true, when people pay all the countries tax they need to be paid that much more or don't have any spare money to support businesses.
      Currently we have a compromise, good for business as they can write off expenses including the owners salary, money spent on upgrading, expanding etc and only get taxed on pure profit.Good for people as their taxes aren't so high and have enough money to meet basic needs and hopefully some left over to support various businesses.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. relevant article by tacokill · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'll just leave this right here. Seems relevant before we get more stupid than we already are.

    1. Re:relevant article by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Of what use is a paywalled article?

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    2. Re:relevant article by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Ever since WSJ became part of the Fox noise/BS/disinformation machine, nothing the WSJ says is relevant.

      If they say the sky is blue, I recommend checking first.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:relevant article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA:

      "Any day now the White House and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) will attempt to raise taxes on business, while making the U.S. tax code even more complex. The Obama and Schumer plans to punish businesses for moving their legal domicile overseas will arrive even as a new international ranking shows that the U.S. tax burden on business is close to the worst in the industrialized world. Way to go, Washington."

      "The index takes into account more than 40 tax policy variables. And the inaugural ranking puts the U.S. at 32nd out of 34 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

      With the developed world's highest corporate tax rate at over 39% including state levies, plus a rare demand that money earned overseas should be taxed as if it were earned domestically, the U.S. is almost in a class by itself. It ranks just behind Spain and Italy, of all economic humiliations. America did beat Portugal and France, which is currently run by an avowed socialist."

    4. Re:relevant article by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are a moron. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. But more importantly, you should never infer guilt by association and discount anything because of preconceived notions that are not even relevant.

      Grow up.

    5. Re:relevant article by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying it's perfectly acceptable to believe everything the WSJ prints, even if their track record is not great?

    6. Re:relevant article by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm saying there is nothing wrong with WSJs track record soley because they are connected to fox news whos track record is largely only tarnished because you disagree with their politics and little more when compared to other sources.

      If the story is untrue, point it out. If you ignord it all because of some association with another news source, you are a moron.

    7. Re:relevant article by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Paywalled.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:relevant article by dave420 · · Score: 1

      WSJ's poor track record speaks for itself. That means it's untrustworthy as a news source - the sane way to deal with this is to look for a more reputable source. That's how news sources work.

    9. Re:relevant article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saw your post history. Your track record vs. apk's poor with you always failing http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    10. Re:relevant article by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, APK. It's always nice to know you've got a few spare personalities rattling around in that ol' head of yours. Why do you feel the need to sockpuppet? If you find yourself that devoid of support you might just want to let it go, as you are embarrassing yourself.

    11. Re:relevant article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dave420 i'm just another ac who saw your post history multiple fails against apk when you kept coming at him only to get your ass handed to you (get over it) and resorting to calling others crazy isn't a very effective debate technique when you're no psychiatric pro (it's illogical ad hominem attack and invalid).

    12. Re:relevant article by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Is this an article or the editorial? I'm inclined to have some respect for their actual reporting. I lost all confidence in their opinion pieces quite some time ago.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. For What...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they never say is where this 'extra gov't income' will go. Are other taxes going to be lowered to promote businesses staying in the US. Nope, probably not. The money will just go away... Where are the checks and balances?

  18. you are badly informed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The US has the second highest effective business tax burden in the world"
    Wrong. The U.S. has the second highest nominal business tax rate in the world, around 35%, but thanks to loopholes and other tax breaks no business pays that rate, instead it is less than 15%.

    "I wonder why businesses born in the US look to mitigate that in whatever ways the law allows"
    Wonder no more, businesses _everywhere_ reduce costs of all kinds in whatever legal ways possible including offshoring revenue and relocating headquarters. This is far from unique to the U.S. except that our laws accomodate offshoring/relocating more than a lot of other countries.

    "there will simply be more companies actually moving, entirely, to places with a lower burden"
    Bullshit. Companies will not simply drop out of the biggest market in the world just because they don't want to pay any tax at all.
    They will still get rich, just not as rich as they might have otherwise.

    1. Re:you are badly informed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If no one pays 35% because of the loopholes and instead its closer to 15%, then why don't we just make everyone happy and change the tax to 15% with no loopholes. makes it easier for everyone.

    2. Re: you are badly informed by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Or 10% or 0%. The most equitable and progressive tax is the tax on individual incomes. Corporate taxes are always a shell game.

    3. Re:you are badly informed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they do what happens to US PEOPLE .. as they say corporatiosn are people... if a US person lives overseas, and the US tax is higher than the tax where they live, they have to pay the difference. (but you CAN discount 90k of your income first as you are not using US resources.). If you earned 1Million dollars overseas living in some low taxing country and payed little tax you'd have to cough up the difference to the IRS, just for the privilidge of having a US passport.
      Apparenty companies don't need passports so they don't need to pay the difference.. :-)

  19. About time - next up - exemptions by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3

    About time this happened.

    Next up: removing tax exemptions and tax exclusions for corporations.

    Corporations aren't People.

    People pay taxes and go to jail.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:About time - next up - exemptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People pay taxes and go to jail.

      Unless they are Timothy Geithner, formerly in charge of the IRS, and tax fraud.

  20. 'Pass it on to the consumer' by kheldan · · Score: 1

    The sad fact is they'll do anything to protect their bottom line, so they'll just pass the extra cost on to their customers, who in many cases will not have any choice but to pay more for whatever they're getting. Then the corps will blame the government for it's 'corruption' as the reason their prices are so much higher now, and lobby for 'reform'. Or somesuch scenario.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Ideally, that's a good thing because it just opens up opportunities for smaller competitors to offer the same service at a cheaper price, either because they have less overhead or have figured out a more efficient way of doing it. For industries that are near-monopolies, that's what happens.

      The main problem is that the big companies know this, and so they are quick to purchase any upstart competitors, to keep actual competition from thriving. THAT is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

    2. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by Serenissima · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what needs to happen. Maybe our iPods and iPads SHOULD cost us a little bit more. In competition to lower prices, companies have moved manufacturing jobs overseas. We've become a society of consumers, we hardly produce any of the things we consume. Maybe if our "things" cost a little bit more money, there'd be more incentive to build things here and bring jobs back.

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! My Google services will double from their current cost of ... zero.

    4. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by timeOday · · Score: 1

      they'll just pass the extra cost on to their customers

      If that is true, then the taxes won't cut into profits, so the businesses won't raise any objections to the taxes. Is that what you're predicting?

    5. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

      But there will also be more competition since rivals with enough scruples to not engage in tax evasion now have a more level playing field.

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    6. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If that is true, then the taxes won't cut into profits, so the businesses won't raise any objections to the taxes.

      Of course they will, if they're competing with companies that operate elsewhere with a 15% lower tax rate.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by edawstwin · · Score: 2

      I don't think that you understand capitalism. The companies that will be affected (and indeed, every for-profit company, everywhere) already charge the most money that they can. I know some customers would theoretically pay more for any given item, but each company charges as much as possible for its products, regardless of its costs. If I own a company that makes a widget for $80 and can sell it for $100, I'll do that. I won't sell it for less because it would still be profitable. On the other hand, if my costs increase to $90 per widget, I can't suddenly charge $110 for the same item and keep the same level of income. Some customers, maybe even most, will stop buying the widget. If these companies now have to pay more taxes, many will move out of the higher-taxing countries completely, and some may just fold. Sure, some could probably afford to pay more taxes and still be profitable, but it certainly won't make their shareholders happy.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    8. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by tomhath · · Score: 1

      You don't buy anything from companies that advertise on Google?

    9. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Which is the entire point of a "global plan."

    10. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Why do some people who are intelligent enough to realize that higher taxes get passed to the consumer too dumb to realize that (in a free market) lower taxes get passed to the consumer as well?

    11. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Explain, then. Why would any typical company or corporation lower it's prices and therefore it's profit margin if it isn't forced to?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:'Pass it on to the consumer' by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If you take microeconomics, you'll be introduced to supply-demand curves and how they affect price.

      Prices are normally set so the seller gets the highest profit, which maximizes revenue minus the cost of selling each individual thing. If the company raises prices, it loses sales, unless the demand curve is completely inelastic (and that doesn't normally happen). If the company lowers prices, it gains sales, but makes less money on each individual sale. Assuming smooth demand curves running the way you'd think (which is close enough to true for most purposes), there is an optimum price. This is independent of how much money the company needs to stay in business, and (as close as I can calculate) independent of a tax on profits. The only thing fixed expenses do is determine how much the company can make selling at the optimum point, and the only thing income taxes can do is scale the profits.

      Now, the companies might well raise prices as a whole, and blame it on the government, in much the same way many sports teams raise ticket prices and blame it on the player salaries. This doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Why does business exist? by PseudoCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fundamental question with what should be a simple answer. We pursue enterprise to benefit ourselves and profit. Not to serve as revenue generator to the state. The state is supposed to serve the people; not the other way around, but we keep coming around and forgetting the lessons of history and the basic nature of man.

    If the state were not exceeding its mandate to serve the people, taxes would be acceptable and nobody would put that much effort into avoiding them because their result would continue to appeal to our interests. But there's never enough money for the state to be all the things it is promising to be, so the states are inventing structures for self-preservation of systems fundamentally doomed to fail.

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    1. Re:Why does business exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you like roads?

      Do you like education?

      Do you like living somewhere were there is a standing military to ward off invaders who would take away all your hard earned money and the business you create?

      The government needs to be funded somehow.

    2. Re:Why does business exist? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Fundamental question with what should be a simple answer. We pursue enterprise to benefit ourselves and profit. Not to serve as revenue generator to the state. The state is supposed to serve the people; not the other way around, but we keep coming around and forgetting the lessons of history and the basic nature of man.

      If the state were not exceeding its mandate to serve the people, taxes would be acceptable and nobody would put that much effort into avoiding them because their result would continue to appeal to our interests. But there's never enough money for the state to be all the things it is promising to be, so the states are inventing structures for self-preservation of systems fundamentally doomed to fail.

      Fine we implement your libertarian paradise and taxes drop drastically.

      You've done nothing to fix this problem because you misunderstood it.

      Corporations don't avoid taxes because they're too high, they do it because it's profitable. Corporations compete by competing at the margins, if a competitor in your libertarian paradise goes from a very low tax rate to a slightly lower tax rate then you'll have to follow otherwise you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. If you are a libertarian this shouldn't be a surprise but gospel. The essence of libertarianism is people acting as rational self-actors, so why would you expect corportations to leave free money on the table just because the pile is a bit smaller?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Why does business exist? by PseudoCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. I like all those things. I don't like having to feed children I didn't have the pleasure of making (in addition to my own), and then told I'm not compassionate because I should feel sorry for them and their irresponsible parents. I don't like paying for contraceptives for people who want to have sex. If it's not for procreation, it's for recreation, and I don't go to work every day so you can exercise your crotch. I also don't like buying $800 hammers for contractors, or $800M tanks for dictators.

      Again, if government stuck to those basic things you mentioned then we would have a better government. But you want to throw in the kitchen sink disguised as necessities because somehow that's more "progressive", when instead it's regressing back to the point where we serve the state that is supposed to be serving us.

      --
      "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    4. Re:Why does business exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine we implement your libertarian paradise and taxes drop drastically.

      How much is enough?

    5. Re:Why does business exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you like children starving and having a large criminal class? That's the alternative to paying for those things.

    6. Re:Why does business exist? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately for you, your well-being is not dependent on just your own efforts and choices. It's also the result of the collective efforts of the society of people around you. Otherwise you could live better in Somalia than you do here.

      But you can't. So you are stuck with the distasteful (to you anyway) idea that your welfare depends on having a healthy society to live in. To get that you are going to have to contribute.

      Sorry.

    7. Re:Why does business exist? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      In highly competitive markets the competition will eventually force you to use every tax avoidance trick that your competitors use in order for you to stay in business, unless the corporate tax rate is something negligible.

      One solution would be to not have a corporate tax and instead try to go after the owners themselves with capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes and what not.

    8. Re:Why does business exist? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The state does not wish to serve the people any longer. The state serves it's corporate masters, in return for scraps from their table.

      The corporations don't want to serve the people, they want to profit from them. Any actual services or goods they provide are a mere incidental detail. History has shown us that if a corporation can get away with selling dirt instead of food they will do that.

      When the media is controlled by a few large corporations, there is no free market. Free markets depend on perfect information being supplied to the consumer. There can never be a free market while there are large media corporations, but large media corporations are an inevitable consequence of the market.

      As you say below, if the state stuck to their natural role of providing services that you cannot trust a corporation to provide, like healthcare, it would be fine. Instead, at the bidding of their masters, they manufacture wars to increase demand and exploitation opportunities, they engage in mass surveillance of their own citizens for fear that they may be deposed, they destroy effcient and functional public utilities so that corporations can buy them out and charge more for what was once reasonably priced for all....

      The state is indeed corrupt ; but mostly because the corporations have worked so hard to corrupt it. We need a state that will protect us from corporations, instead of falling to their knees before them.

    9. Re:Why does business exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax evasion is as old as taxes themselves. If the tax level were set at 1% (or lower, which it has been at some times and places in the past), people would still try to dodge it.

    10. Re:Why does business exist? by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't avoid taxes because they're too high, they do it because it's profitable. Corporations compete by competing at the margins, if a competitor in your libertarian paradise goes from a very low tax rate to a slightly lower tax rate then you'll have to follow otherwise you'll be at a competitive disadvantage.

      Because there are costs to moving operations around. Less so if the work is technological and done remotely, but there's plenty of work that isn't.

      Let's say it's a factory - those months spent finding a new location and moving equipment is time spent not making widgets to sell, as well as the disruption of shutting down and restarting operations. Even if you expand operations to new locations instead of moving, you've added overhead by having more locations to manage and coordinate.

      So it *can* be profitable to shop for the lowest tax rate - but the total cost will be considered.

    11. Re:Why does business exist? by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      But you can't. So you are stuck with the distasteful (to you anyway) idea that your welfare depends on having a healthy society to live in. To get that you are going to have to contribute.

      Unfortunately, it isn't a healthy society. We have perverse incentives undermining the collective welfare.

      That's not a problem of the contributors, but the increasing number of people who do not contribute, yet are willing to yell at the contributors to work harder.

    12. Re:Why does business exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Otherwise you could live better in Somalia than you do here.

      Really? Somalia? The groupthink amongst statists is astounding. Want a smaller govt. go Somalia is the answer. Do you you all have meetings to decide what asinine non-answer insults to come up with?

      The better question is how the hell can you call the current society healthy? And don't tell me that we have small govt in the U.S. as all govt to GDP is over 44%. For good or for ill the state of affairs will continue until it can't. I love that its greed when I want to keep my money and wealth.

    13. Re:Why does business exist? by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that we have that large criminal class right now? And that it did not exist before the welfare-state?

    14. Re:Why does business exist? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather not spend less money on subsidising condoms for people, and instead spend more money on cleaning up the mess of a child born into a family which doesn't want or can't care for them? Genius.

    15. Re:Why does business exist? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      First, the criminal class is much smaller than it would be with no enforcement or government regulations or assistance.

      Second, your contention that the criminal class didn't exist before the welfare state is ludicrous. Crime has never been lower. (It is true that organized crime basically was founded in the US because of Prohibition, and owes much of its existence to the War on Drugs, but not because of social welfare programs.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. Will not EVER happen. by DrPeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The companies involved also PAY for the campaigns and prostitutes for the "elected" officials. So this supposed "crack down" will never happen. In point of fact these tax dodges were created by and endorsed by said "elected" officials.

    1. Re:Will not EVER happen. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. The US government could close this loophole, "crack down" on corporate tax avoidance, without any global cooperation. All they need to do is pass the law, and Obama can sign it.

      The OECD has no power to change anything here, so instead they did something they have power to accomplish: they wrote a report. Bravo.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Dutch Sandwich by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    So now where are corporations going to get their Dutch Sandwiches?

    --
    Time to offend someone
  24. Does this mean by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Stuff that's made in China and sold at Walmart would be taxed differently? I'll believe it when I see Chinese manufacturers paying the US 35% tax rate.

  25. Wolf in sheep's clothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OECD is a direct arm of the Rothchild banking family. They just want to make sure their treasonous federal reserve and their private shareholders make as much profit as possible.

    Abolish the illegal IRS which has only existing the last 100 years and go back to the original vision of taxes in america - Not an octopus ran by European banking interests.

  26. America Cannot Compete by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    If the US, the most developed country in the world, with all its advantages of a functioning economy, education system, infrastructure, mineral and agricultural wealth, moderate climate and fundamental rights, cannot compete with the rest, things have come to a sad pass. The America war cry goes up "It's not fair!" and the kind of corporate shenanigans we deplore are now to be deployed on a global scale - protecting a doddering and clueless incumbent from the nimble upstarts, to the detriment of the common man.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:America Cannot Compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, but that's not actually the case. We do compete on many different things. About the only thing we can't compete with is countries willing to destroy their environment to make a buck. But don't let that detail ruin your little narrative.

    2. Re:America Cannot Compete by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 2

      Certain country's tax codes are upending the world trade structure.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

      The way things should work: profits made in a country are taxed in that country.
      The way things should not work: a company doing business abroad pays taxes both at home and abroad.
      The way things break: subsidiary company makes "no profit" (no tax) because it pays hefty license fees (100% net income) to my headquarters company in Ireland. Ireland does not tax licensed technology abroad. I pay effectively no taxes (and instead pay clever tax accountants, who are cheaper).

      This is an article is an attempt to remedy the situation where companies can chase low tax structure to literally any country which will offer a favorable deal. It is understood that you can't do it one at a time ("we'll just fix Ireland because they're the problem"), because there are many countries willing to offer such arrangement (Bermuda, Curacao, Panama, Iceland, etc.). This is an attempt to get to the 1st and 2nd point, while disallowing the 3rd.

    3. Re:America Cannot Compete by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of the car dealers complaining about Tesla selling their cars directly to motorists. It reminds me of taxi drivers complaining about Uber. It reminds me of AT&T complaining about Netflix.

      A bit of upending is clearly needed.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    4. Re:America Cannot Compete by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Like Ireland, Switzerland, Singapore and New Zealand? The new Tories are fossilizing the USA.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    5. Re:America Cannot Compete by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      As usually, it's "intellectual property" that's a problem. Stop treating licensing as goods/work, and the ability to shift profits goes away.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:America Cannot Compete by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We have some of our own troubles in competition. When health care is largely the responsibility of the corporation, and is priced insanely high, it is a real problem with companies trying to compete with rivals who don't have to pay large amounts of money out of their revenues for health care.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  27. AND? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would also provide a way for the criminals to make sure they get their illegal taxes from all of you as well.

  28. People have AMT by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    Corporations can do whatever they can to show no profit, and therefore, no taxes.

    If rich people were to try to make enough charitable contributions or whatever other deductions to drop their taxes to zero, they'd still get hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax. (those with a low enough income can still get away with this)

    Why don't we have an AMT for companies? A sort of 'if you're making over a billion dollars in gross receipts, you still have to pay the U.S. 10%' or simply 'then these deductions aren't allowable' ... you could have things in there like :

    • Money spent on lobbying
    • Money spent on advertising
    • Salary costs over ~5x minimum wage (calculated per person ... so no hiring a bunch of minimum wage people to offset the CEO's pay)

    Obviously, lobbyists and legislators will hate the first one. Newspapers & TV stations will hate the second one.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:People have AMT by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The problem here is the most of the money is either made or spent off shore from the incorporated nation. These corporations have created subsidiary corporations within other jurisdictions and sell to them at costs of a loss and the subsidiary ends up making the money in the jurisdiction that has low taxes.

      And Alternative minimum tax would not be able to get around that because each incorporation is recognized legally as a separate corporation/company even when they are entirely owned by one of them.

      Where the confusion happens is in the SEC (and equivalent) filings in which the owned subsidiaries get counted as an asset so it's activities are reported along with the parent corporation's activities. However, it doesn't reflect the obligations in differing nations or jurisdictions. Imagine it like this, you own an apartment building in the US and another in France. You form a corporation in France and place the apartment building there so make accounting and legal compliance easier. You pay property taxes on the properties only in the countries in which they actually are. Well, as long as you do not bring your rental income back to the US, you pay taxes on it only in France and it wouldn't even be counted on your US tax forms. But if I sued you because you got drunk and ran over my cat and you lost everything, those apartments in France would count as one of your assets.

      Keep in mind, it's a bit more complicated then that, but that should give the gist of it.

    2. Re:People have AMT by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Because gross receipts are not a good indicator of how healthy the business is. Some companies make little profit per dollar of revenue, some much more. While some people who run businesses as partnerships or sole proprietorships are in the same position, most aren't, and anybody with enough income to hit the AMT has enough money to incorporate his or her business(es).

      Grocery stores have lots of revenue, but thin margins. They make money by having relatively little profit per dollar revenue but a whole lot of transactions. Book stores can't do that, they can't move merchandise fast enough, so they need to have more profit per dollar revenue. Cargill makes most of its money supplying generic stuff (corn syrup, for example) a bit cheaper than competitors, so it doesn't make much profit per dollar revenue. Microsoft makes most of its money by selling software licenses, so they're going to make a lot of profit per dollar revenue (unless they blow too much of it on Xboxes and Zunes and such). What would be a reasonable AMT for Microsoft or a bookstore chain would be ruinous for Cargill or a grocery chain.

      Similarly, the need for advertising varies widely by business. Grocery stores seem to have a great need to advertise, while book stores appear not to. To make an informed choice on what grocery store to go to tonight, I have to know what the specials are, while I pretty much know about the individual book stores.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone would incorporate / LLC... and no one would pay taxes again. Hmmm, give myself a salary of 1 dollar. Expense everything else. Or... simplify the business tax code so there isn't 10K pages of tax code.

  30. Compliant with Tax Laws by jtwiegand · · Score: 1

    If by 'corporate tax avoidance' you mean 'full compliance with all tax laws' then yes, corporations do that all day.

    This is not a problem with corporations avoiding taxes; technically speaking they are not avoiding anything. This is a problem because tax law is so hilariously complex that there will inevitably be the so-called loopholes, (which are really just inevitable artifacts of any sufficiently complex system), and corporations with a lot of money will hire a tax-evasion-expert (also known as a tax-compliance-expert) to do exactly that. They will follow the letter of the law and use every scrap of genius to minimize their expenses.

    Simplify the tax code; this problem will solve itself (this is at least true in the United States). Multinationals have a different problem, but that is simply the nature of all international laws.

    1. Re:Compliant with Tax Laws by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's discussed is a problem with multinational companies, and the ways they can avoid taxes. This isn't a matter of finding loopholes in any country's tax laws, but rather finding gaps between laws internationally. The problem is completely orthogonal to the US tax code.

      The issue is that companies are shifting profits from where they're made to places chosen for their tax laws. The example given is Google: it makes money in Europe and Asia, and manages to record it in Bermuda. That requires international action and modification of treaties.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. The US made this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA made this mess. I can see the thoughts of the yank politicians: Get tax concessions from other countries so foreign countries charge a low rate of tax. Multi-national corporations then pay the tax differential to the USA because it has the highest tax rate. In short, every country subsidizes the USA. Unfortunately, corporations got smart. They calculated a way of not paying domestic or American taxes.

    Now they want everyone has to clean their mess. We need a citizen awareness campaign to press domestic politicians into creating fair rules: Not rules enforcing a tithe to the USA.

  32. meaningful tax reform by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Not sure how it works in other countries, but if you REALLY want a true tax reform, in the USA, outlaw the FICA taxes. Give everyone their paycheck, and FORCE them to give it to the government each month. Once they find out 1/3 or more of their paycheck goes to the government, they would be standing outside of DC with pitchforks and torches. Always bugs me when I hear someone say how much they earn by saying my "take home pay" is xxxxxx. No, your SALARY is MORE, but the government STEALS a set amount. And, with more and more people on the government take, they will have to confinscate more and more from the producers, to give to the takers to ensure they are elected again and again. Socialism in the USA will end, when those elected, run out of other peoples money to spend!

  33. "Avoidance" == following the rules by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    How do you "crack down on" people following the rules and doing exactly what is best for them, paying the least amount of taxes?

    1. Re:"Avoidance" == following the rules by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      How do you "crack down on" people following the rules and doing exactly what is best for them, paying the least amount of taxes?

      By changing the rules so that people following the rules and doing exactly what is best for them end up paying more taxes.

  34. For the last time by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Corporations do not pay taxes. They simply pass along the money from consumers to the government. Got it?

    Raise the taxes for XYZ, Inc. and the price of their goods or services will go up accordingly.

    1. Re:For the last time by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Corporations do not pay taxes. They simply pass along the money from consumers to the government.

      Yes they do and no they don't.

      See here.

    2. Re:For the last time by footNipple · · Score: 1

      Starting in 2013 my company's tax exposure increased. I still made the same amount of money because I was able to increase our hourly billing rate across all service spaces.

      In fact, to really understand this concept, try the following: Find a large bucket; large enough to stand in, but not too big. Now pick that bucket up. No problem right? Ok, now stand in that same bucket and now try to pick it up. It's more difficult, right?

      That's what happens when taxes are too high. The higher tax rates increase, the harder life will become for people who live by paycheck because the less companies and people will be able to spend...or lift that economic bucket.

  35. And we all move to Ireland by PPH · · Score: 1

    Ireland wants to charge its businesses 10%. Fine. Let them. A business in Dublin pays the Irish government 10% on all the profits it makes from revenue received from customers who shop there. Whether they are Irish, Canadian, American, French, whatever.

    So if an American buys their products, they pay that 10%. To the Irish government. And they don't pay diddly to the USA. If our Congress doesn't like that, they can take it up with the US citizens who travelled overseas and spent their money where the government take is less. Or they can just keep them the hell out of Ireland. Good luck with that. The last people who built a wall tore it back down in 1989 (Sorry, the second to the last. I forgot Israel).

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Wrong in so many levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    VA and officer pensions are not into the Military budget as they should be to do the comparison. War operations for whatever illogical reason are also not in the Military budget. And SS actually mostly pays itself, how can you possibly compare it to the various spending budgets, when it is not exactly "spending"? Please tell the truth.

  37. kick in the nuts by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Let me break this down. My company is small because Microsoft charges me way the hell too much for Windows licenses on my custom-built computers. I can't compete with the $45 or so license cost given to Dell, which is given to them because they're big. So I stay small because Microsoft is keeping me small by charging me unfairly. My additional income from licenses I buy from them lets them get big enough that they can pay less in taxes so I in turn have to pay more in taxes at my US business because I can't afford to operate it out of a foreign country because they're purposely keeping me small with the price difference excuse of the fact that I'm not big. Thanks, assholes.

    1. Re:kick in the nuts by ruir · · Score: 1

      Tell them to go to hell and sell them with Linux.

    2. Re:kick in the nuts by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Linux doesn't run anything that any of my customers need and I got too many support calls about it when I did sell it.

    3. Re:kick in the nuts by ruir · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, non-technical people are asking me to install them Linux because their computer after a few days of being cleaned up is already infected and slow.

  38. Idea. by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Hey, can we maybe put some effort into cracking down on government spending, too? I mean, it has only been like 240 years. Maybe it's about time we finally do some snipping?

  39. Rather than address the underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Am sure that Big Four will fight those new rules proposed by OECD as hard as they can (bribes aka lobbying)
    If they can not spin clients money to "help" saving on taxes, they can not make hundreds of billions in fees.

  40. Base taxes on revenue - Kind of by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Say a global company makes 9bil, but 3bil of that is from your country. Then assume 33% of their net pre-tax profit is to be paid in taxes, but have taxes paid to other countries as tax deductible. So the only real way for a company to get out of paying your country taxes is to pay taxes in another country. Also, assume that all forms of direct government subsidies a "tax deduction" from other countries. In case a government tries to "feed back" money paid to effectively reduce taxation.

  41. Corporate Greed IS Domestic Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations that have no qualms with gouging customers and avoiding any accountability in order to raise their profit margins to obscene levels take food off our tables and reduce our abilities to safely maintain our vehicles and a plethora of other pressures that is adding tensions to households, and it is a violent act to the wellfare of our children.

  42. Google??? Avoiding taxes? by pgd7sen · · Score: 1

    Can't be true! I mean, their moto used to be "Don't be evil." Easy peasy!