Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple and Microsoft Squirm As Global Tax Schemes Scrutinized
An anonymous reader writes: Google, Apple and Microsoft chiefs were hauled in front of an Australian Senate Committee on Wednesday and forced to answer questions about their tax dodging structures. "Under questioning from Greens Senator Christine Milne, [Google's Maile Carnegie] revealed none of the revenue derived from Google's lucrative advertising business is taxed in Australia, rather it is booked in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is set at 17 per cent, as opposed to Australia's 30 per cent. ... However in the strongest defense yet of the company's complex tax structure, Ms Carnegie attempted to highlight the hypocrisy of criticising global technology companies for using the same approach that Australian mining firms, like Rio Tinto, use when deriving profits from China. 'These are international tax arrangements and what Google is doing in Australia is very very similar to what Australian companies are doing outside of Australia. I am not sitting here today trying to defend whether those practices are right or wrong, they are simply the way the global tax system is currently working and we are trying to operate within that.' Ms. Carnegie said it was up to the government to create a different system, which the company would then abide by."
Governments all over the world have been hoodwinked or bribed to set up loopholes which are beneficial to corporations, and not so good for domestic economies.
Because people have been buying into the lie that somehow cutting taxes on corporations is a net benefit, when in fact it's just a way for corporations to pay less tax and skim off the time, while taking ever bigger profits.
There has been a lot of evidence that all of these tax cuts don't benefit anybody but corporations, and that trick down economics is pretty much not working as advertised.
It's time to start saying "too fucking bad" to the corporations and stop giving them special loopholes to play shell games with money.
Start handcuffing CEOs to bears, make the world a better place.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is what happens when you have two sets of rules to follow - the "law", which is laid out in black and white as to what is allowed and what is not allowed, and is backed by the courts and amended by acts of government. And then there is the "spirit of the law", which is fluffy, ethereal and changes depending on who you talk to, when you talk to them and what their agenda is.
As Ms. Carnegie points out, if you want stuff taxed in your jurisdiction, change the law so that happens - dont wave the "spirit" of the law around as if it has any meaning other than a method of blackmail.
It's up to you to not pass the laws for which we lobby.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
No, the fact that it's legal makes it OK. If governments don't like that, they can change the law.
Though why anyone thinks the world will be a better place if governments have yet more billions of dollars to waste is beyond me.
Oh, you think that if big corporations pay their 'fair share', the government will cut your taxes, right? Ha-ha-ha-ha.
If countries want tax revenue to stay in their countries, lower the tax rates to be come more competitive. After all, 17% of something is much better than 30% of nothing.
30% tax rate?? I've spotted the real crime.
Multinationals have been abusing this for decades.
You have ANY presence (Brick and Mortar, offices, internet) and obtain ANY income there, you pay taxes there.
Countries should simply demand that taxes on money that's earned in their country is paid in their country, instead of anywhere else.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Mis-reporting income and expenses is fraud last time I looked. This goes for businesses where one division over-charges another to shift profits from one country to another. These practices are coming under increasing scrutiny globally.
Want to straighten the ad problem out fast? Sales tax in the country/state/county of purchase.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
False equivalence, 10 yard penalty.
As long as a company is obeying the law and not hurting anyone, they are legally and morally in the right.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Unfortunately, I would agree.
If a country wants a piece of the action, maybe they should take a good hard look at their tax code. They may have to lower taxes *gasp* Perhaps getting 17% of something is better than getting 30% of $0.
The reason companies do this is because it's more profitable to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to skirt local laws.
there will always be moldova, antigua, vanuatu, etc.
but the major countries, the ones that provide certain legal frameworks corporations need and desire, need to get together and agree upon a common set of policies, and commit to sharing info with each other about company's returns, and stamp this shit out
the motivation is simple: to not be screwed financially. the motivation should be sound and compelling. didn't a lot of countries recently (last 15 years) band together and force switzerland to stop being the secret banking haven for narcothugs, selfish tax dodgers, corrupt politicians, etc around the world? if we can bring sleazy amoral switzerland to heel, we can do this
if a company wants to file in a country that is cheap, then let them get extorted by corrupt government officials, have their shipment of good confiscated/ help up at borders, etc. all the problems that come with countries with shit legal enforcement and bad laws
and those financially responsible countries that agree on sharing tax profiles can exclude such companies and such countries from certain streamlined benefits, if not outright ban them if their activities are too financially scumbag
of course, one country or another will be more attractive for financial reasons than another country
which is absolutely ok. i envision a future where ireland or singapore or wherever is the country of choice for corporations to pay taxes, like delaware in the usa for incorporation, or liberia for ship registration, etc.
but for anyone defending this tax avoidance as "fair": corporations are not made from the loins of a single "captain of industry" standing all alone. please understand the difference between low iq fantasy and reality. corporations exist because of the benefits of a stable secure society that allows them to be created and to grow. those benefits need to be paid for. corporations need to be contribute their share. especially if we want to make believe they are "people" as some philosopher-morons insist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mis-reporting income and expenses is fraud last time I looked. This goes for businesses where one division over-charges another to shift profits from one country to another. These practices are coming under increasing scrutiny globally.
Then these companies will soon be in court on fraud charges, won't they?
Want to straighten the ad problem out fast? Sales tax in the country/state/county of purchase.
Yeah, let's put all those mom-and-pop Internet businesses out of business because they don't want the hassle of complying with the tax laws of three hundred pissant little countries. Right on! That'll stick it to the Man!
No, they were not hauled or forced. Did they come and answer questions reluctantly? Sure, but can we drop the hyperbole?
Just another day in Paradise
The politicians says the same thing. Our cronies want more money, so you must explain why we cannot funnel more government revenue to them, because you are not paying your "fair share" to the companies.
The BBC had a news article a while back about an African country that officially had a 30% (I think) tax rate, but no-one paid it, so they offered people the option of registering for a 3% tax rate, which increased their income because the average they actually managed to collect with their 30% rate was only 2%.
But, hey, it's all the fault of the EVIL BASTARDS who won't pay their FAIR SHARE!
Where do you see anything on them misreporting, or charges of fraud?
Just another day in Paradise
There's a reason I feel zero guilt in using ad-block. It's perfectly legal for Google to dodge taxes this way, and it's perfectly legal for me to dodge Google's ads using browser extensions.
In itself, that's just a race to the bottom on corporation tax. Then you find rich people earn nothing and simply channel all their funds through companies... oh wait.
jh
The world *would* be a better place if working stiffs--who don't hold most of the worlds wealth--weren't the ones burdened with most of the taxes for the government sponsored infrastructure that all of us need.
"Oh, you think that if big corporations pay their 'fair share', the government will cut your taxes, right? Ha-ha-ha-ha."
Maybe. More likely, what happens is that corporations will either pay more to their employees (not likely), or (more likely) hire more employees. When gainful employment is easier, abusive work tactics becomes a thing of the past again because employees will simply leave.
People blah blah about these companies not paying their fair share which depends upon your views on taxation. But the key word is fair. The real problem is that while these companies are able to pretty much magically avoid taxes in countries outside the US the potential competitors in countries like Germany, UK, France, Australia, etc are paying these taxes.
This pretty much makes it impossible for a homegrown company in any of these countries to compete. Nobody can compete with a company that is has all that extra tax free profit to use in acquisitions, research, marketing, or just making their product higher quality.
What baffles me is that nearly all the countries being screwed out of those taxes aren't even more angry that they are also potentially being screwed out of viable competitors. If a country such as the UK had the next Google or Apple it could literally change the face of that country's economy as companies of that size don't just hire lots of people and pay lots of taxes but also create a nexus of similar companies. You can't build a Silicon valley out of a few government IT contractors and a handful of Best Buy warehouses. On the otherhand you can build one based upon a Google or two.
To me this is a very simple tax problem. All they need to do is say if you make a profit in our country you pay the same taxes on that profit that a company in this country would pay. But the key is that the profit is calculated by estimated real costs, not the costs presented on paper. Thus Apple could no longer claim that each iPhone cost $699 to build and sell it for $700.
But the real win would be if these countries were able to mostly ignore R&D costs that happen outside their own boarders. If this was no longer easily deductible it would become an instant R&D win biasing in favour of their own country. The simple reality is that as the future comes closer and closer countries that train and use the brains in their countries will do well, while those that outsource their IP development will falter. This tax exploitation by these companies provides an opportunity for various western countries to swing the pendulum unfairly in their own favour as a punishment for past exploitation.
When you cheat you tax collectors a few thousand then you end up in court. When a large corporation is minimising tax then it is much more of a negotiation. You are insignificant. Google employs lots of people and generates lots of revenue and can hire the best legal advice and accountants.
Your definition of not hurting anyone is fairly important though. I think in this case, the company *and* the government could be morally but not legally in the wrong. They transferring money from the government to their own bank account. If you pretend for a minute that the government does things that are good for the people, then they're preventing some of this from happening.
jh
You try refusing to appear in front of Congressional, Senate or Parliamentary Committee once they have required your attendance. Those invitations are akin to subpoenas, so yes they were forced to appear and answer questions.
Ms. Carnegie said it was up to the government to create a different system, which the company would then abide by."
In other words: "if you lower your taxes to a number that we like, we might consider paying them".
Must be nice being a multinational corporation, getting to chose how much taxes you pay and where you pay them...
Meanwhile in the real world, people go broke (no more jobs... sorry), small and medium-sized businesses go broke (can't compete with Amazon? Too bad), local governments and states go broke (not enough revenue? Your taxes are too high, just lower them so you can compete with the 0% rate in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates).
The system works.
The corporations have bribed every politician in the globe to put in these loopholes.
Google doesn't care about you at all. It exists to make money (and LOT of it) which it hordes in off-shore accounts that do nothing to help the overall economy. Keep in mind, they're doing this while leverage taxpayer-provided research and infrastructure. Who paid for the development of the Internet in the first place? Uncle Sam. Who throws billions towards universities that train their talent pool? Uncle Sam. Who provides the physical and legal infrastructure that allows Google to exist in the first place? Uncle Sam.
Substitute "Uncle Sam" with the country of your choice. But you get the idea.
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
Let's have a level playing field. After all, that mom-and-pop internet business benefits from the services collected by the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortor.
And the same goes for large internet vendors vs. large brick-and-mortar vendors. Don't tell me that Amazon or Google can't figure out the tax rates for every jurisdiction they serve - they can just google for it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Legally, yes. Morally? Not possible because morals are different for each person.
Hurting anyone? There is always someone hurt.
Singapore has a population of about 5.5 million people. I wonder what percentage of its tax revenue comes from being a tax haven.
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
Because in the second case, mom-and-pop live in Singapore?
Is this a trick question?
Your definition of not hurting anyone is fairly important though. I think in this case, the company *and* the government could be morally but not legally in the wrong.
Then you are sending the wrong authorities after them. Instead of sending tax men, you should be sending Bishops, to correct their moral violations. Tax men are only applicable when there are legal violations.
Actually, it doesn't even take thousands of dollars, sometimes it is just pennies. Just ask Eric Garner (the tax evader executed for selling loosies)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, the fact that it's legal makes it OK
Don't confuse legality with morality. It may be legal but I think you'll find more people than not think it is very much NOT ok. I happen to be one of them. I'm an accountant so I understand very clearly what they are doing and I think it is as shady as hollywood accounting. I very much hope that our government closes these loopholes. I don't really care if we charge corporations taxes or not but I do care about companies using "creative accounting" to the detriment of the larger society.
Though why anyone thinks the world will be a better place if governments have yet more billions of dollars to waste is beyond me.
The vast majority of the US budget (around 75%) is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. Every one of those items is wildly popular with voters. So you can call it a waste if you want but the fact is that we the voters are demanding our government provide services that cost substantial amounts of money but then aren't willing to pay the taxes that are necessary to support those programs. Government waste? The government is doing EXACTLY what the voters want. Spending a lot and pretending it doesn't cost a lot of money.
Corporations avoiding taxes (legal or not) results in the government having to borrow money to cover the shortfall. If you prefer that we cut Defense spending by the amount they are avoiding then that is a fine solution but until that notion becomes popular (good luck with that), it makes a lot more sense to try to collect the taxes. Close the loopholes and have an adult discussion about whether having corporate taxes actually make sense and there are rational points to be made both for and against.
Oh, you think that if big corporations pay their 'fair share', the government will cut your taxes, right?
Nope. I think it would merely cover a portion of the deficit and frankly everyone's taxes (at least in the US) will have to go up at some point in part because of these weasels who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they found some clever loophole.
For any given location, there are N number of layers of taxes, each with different rules that apply to different types of sales, to different types of people, for different types of uses. You can have layers of Federal, State, county, district, city, and local taxes with no standardized way to figure out who gets what and under which circumstances.
In the United States, your assertion that "working stiffs" are burdened with most of the taxes is not supported by the facts. If you look at total taxes paid (local, state, and Federal) as a percentage of income, the bottom 40% are taxed at about 20% and the top 20% are taxed at about 30% (Washington Post). So the rich are paying taxes at a higher rate then the "working stiffs."
If you look at it from the "income to the Federal government" perspective, as of tax year 2011, the top 5% paid 57% of the collected income tax and the bottom 50% paid 12% of the collected income tax.
Based on those two facts, I assert that the "working stiffs" are not taxed at a higher rate then the rich. Also, at the Federal level, the rich pay far more in taxes. Where the "working stiffs" lose out (and the Washington Post article shows this) is at the local and state level.
In case you don't realize it, you actually make the case that all these tax schemes are designed for Corporations to drive out the independent competition from existence. ALL Taxes are regressive.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"Though why anyone thinks the world will be a better place if governments have yet more billions of dollars to waste is beyond me."
Of course, we shouldn't let governments have extra money to feed the poor, educate citizenry, provide health care, protect the environment, make streets safer, or let the citizenry vote to decide how to spend it, for after all, we should simply let corporations establish tax policy through an army of lawyers armed with political kickbacks so that the already ultra wealthy can get tax breaks denied to everyone else, so they can waste it instead.
Yes, it is. It costs 30% to run the country's police, fire, health and education systems, all of which these companies and their owners benefit from, and not paying 30% "because we don't have to" doesn't mean that it's better to get 3% rather than nothing: providing the services that they use cost money. And definitely more than 3%. So they may have tax income from them, they also have expenses.
If the companies or the rich bastards avoiding taxes fucked off somewhere else (where they would either pay taxes or not get the level of services they got here), tax revenue would go down, yes, but the cost of services provided would drop too.
Mis-reporting income and expenses is fraud last time I looked.
They aren't mis-reporting their earnings. They simply are taking advantage of loopholes in the law. It's almost always perfectly legal. Morally dubious but quite legal.
Frankly when you can afford literally hundreds of staff specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes by exploiting obscure loopholes in the law, you are engaging in something that is ethically on the edge. I'm an accountant and I find the tax avoidance practices of these companies to be reprehensible. I'm particularly disgusted by my colleagues who facilitate this sort of activity.
And I'm pretty far left, and have heard the same idea from other "lefties." Go ahead and cut the corporate tax to zero. The largest and most powerful corporations will bribe governments and set up special loopholes that work for them (but not smaller competitors) anyway. Level the playing field, as you say.
...and do away with special tax treatment of dividends and capital gains. Tax the owners of the corporations rather than the corporations themselves. This has a side benefit of no longer taxing investment income at a lower rate than actual earned income from working.
In an ideal world, the electorate can deal with the immoral government, and the government can deal with the immoral company by making their actions illegal (if indeed it's the will of the people to crack down on immoral activity).
I'm not arguing that they should be punished for being immoral, but long term, they probably *should* expect the law to stop treating them so favourably.
jh
"Though why anyone thinks the world will be a better place if governments have yet more billions of dollars to waste is beyond me."
The answer is obvious: so governments can waste their money on little, average guys like me and you, instead of always wasting it on a few already incredible rich people, who get every break they desire by corrupting governance by making it fundamentally unfair.
You aren't really that stupid are you?
Mis-reporting income and expenses is fraud last time I looked. This goes for businesses where one division over-charges another to shift profits from one country to another. These practices are coming under increasing scrutiny globally.
Then these companies will soon be in court on fraud charges, won't they?
Well, let us see ... from the article:
"We purchase our products on an arms length basis from affiliates and declare all of our income in accordance with Australian tax law," Mr King said.
"Very simple, no offshore billing, no corporate debt and no fancy hybrid structures very simple business model."
However Senator Milne said it was "ridiculous" for Apple Australia to act as if it was a separate company to its global operations and accused it of fixing prices so its operations in lower tax jurisdictions paid less than Australia for iPads and iPhones.
Um, it seems like they've been doing exactly what you said forever with no retribution so ... no, no they will not soon be in court for fraud charges. That, in fact, is why we're all bitching our asses off!
To start, you're an idiot - you're comparing tax on corporate profit to retail sales tax. This has nothing to do with retail sales tax and everything to do with corporate profit tax.
But while we're on the subject of retail sales tax...
And the same goes for large internet vendors vs. large brick-and-mortar vendors. Don't tell me that Amazon or Google can't figure out the tax rates for every jurisdiction they serve - they can just google for it.
That is ridiculous. Why should Amazon pay retail sales tax to your local government when they have no presence there and are not required to collect it from you? Is your local government going to collect retail sales tax when you drive to another state and purchase something? Amazon is no different, except that instead of driving my car to a state with an Amazon store, I am directing my browser to the Amazon site. I expect to pay charged retail sales tax when the goods I purchase are sold and shipped from a location in my own state, but when it is sold and shipped from some other state, my state has no right to tax the sale. The whole point of retail sales tax is that the state collects sales tax on goods sold IN the state.
As long as a company is obeying the law and not hurting anyone, they are legally and morally in the right.
Fact is that these companies ARE hurting people. Specifically the taxpayer. By avoiding substantial tax burdens these companies are forcing the government to either borrow more money to cover the shortfall or raise taxes on everyone else. That borrowing costs interest and that affects everyone else who pays taxes.
So they ARE hurting others by their actions and trying to justify it by pointing out that they haven't technically broken any laws is letting them off on a technicality. If you want to argue that the tax code should be changed I would agree 100% but the fact is that they are using obscure loopholes to avoid taxes which hurts you and me in a very clear and measurable way. So yes I have a BIG problem with that.
Of course people don't want to pay their taxes - they just want to reap the benefits of living in a civilization (what taxes pay for). It's the prisoner's dilemma, and what is best for the individual is that they don't pay their taxes and that everybody else does.
This unwillingness to pay taxes doesn't prove taxes are inherently stupid, just that people haven't collectively worked out the dilemma yet.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Don't blame Google for doing what the government allows. Blame the government for thinking it can tax without consequences. Tax avoidance is a responsibility of the tax payer, and if government can't figure out how to design a tax system that is "fair" and "progressive" that is not the fault of those avoiding taxes.
The rich can always learn how to avoid paying taxes. This means that even "progressive" taxes are regressive. All of them. The problem is taxes shape behavior in unintended ways, and often ways that adversely affect the economy. Only stupid people think taxes exist in a vacuum, and have no effect on the economy. All those crying "tax the rich" and "fair share" are just envious idiots who think that it has no effect on them.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
Because the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store only has one set of three tax structures which they are beholden to (federal, state, city). The mom-and-pop Internet business would have literal thousands of tax codes to be subject to (that is, the tax laws of every nation, province/state, county, city, federation, etc. on the planet - at least outside of North Korea). That is not, as you declare, a "level playing field" by any means.
Large brick-and-mortar international concerns and large internet international concerns are already level with each other tax-wise aside from sales taxes (which vary by locale).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No, the fact that it's legal makes it OK.
Calling your grandmother a cunt is legal. It's not OK. I have no idea why people conflate legal justice and morality. Legal justice is simply a subset of morality where we feel physical force is justified. That's why it's "OK" to chase down thieves but not people that insult their gramgrams.
There's a reason I feel zero guilt in using ad-block. It's perfectly legal for Google to dodge taxes this way, and it's perfectly legal for me to dodge Google's ads using browser extensions.
You shouldn't feel guilt about thwarting Google displaying the ads.
You should maybe feel a teensy bit of guilt over the fact that you are using an ad-supported site which derives its revenue from displaying Google ads to its visitors, in lieu of a subscription fee.
Google could probably care less; in fact, in cafeteria discussions at Google, this came up once, and the general consensus was that, if the ads were not going to result in sales, Google preferred that people run the ad blockers.
Of course, this reduces the revenue for the ad-supported site which you liked well enough to visit, but not well enough to pay for. So I suspect, at some point, that the ad-block-detection code (which is there) will give you a temporary redirect to another page that says:
"If you don't like seeing advertisements, fine, we'll save that in your preferences and quit trying to show them to you; but in lieu of having ads, would you please support the continued operation of our site with a small donation, so that we can continue to provide you with the content you came here to see?"
So, actually, if anything, it's a "Poor Site I Like Who Is Now Getting Any Income..." situation.
Just saying.
Reference needed. There is no country on earth where police, fire, health and education systems costs 30% of the GDP. Governments want that to do all sort of stuff most members of the population don't want. This is why people try to evade taxes. Because they're spent 90% on bullshit. If my country was asking for 3% of the GDP and that was it, nobody in their right mind would try to evade taxes because they would be fair: (almost) insignificant for the people and providing quality services.
Unfortunately, this is almost not true in every country. All governments are huge ballooned administration that forever wants to gobble more money to do more bullshit, most of the time orders of magnitudes less efficiently than private companies could.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
As long as a company is obeying the law and not hurting anyone, they are legally and morally in the right.
I would argue that in a vertically integrated company, charging "costs" to parent companies over and above what an open market would bear might be legal but isn't morally right.
The problem for the law is how to determine what these open market costs should be. When a patent is licenced to a (true) independent company it would (presumably) be a fair cost for internal use too at the same price. But when a patent isn't available for licence?
Perhaps that's what the law could do - IP (or other internal costs that cannot be priced on the open market) must be made available to all at the same price being billed internally. If others take them up at that price then it's a fair price, otherwise the price is deemed to be zero for internal costs/profit movement.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Nice try, Google, but blaming others doesn't make you less guilty.
"Those invitations are akin to subpoenas, so yes they were forced to appear and answer questions."
Yes, and its about time. With global warming soon to make planet Earth uninhabitable for humans in as little as 200 years, massive amounts of money will be needed to radically change the infrastructure associated with energy production and delivery and transportation and manufacturing. Since only a tiny fraction of the world's population really has any money, humanity will be forced to get it from the tiny fraction of the world's population who do have money.
The question is will the ultra-wealthy be a willing part of the process to save Earth for humans or will it ultimately be necessary to take it from them by any means necessary? I would suggest that at the present rate of warming, there is perhaps only a 10-35 year window in which the tiny fraction of the population that has all the wealth will get decide whether they will cooperate or conditions will determine their fate, after that it will be everyone for themselves. One thing is for sure, as the crunch to survive becomes far more brutal than it is now, those with the money are going to have an even more difficult time trying to find a place to hide it or even hide themselves. Unless the ultra-wealthy are prepared to nuke entire populations, there simply won't be enough soldiers for hire to save themselves and as we all now know, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
In the meantime, the rest of us can try to figure out what side we will likely be on. Of course, soon if we have not already made our choice, it will be made for us. The impact of global climate change in an 8+deg C world will pretty much dictate the limited choices the humans that remain will have.
Tax loopholes are put there for a reason. In general, it gets the businesses to invest in their particular areas.
Give a tax break to Google, so they can setup a data center in your community, You get hundreds of new jobs, who do pay taxes.
This use to work, until companies got much smarter. Why bother putting in a big building, where you only need a place with a telephone forward to you non-corporate office/vacation home, and reap the tax savings.
Trickle down theory works only when the higher up is willing to make it work. Lately they have used the extra money to be more efficient and seal the gaps that are trickling down.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When you cheat you tax collectors a few thousand then you end up in court. When a large corporation is minimising tax then it is much more of a negotiation. You are insignificant. Google employs lots of people and generates lots of revenue and can hire the best legal advice and accountants.
That's also the reason bankers and corporate use news media like the Daily Mail or Fox News to get you worked up over J.Q Public down the street cheating on his taxes or scrounging a few $ / £ / € in benefits because it distracts your attention from their corporate and banker friends who are cheating the public purse out of billions upon billions. It is a constant source of puzzlement to me how people can get so worked out about Polish/Romanian/Bulgarian workers coming to the UK and cheating on benefits (when in actual fact studies have shown that they work more and cheat less on benefits than native Britons) that I have actually heard people talk about wholesale deportations (and some ideas that are way scarier than that), but they do not seem to be bothered at all by bankers and corporations (read: the owners of organizations like the Daily Mail and Fox News et. al.) swindling the state out of amounts of money that make benefits swindling look like a mosquito on an elephant's ass.
More likely it would encourage localization and encourage more 'mom and pop' businesses serving smaller local markets.
Good if you're mom or pop. Not so good if you're Nestle, Coca-Cola or Google. Really good if you're the local customer.
Dude, it's a tax. You're basically complaining that somebody might be getting raped "incorrectly." You are bitching about a victim minimizing the harm done to themselves by someone else.
Of course it's ok. It would be ok even if nobody else did it.
BTW, no, I'm not necessarily anti-tax. I know we need to do that. But that doesn't mean it isn't harm done by us to others. It's simply a justified harm, an evil that we have all agreed that (though it hurts) is more than balanced by the good it does.
It's like how I decide to eat cattle and pigs and chickens. I know that sucks for them but I like the food. Hmm... their horror vs my pleasure and nutrition. I choose me to be the winner, so: I eat them. But I sure as fuck don't blame a pig trying to escape his horrific fate on the way to the slaughterhouse. I wouldn't call such behavior not ok. The pig isn't doing anything unethical when it tries to stay off my plate.
So it is with Google. You can't blame them trying to avoid paying a lot of extra taxes. OTOH we want their money and we're going to try to take as much of it away from them, as we can, without killing them. (I guess it deserves more of a milk analogy than a meat analogy.)
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
You think a mom-and-pop internet business should have to deal with tax law in over a hundred different jurisdictions over the world?
Let's have a level playing field. After all, that mom-and-pop internet business benefits from the services collected by the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortor
If I have a mom-and-pop internet business in Canada and I make a sale to someone in Japan just how much do you think I'm really benefiting from the government services in Japan?
And the same goes for large internet vendors vs. large brick-and-mortar vendors. Don't tell me that Amazon or Google can't figure out the tax rates for every jurisdiction they serve - they can just google for it.
I have a feeling your model of an Internet company is a building full of accountants. Personally that strikes me as an incredible waste of human potential, there probably should be some way for Internet companies to sent appropriate tax revenue to the jurisdictions they serve, and if they have major operations in that country it's obviously doable. But figuring out a pile of legal paperwork just to serve a handful of customers isn't a viable option.
I stole this Sig
The answer is obvious: so governments can waste their money on little, average guys like me and you, instead of always wasting it on a few already incredible rich people, who get every break they desire by corrupting governance by making it fundamentally unfair.
You're making an awfully big assumption that extra funds would be spent on little people instead of further spending on powerful special interests.
Tax loopholes are put there for a reason.
Of course they are, you didn't think all those lobbyists get paid for nothing do you?
Singapore's population went up by 500,000 in the 25 minutes between the two parent posts. At this rate, their population will reach 2.2 billion by this time tomorrow!
Whoa, legal and ethical are very much not the same thing.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
For businesses within the the US, in the context of sales within the US, because of this:
Do they have the consent of the congress? No, they don't. So there you go.
If that needs to be changed, fine, then it's time for you to get everyone to agree that it is time to exercise article five:
It isn't because it's difficult, although there is certainly some excuse making along those lines. It's because states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes without the consent of congress. You want your state to do that? Go talk to congress. And good luck with that, by the way.
Consider that Internet vendors are not significant users of local government. They don't have property locally; they don't walk the sidewalks, nor do their employees (USPS, UPS and FedEx workers are not their employees); they don't use the streetlights, their kids don't go to the local schools; they don't create trash to collect (you do... YOU bought that stuff); the local sheriff, cops and state police don't have to think or worry about any of their employees or property (again, it's YOURS, not theirs... YOU bought it); and so on for a really long list of things.
As for the local businesses, they are using / utilizing all that, and again more. They also have the option to open an Internet business. But as long as they don't, they get to play by the rules that apply in their jurisdiction, and again, those rules have to comply with the constitutional limits, so if you don't like it, you're back to talking to congress, either directly or via your representative. And like I said, good luck with that.
Because the voters have continuously let congress take money and favors from corporations and kept re-electing them. They have let congress approve SCOTUS judges that do things like assert that corporations have "religious views" (June 2014) and they still kept re-electing them (see last election, fall 2014.)
The message congress gets is "that's all fine, carry on, we love you people." You think you can change that message? Last election, congress was at 14% approval but enjoyed a 94% re-election rate. So it looks to me that before you go try to convince congress, you need to go convince the rest of the voting public. And near as I can tell, those people are pretty damned set in their ways. So good l... never mind. Sigh.
--fyngyrz
anon due to INCREDIBLY stupid rules for moderators
Hey DICE, want to do something USEFUL with slashdot?
Change those stupid rules! Ask yourselves, WHY can't
moderators make posts with their own IDs? WHY?
It's also about having a level playing field. For large multinationals it is easier and cheaper (in terms of cost vs profit) to invent new loopholes, vet them with legal and financial experts, and set up the necessary vehicles for shifting profits to a country with low taxes. For small local businesses with no foreign presence this is a lot harder. They lack the required knowledge, and the cost of experts and legal fees are prohibitive compared to the tax advantage they stand to gain. So local businesses pay the full 30% or whatever your local tax rate is, while multinationals get away with a couple %. Besides, a local business cannot readily threaten a government to vote with its feet and leave.
With that said, I agree with Google lady that governments should fix the loopholes rather than appeal to corporations to pay their fair share. If you bring morality into it, you don;t understand what a corporation is.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
No, the fact that it's legal makes it OK. If governments don't like that, they can change the law.
The problem is though unless every government in the world does it, they'll just go elsewhere.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Maybe we should tax the use of lawyers.
Why is the Libertarian answer to every problem to initiate a race to the bottom? The only solution is not to see if Australia can function on the revenue model of an insignificant third world nation, but to close the loophole and get the 30% or show Google the door.
With global warming soon to make planet Earth uninhabitable for humans in as little as 200 years
That's extremely unlikely in all of the published scenarios. End of technological civilization, sure, end of humanity, no.
Any taxes paid by corporations are directly and immediately passed on to their customers anyway so what the hell is the difference? Abolish the corporate income tax but require 60% of your production capacity to be in you country of incorporation (or some significant number) and watch middle class jobs come back or see corporations move off-shore completely. Retain the exclusive right to tax every penny made by someone who holds your countries citizenship no matter where/how that money is made. Seems like that would end the current round of shady activities. New shady activities would rise up but you deal with those as they show up.
...it is easier to pay taxes in Singapore than it is in Australia. In Brasil, only the names of taxes, contributions, tariffs, fees, dutys and rates we pay (R$500 billion until March 31st) would be enough to flabbergast any company...
\m/
Only in the fantasies of the submitter. They dodged taxes? "Dodging" taxes is a meaningless term. Companies can avoid taxes (perfectly legal) and evade taxes (perfectly illegal). While we can all be annoyed about tax avoidance, that's up to the politicians that made the tax rules and were too stupid to get it right. I very much doubt that you can pin any tax evasion on these companies.
This was a dumb comment. The cop that "executed" him was not doing so because of tax evasion.
Straw man is made of straw.
Actually, "working stiffs" hold a vast amount of the wealth in the US in the form of pension funds, IRAs, 401Ks, etc.
So the resisting arrest, and the heart attack/asthma attack had nothing to do with his death, it was all that evil cop trying to arrest a guy for selling loosies.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I suspect that the disconnect lies in one sentence:
Most people seriously confuse "fair share" with "fair misery" when it comes to wealth and taxation.
What I mean is, when some folks say they want "progressive taxation", or "fair tax", what they really mean is that they want the wealthy to be just as miserable financially as the average person after taxes are paid. It's an emotional rather than a logical demand.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
only having sales tax is unfair taxation
there's people who derive income that have nothing to do with sales. so you're putting all the tax burden on one sector of the economy and letting a bunch of other sectors off tax free
tax code is complicated for a reason: the economy is complicated
i'm not saying the tax code doesn't have parts which are insanely complex for no good reason. i'm saying you will never have a simple tax code. more simplified than our current byzantine monstrosity? yes, that is good, and there are many ways we can simplify, and we should do that
but that only works to an extent. it will never be truly simple
this "only sales tax!" nonsense is bullshit created by and believed by philosopher-morons who don't really understand the topic
if you really want to make taxes "simple"?
the irs should be required to prepare your taxes
britain does that for example. they do your taxes and send you a bill or a refund and the details for your review, and you can challenge it if you want. easy
but here in the usa we have "free market" players (ie, entrenched parasites) who bribe congresscritters to retain their existence. H&R Block and their ilk should rightly simply not exist. they provide a service your government should provide for you for free. paying a preparer or doing it yourself is an extra "tax" in terms of time, money and hassle that simply should not exist. it also creates stress, misunderstanding, and errors that sometimes can bite you in the ass. you spend more both ways too, because now the irs has to review everything. you pay for that extra manpower in your taxes and a bloated inefficient irs
it's like the argument about the "free market" in healthcare: no such free market exists. there is an oligopoly that extracts a parasitical profit for no real added benefit. other countries have single payer universal care and spend far, far, far less in healthcare, and have better quality healthcare. this is where the morons speak of american high quality healthcare... as if actually being able to pay for it, ie, healthcare access, doesn't figure into the term "quality"
sure, if you're rich american healthcare is great. but what blows my mind is how the middle class american moron hears "socialism" and continues to support politicians who openly support a system where you die early and waste tens of thousands of dollars of your money to flow to a monopoly/ oligopoly. because only government, not companies, can be evil according to the morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If a country wants a piece of the action, maybe they should take a good hard look at their tax code. They may have to lower taxes *gasp* Perhaps getting 17% of something is better than getting 30% of $0.
The reason companies do this is because it's more profitable to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to skirt local laws.
I agree that this sounds reasonable, but I am afraid the reality is that once countries start changing their laws to do this, it won't be enough. If country A says "OK, we'll change the law to get 17%" then country B offers 15% and then later country C offere 12% and so on, businesses will continue to complain about the declining tax rates as still being "excessive" until they reach zero. I can't rule out that some enterprising country might find a way to make a tax rate of 0% work for them if it's done in exchange for the company bringing so many jobs at specified rates there. I just don't believe that cutting the tax rates is really going to solve anything. Here in the USA there may actually be some companies that want the tax code to stay the same. I've read it claimed that Liberty Media prides itself on never paying any US income tax and even has an accounting office dedicated to zeroing out their tax bill every year.
Or you know.. maybe take a business class.
tax Evasion is illegal.
tax Avoidance is perfectly legal and is taught in accounting classes in every business school.
If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
Nuff said.
"It's because states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes without the consent of congress."
The states cannot impose import duties, but they are not trying to (in this case). They are imposing sales taxes which apply to all sales, regardless of whether the product was imported across state lines or not.
"Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?"
Because a business also need authorization to collect sales tax for a state.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Government will spend the money much more wisely than Apple, who would waste it on job-creating endevours like R&D.
Of course people don't want to pay their taxes - they just want to reap the benefits of living in a civilization (what taxes pay for).
This has nothing to do with wanting to live in a civilization. There is no other option.
I'd be squirming too if multiple governments simultaneously wanted to increase the effective tax rate on me. That money is not owned by the governments or the peoples. It's the companies' property. Never forget that taxes represent a claim on someone else's property, and slavery is merely the exercise of 100% third-party property ownership.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:
"Lower the tax rates until paying them is more cost-effective than finding legal means to avoid them."
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
Because in the second case, mom-and-pop live in Singapore?
Is this a trick question?
So what? If they're selling to the US, let them pay US sales taxes - after all, if they're selling to any particular area, they're operating in that area (despite Amazon's attempts to avoid paying taxes where it doesn't have a warehouse).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You think a mom-and-pop internet business should have to deal with tax law in over a hundred different jurisdictions over the world?
It's much worse than that; there are over 70 in Florida alone! It was a nightmare when a client of mine realized they needed to be collecting sales tax based on the buyer's location when shipping to a FL address.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
He was killed because he didn't comply with the officer instructions and fought back after he was told he was under arrest. He was grossly obese which was a HUGE reason he lost his life. He was no innocent first law breaker who should maybe have gotten a break.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1659026/eric-garner-criminal-past-emerges-30-arrests-in-34-years-including-assault/
Jack of all trades,master of none
While that is true, they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders and, therefore, can not make them collect the tax on your behalf as they can do with local businesses. That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.
You do do that, right?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Actually in most states they do have a right to the tax on out of state purchases the problem is that the onus to pay the tax is on the individual that purchased the item to pay the tax not the sender.
The purpose of retail sales tax is to give governments the financial support to do things like build roads and bridges and provide support to the residents of the state. If you are getting your out of state purchases teleported to your home then I guess you could argue that the state isn't entitled to the retail sales tax.
A fairer assessment would not focus only on federal income tax which is purposely made progressive. What happens when you include all taxes, fees, tariffs, etc.?
I don't know what the answer will be but it would be a much better analysis.
No what I think that mean is that for some one making a million dollars, taxing them at 50% would still leave them with $500K. For some one making $10K dollars taxing them at 10% would leave them with $9K.
I think I would rather take the "fair misery" of the first person.
***Note: these numbers are just used as an example and before someone says that the $10K person should just get a better job that isn't always a possibility.
"if we can bring sleazy amoral switzerland to heel, we can do this"
As a Swiss, I would just like to say that the story looks rather different from this side. You are presumably in the US, and have the US media's version of events. This is the wrong thread to go into many details, but let's just take a couple of highlights:
- The US likes to apply American law to citizens and companies in other countries. With sufficient political pressure, and sometimes outright extortion, it sometimes even succeeds.
- There is no particular reason why Swiss banks should provide their customer information to the US government (FATCA), though this is what they have been forced to do - quite literally via extortion. Interestingly, the Swiss government asked "so can this be bilateral - your American banks provide equivalent information to Switzerland on Swiss citizens?" The answer was basically laughter, with the explanation that doing so would be far too burdensome for US banks.
Finally, there is an almost global acceptance of something that is really odd, if only you step back and take a fresh look. Your personal finances are a private matter: you don't want your neighbor looking at your bank statement, or you employer, or indeed really anyone. So why, exactly, does the government have the right to know every detail of your financial life? In Switzerland, the government does not have insight into your personal finances and your entire personal life, and it cannot confiscate your money without a court decision.
By Swiss law, if the government wants private information about you, it must show evidence of wrongdoing and get a warrant. If it wants to take your property, it must win a court decision. Why is Switzerland "sleazy" and "amoral" for providing people with privacy and due process? Yes, our banks are now being forced to remove these protections from foreign citizens. Why is this a good thing?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The WaPo article is based on total tax paid, which includes local and state taxes.
Most people consider "come and answer questions or go to prison for 6 months" to be forcing you to come and answer.
That's not true. Companies charge what the market can bear, and if they had lower taxes, they'd mostly just reap higher margins. Do you really think Apples prices would significantly rise if their tax burden went up? That's certainly not true of all markets.
jh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress/ says otherwise. Although this is the US version, I can only imagine Australia (and most legislative bodies) have similar powers.
I'm probably biased because Rio Tinto is my employer, however I don't see Google publishing anything like Rio's Taxes Paid report:
http://www.riotinto.com/documents/RT_taxes_paid_in_2014.pdf
You can operate within the rule of law and also provide a degree of transparency, which Google is clearly not doing.
That worked well for them when they got the answers they wanted, right? Yeah, they got answers, and the companies played the game of telling them what they felt like. Yes, they can be "forced" to reply, but they didn't have to give the correct/accurate/truthful answer.
Just another day in Paradise
How did that work out for Eric Holder and Lois Lerner, both of whom have been found in contempt?
Just another day in Paradise
You claimed they were not hauled or forced. Whether the answers were correct/accurate/truthful/what the askers wanted is irrelevant to that claim of yours.
Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?
Because in the second case, mom-and-pop live in Singapore?
Is this a trick question?
So what? If they're selling to the US, let them pay US sales taxes - after all, if they're selling to any particular area, they're operating in that area (despite Amazon's attempts to avoid paying taxes where it doesn't have a warehouse).
So you are saying that the should pay both U.S. sales tax (actually state, county, and city sales taxes, where applicable, since not all states, counties, and cities have sales taxes) PLUS pay the Singaporean sales taxes as well (which Singapore will want, since that is where the sale is booked)?
So what you are saying is you hate Internet commerce and want to end it, in favor of Walmart. It's not like a mom and pop store in the U.S. can compete with Walmart, so the only brick and mortar beneficiary of such a policy will be Walmart. Oh, and the state, county, or city tax man.
You left out the possibility that the million-dollar earner may have bills totaling a lot more than $500k, which means your taxes would leave him or her in the hole.
Example? Musicians. They may make a million bucks a year (most don't), but their travel/tour expenses plus studio time, plus whatever they owe to the folks who sold/rented them all the gear (buses, instruments, etc), plus marketing (agents, etc)... may well leave them with far less than $9K a year after you get done taxing them at 50%.
Are you still certain that you want that 50% tax based on just gross income?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Most countries and states have reciprocal tax agreements.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They're taxes, just as I said.
And they can't do that. Not if they impose the tax on the seller. That means they're crossing state lines and imposing their laws on residents of other states; and they can't do that. Period.
They can -- and some states do -- impose taxes on the *buyer*, but inasmuch as that's about impossible to track, and very little effort is put into trying to track... most people don't pay. Heck, I don't think most people who are supposed to pay even know it. Of course, imposing taxes on the buyer when they import something is, if you're being honest, a straight-up import duty anyway.
" they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders"
This was not your original point, which is why I did not address it before you made it.
"That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.
You do do that, right?"
Of course not: I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.
That being said, the very part of that AC post that you actually quoted is just another phrasing of the part of my post you are claiming was not the original point. That is to say "states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes" because "they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders".
I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.
There's nothing in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, or New Hampshire that interests me enough to want to live in any of those places and, while parts of I might like the Portland vibe, I'm not a big fan of Oregon's weather. I'll keep paying my sales tax and enjoying the beauty that surrounds me in California, thank you very much. If "no sales tax" was even a factor in your decision of which state to live in, I don't even want to know what factors you ignored to fool yourself into thinking you were making a wise decision.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You shouldn't feel guilt about thwarting Google displaying the ads.
You should maybe feel a teensy bit of guilt over the fact that you are using an ad-supported site which derives its revenue from displaying Google ads to its visitors, in lieu of a subscription fee.
Google should maybe feel a teensy bit of guilt over the fact that it is using government infrastructure and services which derive from tax imposed on corporations [and citizens], in lieu of a subscription fee.
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
actually oposite, taking money from rich and giving to poor (trough "better" taxes) will increase consumption and increase global warming even faster, rich have a lot but they spend very small percent of it, rest just "sits there and multiplies", poor on the other hand will spend as much as they can afford on stuff that has SIGNIFICANT global warming footprint, like bigger car/ more car gas or more airplane tickets or more food or new bigger house spending more wood to build, and more energy to heat/cool
Mis-reporting income and expenses is fraud last time I looked. This goes for businesses where one division over-charges another to shift profits from one country to another. These practices are coming under increasing scrutiny globally.
Want to straighten the ad problem out fast? Sales tax in the country/state/county of purchase.
Sales tax is exactly what they're avoiding.
Australia has a GST (Goods and Services Tax) which is pretty much the same as VAT in other countries, it's 10% on any purchase in Australia with a few items that are GST free (I.E. basic food). Its this tax that Apple and others are avoiding by making the transaction take place overseas. So Apple Australia takes in 20 million from Australia (obviously its more, but I cant be arsed looking it up) but then pays GST on 1 million because most transactions were with Apple Singapore or Ireland.
But I expect nothing to come of this. Its just the Abbott government trying to distract people from it's horrible economic policies.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That's not true. Companies charge what the market can bear, and if they had lower taxes, they'd mostly just reap higher margins. Do you really think Apples prices would significantly rise if their tax burden went up? That's certainly not true of all markets.
Of course they'd raise their prices when their tax burden goes up and they'll cry foul "B-B-B-but it's the ebil gubbermint thats making us raise our prices" before doing another line of coke off a high end escort's arse with rolled up $100 note that is then used to light a cigar.
What they wont do is lower their prices when their tax burden is lessened.
Its the same with airlines and fuel costs. When fuel costs go up they add extra charges, when the fuel costs went down recently most didn't remove them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Actually I do. I have a friend who basically started his own corporation (which costs like a couple bucks), then funnels his paycheck through that, and takes out dividends. And since he also has his own corporation, he is able to write certain things off.. Not sure how that works as I thought it would have to be a legitimate business expense, but he said what he does is perfectly legal
I dont know exactly how it all works, but in the end makes a fair more than I do and pays less tax than I do.
Most countries and states have reciprocal tax agreements.
U.S. states are constitutionally prohibited from negotiating agreements with foreign powers.
As all sales taxes in the U.S., other than taxes on specific non-imported items, such as fuel (which therefore do not require reciprocity), are by state, county, or municipality. Counties and municiplaties are likewise enjoined from trade negotiations with foreign powers.
Not sure how you'd handle this through reciprocity...
Google should maybe feel a teensy bit of guilt over the fact that it is using government infrastructure and services which derive from tax imposed on corporations [and citizens], in lieu of a subscription fee.
I'm sure they would, if the backbone Google uses for all of its internal traffic weren't wholly owned by Google, including their trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific fiber optic cables. Google has their own separate Internet. And a lot of traffic from other people use Google's Internet as a result of peering agreements. Including government traffic.
Because taxes are merely another "cost of doing business". They pass this on in the form of increased prices for their products or services. Follow the chain and at the end is the individual. And you and I are paying for an awful lot of "paper pushing" by the time we get it.
Every so often, corporation must present how much money they made to their stockholder. Use that as the basis for their taxes. The two sets of books crap is, well, crap. So either they re a wildly profitable place (Apple, Google, et al) in which case they get to help fund all the wonderfulness they make use of like the US courts to defend their intellectual property. Or they are going to get pummeled by their shareholders for not making the stock price better.
Oh. and while we're at it, lets make the tax rate based on the ratio of full-time equivalent US employees vs profit. There needs to be a factor in there for adjusting for the employment rate nationwide (NOT the UNEMPLOYED - that number is too mushy. Just those who get a paycheck.). Set the top rate around 75% to clobber the corps that are just slush funds with no employees. The more employees it takes to make that profit, the lower the tax rate. Set the bottom rate around 25%. They still get to keep up to 75% of their profit so they need to STFU and quit whining.
Do the same for individuals.No deductions and basically no taxes paid until you are in the upper 50%. Top tax rate is back around 90%. Again factor in the employment rate to determine the curvature of the tax rate vs income curve. the more employed, the broader the base to pay in. And income is income is income. Doesn't matter if you worked for it, won it a poker game, sold stocks or inherited a old car.
In the event of (another) war, the tax rate get multiplied by 1.25 across the board and continues to rise semi-annually until the troops come home. Since the vast majority of the military people come from that bottom 50%, their families shouldn't be also having to fund the process to get their kids killed for some corps bottom line most of the time.
1. set up an international company with most employment in countries with low pay
2. set up administration in countries with low tax
3. channel all money earned to the low tax money
4. pay yourself in shares, with a minimal pay
5. bribe governments to keep creating tax loopholes and free trade arrangements (like TTIP)
6. take entire countries to court when the tax loopholes are closed
No one owes any website a business. If you setup a sign based on the premise that you need all ad-revenue to survive, profit, and make a living then you're one of that sizeable statistic of people whose businesses fail for the simple fact that you were hopeless at business.
It's like saying you should feel guilty for not bothering to look at adverts in free newspapers and skimming right past them. No you shouldn't. If someone is giving access to something with no upfront payment they have no expectation of payback. If the business model doesn't work, it doesn't work, tough luck.
I don't buy the doomsday scenario of there being no useful sites on the internet if we all have this attitude because I remember the internet from long before ads were commonplace. There was still equally as good information about, in fact, I learnt much of what I know about programming in that era, the only difference is it was all less bloated by presentation.
There should be zero guilt in blocking ads because accessing URL is NOT a contract implicit or explicit that you will accept all content from that URL, nor that you will read every aspect of it. If either of these things were true we'd be legally obliged to download malware, and legally obliged to read every last disclaimer and copyright notice on every site. There is no such obligation, and ads are not special cases, we neither have to read them or receive them, and no one should feel guilty for refusing them.
If a site shuts down because it couldn't afford to run because of ad revenue yet people visited with ad blockers then all that tells us is that there was a business model for the content if free, but not if ad sponsored. Sites with such small viewership typically used to be hosted by bundled ISP hosting. Those large enough to justify proper hosting are large enough to make enough from those that don't use ad blockers or to run as subscription sites.
A business is either viable, or it's not, if it's not, then no one should feel guilty about it's demise.
most nation-states are entities that have documented history of decades of financial irresponsibility
why would any sane person/company give more money then absolutely necessary to such an entity?
WRT sales tax, here you go:
However, just because a company lacks a permanent establishment doesn’t mean there are no U.S. or state filing responsibilities. Activities in the U.S. that do not create a permanent establishment may still obligate a company to file a U.S. federal income tax return. In addition, since not all states follow the treaty, some states may subject a company to state income tax even if it doesn’t have a permanent establishment. Plus, treaty protection does not extend to non-income taxes, such as sales taxes.
States use a concept called "nexus" to determine the minimum contact necessary for the state to impose its various taxes on an out-of-state company. Different state taxes can have differing nexus standards. Recently, many states have followed a trend to lower the nexus bar.
An actual in-state physical presence created with inventory or other property as well as by employees, independent agents, representatives or contractors, has been traditionally required for state sales tax nexus. Today, some states, such as New York, assert that some types of virtual presence through the Internet can be enough to create nexus. Also, many states assert that the presence of intellectual property such as a trademark creates nexus for income tax. Some of the newer state tax regimes, such as those in Ohio and Michigan, even disregard any requirement for in-state presence but instead focus on activities targeted at customers in the state.
State sales-and-use tax compliance can be more difficult and expensive than income taxes given that there are over 8,000 taxing jurisdictions involved. Once an out-of-state company satisfies the nexus standard for sales and use tax, the burden of collecting taxes on purchasers of taxable goods and services begins. If a company fails to collect from its customers, it effectively converts a customer's tax into its own liability.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You're going to tell me that neither Google nor Amazon have the capability of figuring this out? Ridiculous.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, I'm not an idiot. Sales tax is something that is very easy to calculate in every jurisdiction, since it's a fixed amount of the total price of the product at the taxation level for that particular product. Profits, on the other hand, are subject to a lot of creative bookkeeping.
Amazon does in fact have a presence in every state. It's no longer required to be a physical warehouse - plenty of states now are saying if you do business here, you owe sales tax here.
Today, some states, such as New York, assert that some types of virtual presence through the Internet can be enough to create nexus. Also, many states assert that the presence of intellectual property such as a trademark creates nexus for income tax. Some of the newer state tax regimes, such as those in Ohio and Michigan, even disregard any requirement for in-state presence but instead focus on activities targeted at customers in the state.
There are less than 9,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US. Certainly Amazon and Google can figure them out. They just don't want to because they don't want to have to charge sale and use taxes.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's very simple - they can just look up the sales tax rate for where they're shipping to. Just f*cking google for it. There are less than 9,000 different taxation districts in the US, and many countries are far less complicated, such as Canada, since they only have 1 federal sales tax rate and a provincial sales tax that varies by province, with some exemptions for basics like food.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And they're all listed on the internet. Big deal. Took me only a few seconds to find it here, and for all the sales taxes by state and county and municipality start here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No state is going to refuse money.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Awesome, now implement rules for all of them. Plus Canada. And Mexico. Don't forget the other several hundred countries with sales tax, and all of the districts therein. Meanwhile, brick and mortar stores only have to charge their local sales tax, which makes sense because they're only using the local resources that sales tax pays for. There is a reason you are supposed to declare non-taxed out-of-state purchases and pay your local sales tax on them each year; because sales tax is intended to be paid to the locality in which the buyer resides and that locality has no jurisdiction over a seller in another state. Its been that way since long before the internet (think mail-order catalogs) but an alarmingly small percentage of the population actually knows they're breaking the law when they don't pay their local sales tax on such transactions, and those who do know largely don't care.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's very simple - they can just look up the sales tax rate for where they're shipping to. Just f*cking google for it.
You're not done yet. You now get to keep track of it all, make sure you have receipts for all of the payments to all relevant taxing authorities, be sure all the applications for state/county/local tax ID numbers are filled out and kept track of, keep track of *all* tax law and rate changes, everywhere (else you get slapped with a fine or worse from some offended principality), file *all* tax forms for all affected principalities either monthly, quarterly or annually (depending), some locales may require additional licensing and/or registration... ... all for a two-person mom-and-pop Internet shop.
Yeah - your assertion is, for lack of a more-descriptive term, bullshit.
Have you actually ever run a business?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Awesome, now implement rules for all of them. Plus Canada. And Mexico. Don't forget the other several hundred countries with sales tax, and all of the districts therein.
All that info is on the web. It's also available by asking for it directly from the proper entity in each district. Or just have the customer self-declare the tax rate, and forward his declaration to the appropriate tax authority. If he's falsely under-declared, big fine, same as when brick-and-mortar stores take cash to help their customers avoid paying sales tax.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Most mom-and-pop internet shops have a very small range of customers, because there are so many of them in each country. Most people figure "why order from another country and have the hassle of currency exchanges, customs, and shipping delays when you can get it for the same price locally?"
But of course if they want to extend their market to the world, then they have to act accordingly, including all the permits, etc., same as a brick and mortar store. The internet "tax-free ride" is coming to an end.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
All that info is on the web. It's also available by asking for it directly from the proper entity in each district.
I never said it wasn't. The information is easy to get and I never argued otherwise. Read the first sentence of what you quoted.
Or just have the customer self-declare the tax rate, and forward his declaration to the appropriate tax authority.
You mean the to an entity that has no jurisdiction outside their own locality?
If he's falsely under-declared, big fine, same as when brick-and-mortar stores take cash to help their customers avoid paying sales tax.
And that's why it's on the buyer to declare when they file their local and/or state taxes.
Again, these aren't new laws, nor are they all that difficult to understand. Given that this situation is already covered by existing laws, and in states that actually care to collect that tax, it has been further clarified that, for transactions where both the buyer and seller have a presence within that state's borders, sales tax is to be collected by the seller (and this is fine, as the state does have jurisdiction within its own borders), why do you think it is necessary to make companies comply with the laws of other jurisdictions? It's not up to the companies you do business with to know your local laws and tax rates, it is up to you. Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; again, this is your responsibility unless, of course, the seller also has a presence in that locality, in which case there is jurisdiction and they must collect tax.
It's pretty damn simple, really. Just like I a cop in Nevada can't arrest me because a cop in California found and confiscated a small amount of pot. Were I to bring that pot into Nevada, sure they could arrest me, but I didn't bring it into their jurisdiction and it's decriminalized in the jurisdiction where I did (hypothetically) have it. Taxes work the same way; if they didn't, you'd have to pay income tax for every state in which your employer has a presence, rather than just the one in which you reside. The Federal Government wants their ~20% and 42 other states want an average of 4.519% each (189.798%), for a grand total of 209.798% of your income. Can you pay that? Is that really a can of worms you want to open?
Didn't think so.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That loophole was closed in Australian tax law over 15 years ago. Unless he does business like a company (with multiple significant clients - I think it is something like no more than 80% of your income being derived from a single source) he will be treated as an individual anyway. If he claims like a company under false circumstances it is illegal tax evasion.
And your "math" is stupid. You pay income taxes in the state you earned the income or resided. Not in states you never worked or resided in.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Have you heard of import duty? When you drive back into your own country you pass through customs and declare goods purchased. Depending on the tax law of the country you may be required to pay import duty.
Having someone else do it for you doesn't negate this requirement, nor should a postal / Courier service.
I'm not seeing the reciprocal agreement here. I'm seeing a cite of a document that says the U.S. is weird about income taxes, and that New York is weird about income taxes, and that establishing a nexus obligates both parties, assuming the foreign power chooses to be obligated (why opt in when you can opt out?!?).
I don't see an 11% income tax in Singapore and a 25% income tax in California for an income generating transaction between the two resulting in no more than 25% out of pocket (however you apportion it) for the person receiving the income.
Try again.
Then maybe you should look harder. The US has tax treaties with plenty of countries.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Oh? Ohio and Michigan require a shop in California to collect Ohio or Michigan sales tax when selling something to someone in Ohio or Michiga? I never heard of that in my 28 years living in those two states. I wonder how they enforce it.
My math was spot-on for the scenario you are arguing for. If you want to insist that every state has the right to make entities in other states collect tax on their behalf, that enables other states to decide they want to collect income tax from those sellers, as well. Tax jurisdiction covers all taxes, not just the ones that conveniently fit your argument. Follow?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
As this is an Australian story, you should be using the correct terminology. Tax evasion and tax avoidance are the same thing. It's tax minimisation that's the legal one.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian that worked in the Australian finance industry for ten years, and have qualifications in financial planning. Tax avoidance will get you in trouble here.
http://news.yahoo.com/warren-b...
Casteism
If they fixed the loopholes Google might say this: http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/a...
1) I've already posted the links elsewhere for New York (which you conveniently forgot about???), Ohio, and Michigan.
2) Your math (and "logic") still sucks - it's a "what if" scenario. Try to stick to the real world.
Also - this other ridiculous claim of yours - "Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; " fails in the real world. Ever bring back goods through customs? Pass over your exemptions, you pay, even though the items were purchased in an area that has no jurisdiction over you. And you can pay your tax, and get a refund from the area that taxed you (for example, you buy something in Canada and pay Canadian taxes on it, then pay taxes again at the US. Mail your receipts and proof of tax to the provincial tax authority and they will refund the tax paid)
The US also claims world-wide tax jurisdiction over Americans who haven't lived in the US for years. Now they're enforcing it by requiring banks in other countries to hand over financial information on customers who are US citizens.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Then maybe you should look harder. The US has tax treaties with plenty of countries.
This applies to personal income taxes, not corporate income taxes. Although corporations are nominally people in the U.S., it isn't true worldwide, and it's actually not even true in the U.S., or there would be no distinction between personal and corporate income tax rates, or, in the U.S., S-corps vs. C-corps.
Try again: find a specific treaty dealing with apportioning of corporate income tax *which caps that tax*, as a total, to the higher of two states, when apportioned between those states.
You aren't going to find it outside of some place like Myanmar (Burma), a country with which the U.S. does not treat, and which corporations will not touch with an 11 foot pole.
1) I've already posted the links elsewhere for New York (which you conveniently forgot about???), Ohio, and Michigan.
In this thread? No, that was Florida.
2) Your math (and "logic") still sucks - it's a "what if" scenario. Try to stick to the real world.
Except that we're discussing your hypothetical world in which every tax district in the world has jurisdiction over every other tax district.
Also - this other ridiculous claim of yours - "Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; " fails in the real world.
No, it doesn't, and you're about to see why...
Ever bring back goods through customs?
No, but my father in law is a customs agent and has been consulted in this matter.
Pass over your exemptions, you pay, even though the items were purchased in an area that has no jurisdiction over you.
That's a federal import duty, not sales tax, and you are being charged, not the seller who resides outside the borders of th government imposing the duty. That does not indicate that your local tax district has jurisdiction outside its own borers.If you did not pay sales tax on the item when you bought it and it happens to be something that would be taxable in your locality, you do still ow sales tax in your local tax district. That's right you owe it not the seller, and the seller can't get in trouble for not collecting it. Ever wonder why? Let me explain again: Because your local tax district has no jurisdiction over a seller outside its own borders.
And you can pay your tax, and get a refund from the area that taxed you
Again, it's a duty, and there's no such "world law" that requires every tax authority, everywhere, to refund your sales tax just because you had to pay a duty. But, since you gave this example:
(for example, you buy something in Canada and pay Canadian taxes on it, then pay taxes again at the US. Mail your receipts and proof of tax to the provincial tax authority and they will refund the tax paid)
Canada passed a law which only covers non-commercial transactions and only applies to certain goods. Also not that, as of the 1st of this month, refund requests of $2 or less will be denied. Also note that this policy only applies in Canada. It's likely that at least one other country does something similar, but that's that country's government making concessions in order to attract tourist money, not your local tax districts enforcing jurisdiction (which they don't have) to make them refund tax they charged that happened to overlap a federal duty amount you also had to pay.
The US also claims world-wide tax jurisdiction over Americans who haven't lived in the US for years. Now they're enforcing it by requiring banks in other countries to hand over financial information on customers who are US citizens.
You also claim you are correct on this matter. That doesn't make it so, no matter how much you might try to intimidate.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Also, you're wrong about New York. And Ohio. Oh, Michigan, too.
Starting this October, via a law that was signed in January, Michigan will start following many other states (like Texas, for example) in considering even one single employee, warehouse, or affiliate to be a legal presence. I don't entirely disagree with that, either, but it's a far cry from your claim that they have jurisdiction over entities with no presence there. If they already had that, they wouldn't need this law to redefine legal presence, would they?
And now, since you seem to follow me around for the sake of argument (which makes it personal)... I think it's cool that you realized that your birth-assigned gender was incorrect and took steps to correct the issue. I think it's great that you're open about it and wish our society was more accepting of people in your position. I honestly and truly admire the bravery it took to do what you did. That's where my respect for you stops. You're a bitch in pretty much every other respect and, it seems, even more vicious when you know you are wrong, as in this instance.
Seriously, just stop posting misinformation and made up shit in response to my comments here. Yes, I know I could simply stop responding when you do, but, you see, that would bi a disservice to my fellow Slashdotters, many of whom may not yet have realized just how mental you really are.
And yes, that's a personal attack. Remember, you fired first by following me around with the intention of starting this shit.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For the greatest senate hearing on tax in Australia, I refer people to when Kerry Packer was summoned (media mogul like Murdoch) www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA
That's not true. Companies charge what the market can bear, and if they had lower taxes, they'd mostly just reap higher margins. Do you really think Apples prices would significantly rise if their tax burden went up? That's certainly not true of all markets.
Of course they'd raise their prices when their tax burden goes up and they'll cry foul "B-B-B-but it's the ebil gubbermint thats making us raise our prices" before doing another line of coke off a high end escort's arse with rolled up $100 note that is then used to light a cigar.
That depends greatly on the specifics, but it generally isn't true. Companies can't just substantially change prices without losing money. It may be more profitable to leave the prices alone and just make less money per sale, than to raise prices and watch the volume drop.
Any taxes paid by corporations are directly and immediately passed on to their customers anyway so what the hell is the difference?
You could argue the same thing of any tax. Sales taxes raise costs of living, which means workers won't live in the area unless employers pay more, which means their costs go up, which means prices go up, which raises the cost of living. Income taxes get passed on to employers (since they have to pay more so that people are still willing to work for them), that gets passed on to customers, and so on.
And yet, taxes still work and have worked for centuries. There might be a loop, but as long as people can keep a reasonable return on their work, they'll work. It isn't like the taxes add up to 150%.
In an ideal world, the electorate can deal with the immoral government, and the government can deal with the immoral company by making their actions illegal (if indeed it's the will of the people to crack down on immoral activity).
I'm not arguing that they should be punished for being immoral, but long term, they probably *should* expect the law to stop treating them so favourably.
Agree, but governments should really do these kinds of tax law fixes in a way that creates tremendous expenses for companies that have been gaming the system.
Otherwise they'll just keep finding another loophole.
It might even make sense to make tax code changes ex post facto for some period of time. That would create tremendous risks for anybody taking advantage of loopholes, and thus companies would just be boring and use traditional accounting.