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."
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
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
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.
If you think the government gives you nothing back, you're right to be annoyed. I get free health care, free education, free social care, a welfare system to look out for me if I'm in trouble, a pension when I got old (perhaps). I get police to keep things in order and try to make sure that I get to keep what's left of what I earn, and a fire brigade to look out for me. An ambulance that'll take me to hospital if that doesn't pan out. I get money channelled into research no company would have an interest in pursuing, but that makes people's lives better. I get roads to drive and walk down, and parks to take my kids to. I get playgrounds and lakes. I get food that doesn't kill me, and toys that don't hurt my kids. I get a computer that doesn't injure me.
But yeah, down with the government.
jh
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.
I believe that this is the law. The trick is defining "earnings". Earnings implies gross revenue minus operating expenses.
Let's say a multinational corporation operates in the USA (30% tax rate) and in the Cayman Islands (1% tax rate). Call them Foogle. They get 99.99% of their revenue from the USA, and 0.01 from the Cayman Islands. However they have a subsidiary, also based in the Cayman Islands, and they "license" the intellectual property for their company from this Cayman Island corporation for an amount precisely equal to the amount of their global revenue.
So in the USA, they show zero "earnings" (profits) and in the Cayman Islands, they show a ton of earnings (profits). So they pay 1% tax to the Cayman Islands and 0% to the USA.
That is the type of game they play. And when the laws get written to tighten that up, they just play more complex games.
If you try and tax corporations on their gross revenue, you will make a lot of activities unprofitable. For example, if you are a bookstore and you sell $10m worth of books for a profit of $100k, and you now have to pay 5% tax on the $10m instead of 30% on the $100k, you will now owe more 5x more in taxes than you have in profits.