Slashdot Mirror
EU Unveils Plan To Force Facebook, Google and Amazon To Pay Their Fair Share of Tax (independent.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: The European Commission is bringing forward plans to make major multinationals such as Google, Amazon and Facebook disclose exactly where and how much tax they pay across the continent. The plan was expected to include rules requiring businesses earning more than 600 million euros a year (nearly $700 USD) to open up their tax affairs to public scrutiny, revealing their profits and accounts in every country in which they operate within the EU. Since the Panama Papers, a new clause has reportedly been added to require the companies to say how much money they make in so-called "tax havens." A final, more general statement would reveal profits in the rest of the world, treated as a single item. The plans will be presented by Britain's EU Commissioner, Lord Hill, who told the BBC: "This is a carefully thought through but ambitious proposal for more transparency on tax. While our proposal on [country-by-country reporting] is not of course focused principally on the response to the Panama Papers, there is an important connection between our continuing work on tax transparency and tax havens that we are building into the proposal."
The plan was expected to include rules requiring businesses earning more than 600 million euros a year (nearly $700 USD) to open up their tax affairs to public scrutiny, revealing their profits and accounts in every country in which they operate within the EU
Wow, that's quite an exchange rate.
The headline is completely and utterly unrelated to the summary.
One is about paying taxes, the other about disclosing taxes. Whoever posted this garbage needs to be subjected to disciplinary action.
There is this fallacious, persistent belief that if somehow the EU could get hold of more money, all their problems would be solved. This is not the case. When a government, at any level from local to supra-national, gets more money, what happens? They blow it immediately on stupid crap, or use it to fortify their own power. Then, the money is gone and it will never come back. However now that they are used to the higher income level, the quest for more money begins anew.
There is a wonderful short story, called The Rocking Horse Winner, about just this situation. I urge all of you to read it, it's only 5-10 minutes and is well worth the time. More money doesn't fix anything, it just generates demand for even more money.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I find it quite the irony that the British commissioner is in charge of this proposal.
The term 'Offshore' for banking is a very British institution referring to their Crown dependencies on smaller islands, be it on the Channel Islands or in the Caribbean.
In 1978 when I started working internationally all British engineers had such an Offshore Account and it wasn't because they wanted their bank manager to live in nicer weather.
Let's see if there is another howl in Westminster about Brussels interfering in their national interests.
A lot of the problems could have been fixed by the British parliament years ago.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Seriously, euros, stick to what you people do better: murder people by the millions, cover up crimes and make all sort of perverted porn stuff.
We're not all Muslims yet you know
Why is this a duty. Where did it "maximize" profit for shareholders come from? By that logic, should they sell drugs too? If you take the benefits of a safe modern society, you need to pay your fair share
They normally do not care even the slightest, but the panama buggery made them pull of this stunt just to save face.
It is a thing we'd wish happen, but much like everything else, the reality is set by the backroom deals and agreements.
i expect nothing to change.
Last I checked, laws trump "fiduciary duties"; never even minding that the latter are an ideological joke designed to "justify" the fact that CEOs/directors screw everyone they can [iow, sociopathic behavior].
If we can have lists of "rogue nations" and "terrorist organisations" that it is illegal to deal with, then there's no reason why we can't also have lists of "rogue tax-haven nations" (like British Virgin Islands) and "tax-evasion organisations" (like Mossack Fonseca) that it is also illegal to deal with.
It should be a serious crime with huge penalties (both monetary and gaol time) to negotiate with or transact business with any government, company or organisation in one of the listed countries, or to own, operate or conduct business with any listed entity in the organisations list.
That would solve the problem at its source.
And before anyone says that Mossack Fonseca is a legal company that provides other services than just setup of shell companies and tax evasion, the same is true of Hamas. They are a huge humanitarian organisation in the Middle East, providing financial and medical aid and other services to those who need it. Unfortunately, they also have a nutcase terrorist militant wing - this gets them listed as a terrorist organisation and no amount of humanitarian work by the majority non-terrorist parts of Hamas will ever get them off that list.
if you are not required to pay your part, then the gov't has no obligations to serve you. none whatsoever.
it's really that simple.
no tax= no infrastructure, health, schooling, law enforcement or anything really. want that backroad fixed? pay up. you're having problems with burglars? tough. hire a guard service. ... oh wait, you already do.
broke a leg? pay up!
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth.
Considering all the wealth they create ends up in their own pockets, I'd say it's a fair deal.
Eat the rich.
The whole problem is they are not creating wealth, at least not in the countries they are siphoning money away from, they are doing the opposite. This isn't about punishing them, it is about creating a level playing field where just because you are a multinational that can move HQ into a tax haven that you can't gain a competitive advantage on local companies that have to pay their taxes.
Taxes are theft.
And yes, it might become more difficult for them to hoodwink their (EU) state tax office when they have to disclose what they earn and how much tax they pay in which other EU state.
In the US you can't avoid the IRS either by clever apportionment of your business between Vermont, Wisconsin and Hawaii. You're free however to pack up in one state if you think you're better off in another state for tax reasons.
In that way, state taxes simply become a factor in location choice, along with all the others. I fail to see the problem with that.
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth.
Nonsens. Who do you think are the real wealth creators? The fat cats that sit at the top, skimming the cream off the labour of others without much effort? Or the people who put in a real day's work, whether they are called engineers, hi-tech entrepreneurs, farmers or manual labourers? All of these groups of wealth creators will keep working, because they have to, whether they pay taxes or not; if they don't, they can't feed their families. If your only contribution to society consist in siphoning un-earned money into your own wallet, then you are nothing more than a parasite, and the rest of us would be better off without you.
The term "wealth creator" is basically a giant red flag that means "This person is an utter tool or a troll or both".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
who cares what the crown royals are dastarding about anymore... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=native+peace+spirit
Why would EU want multinational giants like Google to have full disclosure of their tax evasion strategies when they have absolutely no intention to hide it? Their tax evasion strategies are commonly known as "Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich", which could easily be found in modern textbooks.
Ultimately the corporate taxes are waived in Bermuda (aka. Bermuda Black Hole), I wondered how EU was supposed to regulate it?
Why doesn't this apply to everyone? So people/companies making less than 600milion can still hide money. It just became a good idea to have multiple companies instead of 1 big one. Just wait, Mercedes Benz will now be 2 different companies, each with the same share holders, each with exclusive contracts to each other, but both making less than 600 million.
So now that it's the run-up to the EU exit referendum in the UK, the Google search engine will be modified so that any "should UK leave the EU" search will simply return "Yes, because we want to keep our tax situation secret in the UK".
Which is why for instance in French, the word for "stolen" and for "private" are the same: privé.
The term "wealth creator" is basically a giant red flag that means "This person is an utter tool or a troll or both".
It is a term lifted from the writings of Ayn Rand and means somebody who strives to be utterly completely and perfectly selfish and most of all strives to prevent socialism, communism, and any other state intervention in society, that allows poor people to "leech" his hard-earned wealth.
I keep hearing about the various governments being out this number of billions or that number of billions. But where I see the big problem is competition. How can local companies compete with these non-tax paying companies when they are forced to pay taxes.
Capitalism is quite simply the reinvestment in the means of production. With tech companies this can be a complicated relationship with both reinvesting in the actual product, and having the cash available to go around buying out similar companies. Another layer in that involves both issuing new shares to buy companies, and issuing shares to attract investors.
As an example, if a local UK company wants to compete with Google in the ad space in the UK, they will end up paying full taxes on any profits; while google won't. Thus google will be able to return a higher profit to their investors, have more cash to buy out competitors, and will be able to issue more valuable shares as part of those buyouts. The UK company will simply have much of its value continuously eroded by taxes that are annually removed from its balance.
Obviously using google as a comparison to some little ad company is a bit unbalanced, but the same applies to any homegrown company that legally exists only in the European country. Cutting edge drones, robotics, 3D printing, or pretty much anything along those lines will not be able to match the growth curve of a company paying a tiny fraction in taxes.
Those sort of companies that could otherwise become international players are what drives a country's economy. To allow certain countries to always have the upper hand is just going to be a long term bad plan.
So I wouldn't be so much worrying about the handful of missing billions but the long term missing trillions.
So quite simply, make sure that these international companies are under the exact same tax burden as a local company when it involves any business within Europe.
So if a local company were to make an apple priced smart phone and would end up paying $80 in taxes. Make sure that Apple selling the same phone is paying $80 in taxes regardless of what paper shenanigans they try.
Considering all the wealth they create ends up in their own pockets.
This is a common misconception and you know it.
It'd be interesting to know who was the first, among Google, FB and AZ, to build a clever financial scheme in order to - legally (that's why the law is being changed) - pay less taxes. My money would go on Google being the smartest, the other would have simply copy-pasted.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
And if those fat cats happen to have started a successful business and made it grow through good strategic leadership, are they still leeches siphoning un-earned money?
" murder people by the millions, cover up crimes and make all sort of perverted porn stuff." . hmm that sounds very muck like how the rest of the world describes the merkin homeland.
it depends, if the business becomes the business of leeching unearned money and shuffling random numbers around various accounts to generate larger bonuses and hiding the money away then yes they are. Even if they blow all the money in bad management at least they benefit the economy they spend it in. Money is meant to be used not hoarded otherwise it doesn't benefit society.
Well it makes even more sense comsidering the phrase is French in origin. Predates communism by about 2 centuries and was the original credo of classic libertarians.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I think you had your answer at "un-earned".
Nah, the muricans have the murdering down pat, but they get their knickers in a twist over a nipple. The good freaky porn still comes from Germany, Holland and Japan.
The ratio of wealth creators among the 1% is probably also on the order of 1%. Most of the super-rich don't create wealth, except for themselves. In my country, recent statistics say that 80% of the wealth of the rich (millionaires and above) is inherited.
Lots of the famous super-rich started that way. Gates parents were wealthy, and the Trump empire was built by two generations (not including Donald).
The real wealth creators are in the middle class. Not the one-in-a-million startups that make billion dollar IPOs, but the one-in-five startups that create a viable, middle-sized company and employ a dozen or a hundred people.
That is where wealth is created. And incidentally, it is also where taxes are the most heavy. Because all the tax breaks that are pushed through with your argument are always for the top.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
When you use terms like "fair share" in a headline, you are taking an editorial stance.
Taxes are theft.
Lack of taxes is lack of theft, but the converse is not true.
Theft is a crime. Crime can only exist if there is a legal system. There cannot be a legal system without a public body. There cannot be a public body without public infrastructure. There cannot be a public infrastructure without public money. There cannot be public money without public income. The catchall term for public income is "tax". Therefore there can be no theft without tax.
(Strictly speaking, what I have said is not true. Fines and penalty charges are not considered "tax", but a society which generates any large portion of its public income from fines is not one I would like to be part of. That very quickly leads to an explosion in "crimes" -- see civil forfeiture in the US for example.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
come to think of it, it extends quite far.
no tax: corporations or businesses cannot demand an educated workforce unless they educate the workforce themselves.
Considering all the wealth they create ends up in their own pockets.
This is a common misconception and you know it.
Not so much when that pocket is an offshore account in some tax haven.
Have fun when society collapses around your fucking ears then.
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth. -- roman_mir
Oh yes, I can just picture it now. "What?!? I'm only going to get 3 gazillion megabucks? But I wanted 5 gazillion megabucks. Sod it all. I'm declaring insolvency!"
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Whereas proper economic theory all revolves around creators of value. It's a far more interesting term, because you can be a value creator without making a penny in profit. "Wealth creation" is only apparent when someone can point to a stupidly high number somewhere -- how can there be "wealth" if no-one is rich? Thus being rich is painted as a virtue in and of itself.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
In Italian too, to remove sth. from sbd. is the same word as private, namely "privato". I'm fairly sure it goes back to ancient Latin.
The glorification of theft and coercion (oh sorry, "capitalism") is entirely a modern conception. One that 99% of people would be better off without, I might add.
Why is the EU requiring the companies to disclose tax info paid to EU members..why dont they just require the EU members to provide them with that information?
"It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state"
Governments does not have to support themselves through taxation. They only need income, which a government can have in many ways: ...
* Taxes, of course
* Printing money. Increase the money supply by 10% every year, and suffer 10% inflation. 10% of the economy may be enough to run a government. Of course, some will call it "a tax on money". Still, you don't need the overhead of a tax bureau, taxmen, or even companies reporting their earnings.
* Investments - a government can own companies and fund itself from the profits
* Land ownership - the government may own the land and fund itself by selling the oil & uranium inside. Possibly also collect rent from other land use; agriculture, land for buildings,
* Donations & sale of souvenirs - a popular method for microstates like Sealand.
a new clause has reportedly been added to require the companies to say how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."
Proving once again that politicians have zero understanding about how a "tax haven" actually works. I can't really declare income on money that doesn't belong to me anymore...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is almost $700 US?! Wow, when did the euro become so cheap?
...is not a crime. The logical reaction to our current 'hot mess' of tax regulation is to simplify the tax code, not heap another layer of regulations on top of it.
Bill Gates father was a lawyer, not a millionaire or billionaire... Was Bill Gates the beneficiary of many benefits having been born to a reasonably wealthy family? Sure, but he also was an entrepreneur in high school as I recall, having started a Traf-o-counter business before his semester at Harvard. The spoon in Gates mouth when he was born wasn't silver or gold, nor was it plastic - it was stainless steel.
Companies should pay tax in all locations in which they operate. If they gross some amount across 2 countries, and they're earnings are split 60/40 between countries A and B, then they should be taxed on 60% of their earnings at country A's tax rates and 40% at country B's tax rate. If any money is shifted between country A and B within the company, then it should be taxed leaving country A at their tax rate, and entering country B at their tax rate. This might reduce the advantage for countries with lower tax rates.
but... I'm thinking this is how the tax system already works and no matter how it's setup, the rich will find a way around it.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Not true. Crime exists whether there is an official legal system or not. If we live on a deserted island and I break into your home and steal your stuff, I am just as much a thief as if we lived in Chicago or London.
The only difference is that in the desert island scenario, it falls to you to punish the one responsible or otherwise seek restitution. If you're not strong enough or aren't armed well enough or can't fight well enough, I get away with it. I'm still a criminal dickweed, but I get away with it.
Justice comes from the barrel of a gun, the only difference is who's behind the trigger.
Yes, a lot of it goes towards offshoring jobs.
When it comes to taxes, those who throw the phrase "fair share" around interpret it as more, more, always more, more, and a hell of a lot more.
Fine no tax then no fire / free ambulance / cops / etc.
Now it's not fair to the workers to cut them off from the ambulance so if need we bill your office for that cost if needed. And if it's a night and some one beakers in we are not sending the cops to help you.
Google, Apple, Tesla, FB, HP even were created by one or a couple of guys and some private investors, these are the people that own the companies, they are multi billionaires, they are the 'fat cats, skimming off the top', their day of work is in taking enormous risk of doing something new that very few others ever do. The people working for them take no risk in applying for a job, working for somebody else makes the company more productive based on the job the company created but without the company that job does not exist. That product or service does not exist. That investment opportunity does not exist. Even that tax base does not exist.
AFAIC people that start companies have paid their 'fair share' many times over simply by building the business and should not be paying any government abt amount in any form of an income of wealth taxes at all.
You think you can be productive without businesses you work for? Not unless you start your own one.
You can't handle the truth.
Isn't Ireland (Eire) in the EU ?
They must have low taxes or why would so many US companies movr their KQ there...
These companies are *not* doing anything illegal, and it's not like we don't know what they're doing. The EU brought this on themselves. When you write laws that let people screw you, you're going to get screwed. Quit blaming the companies for doing legal tax avoidance, and fix the tax laws instead.
We want to enrich our cronies even more. We don't care about you, we only care about ourselves and our cronies.
MORE MONEY FOR CRONIES!
A "fiduciary duty" is the law.
Sociopathic behavior is taking other people's money under false pretenses to advance your pet causes.
Like when a company whose prospectus says that they are building phones then takes that money to work for women's equality.
Infrastructure, health, schooling, and law enforcement are paid for through local taxes, user fees, and sales taxes; they do not justify national corporate taxes.
Furthermore, the US has spent massively on European defense, so by your reasoning, US companies operating in Europe should get a massive tax break just for that.
And if those fat cats happen to have started a successful business and made it grow through good strategic leadership, are they still leeches siphoning un-earned money?
Look at your own question and tell me if you haven't already answered it. If you start a business and provide good leadership, does that not add value to the company? That isn't the same as sitting on a big pile of money and lending it out in order to skim off interest of the work of others.
It's not Facebook or Google. It's Facebook-UK or Google-Italy. Each can report their income and expenses within the jurisdiction that they operate. Usually this is an individual country. Those expenses can include interest, franchise, management, licensing and other fees paid to the parent corporation. If this parent corporation resides outside that taxing jurisdiction, good luck getting any continent-wide or global information out. The subsidiary doesn't have access to it and the local taxing authorities can't touch the parent.
Have gnu, will travel.
>> 600 million euros a year (nearly $700 USD)
I wish. I could retire on the change in my pocket.
What I'm seeing is a lot of people looking at their 401K (or whatever equivalent retirement account system their country might have) and saying "Hey! Why is my retirement account growing 35% slower than it has been for the last ten years???"
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Taken a piece at a time:
Google, Apple, Tesla, FB, HP even were created by one or a couple of guys and some private investors
True, but the nature and origination of the investors could have taken several different forms, from people investing money to workers investing time. The form is immaterial, and done more out of convenience.
these are the people that own the companies, they are multi billionaires
Not specifically. Investment usually doesn't denote partial ownership in a private company, more of a percentage of return.
their day of work is in taking enormous risk of doing something new that very few others ever do
So they are skydivers then? No aspect of that is relevant except for the mythos of the capitalist class.
The people working for them take no risk in applying for a job
And here is where you completely lose the plot.
Are the employees paid in advance? It seems like a substantial risk in which employees are investing their time with a promise of payment at a future date. So exactly how is this different than others investing money?
Not to mention the business isn't just taking anyone off the street. You want trained people, and my suspicion is that said business paid no part of the training. So these people who "take no risk" apparently already took a huge risk in paying forward for training with no guarantee of a job.
working for somebody else makes the company more productive based on the job the company created but without the company that job does not exist
Really now. So it is the employer that creates the job, and not the customer? You sure about that? And tell me, should a business falter, who gets paid first, the investors or the employees? Tell me again about who is assuming risk here.
That product or service does not exist. That investment opportunity does not exist. Even that tax base does not exist.
It also fails to exist without an employee, who as already taken considerable risk at procuring training on his own dime, forgoing payment upfront for his time, and lost opportunity cost. I fail to see how one is substantial more important or riskier than the other.
AFAIC people that start companies have paid their 'fair share' many times over simply by building the business
You sound very much like the roofer who takes credit for building the entire house.
and should not be paying any government abt amount in any form of an income of wealth taxes at all.
Own all of your roads do you? Pay for your own private defense force? Have your own courts to arbitrate disagreements? Have you ever heard of the free-rider problem?
You think you can be productive without businesses you work for?
More importantly, do you think a business can be productive without trained workers, stable currencies, trustworthy courts, a lack of civil war, fire departments, roads, sewage treatment... essentially civilization?
Tell you what, go to the bush and form your own civilization and quit blowing smoke up my ass about the job creator class.
Since the Panama Papers, a new clause has reportedly been added to require the companies to say how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."
To pretty much every country, every other country charging a lower corporate tax rate is a "tax haven". Why don't they just come out and state they want to tax earnings made overseas since other countries are somehow able to charge lower tax rates, and that's "not fair"...
Heck, let's just jack everyone up to the level of the US, near 47% just to make it fair worldwide...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
William Gates II was a lawyer for the bankers and did well enough to put a million dollars in trust for William Gates the 3rd as well as send him to an expensive school where he had early access to computers and his Mother was well connected enough to get him introduced to the big shots at IBM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Seriously, $name, stick to what you people do better: murder people by the millions, cover up crimes and make all sort of perverted porn stuff. This is, and always has been, all that $name have been good at. Keep doing that. Within your borders of course.
Setting $name to "euros" is boring. Time to find better substitutions. ...
Ideas : "elves" (for fantasy), "robots" (for science fiction), "jews" (for getting banned), "muslims" (for getting killed), "kids" (for... chan?),
Considering what's coming out in the papers I think the first thing should be is to publish the finances of the politicians and make sure that they are paying their "fair share" of taxes. The companies are doing what they are legally allowed to do. They have to minimize the tax they pay or else the shareholders will either sue or have the members of the board removed. While we may not like it and think that they should be paying more taxes the solution to the problem is for the politicians is to change tax law so that the ways to write off expenses are no longer valid.
Of course by closing the offshore tax havens then the politicians would have to pay more tax themselves and they wouldn't want that.
Repost with a user name, I will definitely take your arguments and disassemble them for you one by one.
You can't handle the truth.
Financial corporations use the same tax havens as tech corporations, yet they are not to be forced to pay their fair share of tax.
captcha: shorting
You wanna make business in my country, you gonna heed the laws of my country.
But this ain't North Korea. You're free to get the fuck out any time you want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How much do you pay for your protection? Your health care provider? How much for the roads you drive on? Having your own military protecting you must be really tough on your wallet too, how much is that if I may ask?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What pet causes would that be exactly? Police? Road maintenance? Military?
It may be news to you, but your finance minister doesn't put it in a huge money bin a la Scrooge McDuck to swim in it. If you want to find out what asshole you have to pay taxes for, find a mirror.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
For a couple of thousand dollars, you too can be a multi-national company with an HQ overseas in a tax haven. What's stopping you from doing the same thing? You can also keep most of your earnings overseas. Of course - just like the big guys - when you repatriate those funds you'll pay taxes on them, but that's at a time of YOUR choosing, not when the Government demands.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes mr. wealth creator. Please run to your island. We will miss you ...
It'd be nice if levying taxes against them were a great solution, but you're not just "levelling the playing field". You're also giving the government plenty of cash to waste on idiotic things - employing more bureaucrats, paying invalids to do nothing, etc. The issue I personally have with these laws is that I know the money won't be doing anything better in the governments' hands. In fact, it might be worse: a company will expand, employ more people, create more jobs, etc. The government will not do any of that, though. The government will only waste the new tax income and become entirely reliant upon it, such that it will increase other taxes in the future when its glutton-laden self can no longer sustain its appetite on the new corporate tax.
You're wrong:
"There’s no doubt that entrepreneurship is thriving globally. Fully 1,191 members of the [worlds billionaire list] are self-made billionaires, while just 230 inherited their wealth. Another 405 inherited at least a portion but are still working to increase their fortunes."
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/03/02/inside-the-2015-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/#15b8969a6cec
There's no evidence of the million dollar trust, but all of that aside - bill gates certainly wasn't part of the "1%". Additionally, there are plenty of children who are as well off or even better off that do not come anywhere close to Bill Gates. There's only one Bill Gates, and he was intelligent and hard working since childhood:
"Gates graduated from Lakeside School in 1973, and was a National Merit Scholar.[34] He scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT[35] and enrolled at Harvard College in the autumn of 1973.[36] While at Harvard, he met Steve Ballmer, who would later succeed Gates as CEO of Microsoft.[37]" (wikipedia)
So, no, based on the fact that he has made an incredible amount of money, he shouldn't be arbitrarily taxed more because he is successful. That's fucking idiotic.
Given the 39% tax bracket that he falls under, he's writing the government a huge check - let alone the fact that he's done more for the world than the government will ever do with that tax revenue. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is doing great things across the globe.
Which is another irony. I've yet to find a statistically significant number of people who cry in favor of taxation that are also charitable in any sense. They don't volunteer, they don't donate... Hello, pot. Meet kettle.
You're trying to be sarcastic, but that actually sounds like an excellent deal for the company. Private 24-hour security guards and firefighters would cost them significantly less than the taxes they currently pay, while providing better service. However, I'm not sure why you think you ought to send the worker's ambulance bill to the office; their home address would be a more reasonable and customary choice, unless the company has some special arrangement with the hospital on behalf of its employees.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
send a doctor bill to the workers their home address? in the EU?? the government covers that and they can just make the non tax payers cover the that bill at the full charge master price.
My signature sums up pretty much what I think. Let's reboot the Earth and then see where hedge fund managers fit into the list of indispensable jobs.
Contrived wealth.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
The solution? One global taxing authority. Which means you need some manner of deciding who gets what from whom and, probably, some muscle to enforce it. Perhaps governments will be forced to come together to prevent tax leakage by corporate actors. There are worse solutions.
That is all.
Sure, if you disregard all the poor and homeless people scraping by in the gutters.
Eat the rich.
Other sources disagree with Forbes.
For example, The Economist - http://www.economist.com/blogs... - says the formula is changing back, the low point was in the 50s, ever since the ratio of inherited vs. earned wealth has tilted back towards inheritance.
And The Wall Street Journal - http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20... - directly picks apart the Forbes article you quote.
Maybe the US or the world is not as twisted as here, I only had numbers for Germany when I posted. But the WSJ article is a good read.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Given the 39% tax bracket that he falls under, he's writing the government a huge check
Please, who are you kidding? Gates made about 1 mio. in salary at MS. But he made 100-200 times that much in dividends.
let alone the fact that he's done more for the world than the government will ever do with that tax revenue
Locking the worlds computers into a monopoly, extracting monopoly rent from the market that could've been spent on R&D, damaging countless small, innovative companies with his business practice, dividing and preventing standardisation in multiple fields - shall I go on?
The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is doing great things across the globe.
That is true, though there is some criticism aimed at it as well (driving out alternatives, monopolising its "market", etc), it does have a beneficial impact.
I've yet to find a statistically significant number of people who cry in favor of taxation that are also charitable in any sense.
Are you fucking mental? One of the most well-established facts of social science is that in share of income, poor people tend to give much, much more to charity then rich people. Generally, they overlap favoribly with the people who wouldn't mind higher taxes on the super-rich.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Have you actually ever read Atlas Shrugged? The biggest villains are rich people. It's not like Ayn's Rand's philosophy is incredibly nuanced, but it's also not the oversimplification that her critics (who usually have never actually read her books) make it out to be.
Did Ayn Rand advocate selfishness as a virtue? Yes, but this was to be provocative, and her definition of selfishness was different than what most people would consider selfishness. But if you actually read the book, you'd see that the people who were actually selfish in the common sense of the word were all villains proclaiming to be selfless.
Should you read Atlas Shrugged? No, it's a terrible book. But you should read it if you intend to criticize it, so you are at least knowledgeable on the subject.
If you want to treat wealth as a relative term (e.g. you only have wealth if you are *more* wealthy than someone else), and value as an absolute term (e.g. you can create value even if what you create is less valuable than what someone else created), that's fine, but I don't think that semantic distinction is widely accepted.
I use the two terms pretty much interchangeably.
I would say that people who have wealth are not necessarily wealth creators. A person who wins the lottery is wealthy, but didn't create any of that wealth, they just acquired it.
Also, I think it is fair to count consumption as wealth destruction. So if you create $100 of wealth/value doing your job, sell the products of your for $100, and then use that money to buy and eat $100 worth of tacos, you are basically "wealth neutral".
The fact is, that the European companies hide as much or more taxes, and yet, the Europeans scream about Americans.
Just too funny.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The majority of the 1% inherited their wealth and most of that wealth can be traced back to some extremely dodgy deal in the past. Eat the rich.
My point isn't about the technical semantics of the term, but about the psychological side-effects of it. "Wealth creation" can and does serve as a way of justifying being rich as a virtue.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I agree that the term "wealth creators" and "job creators" are used for this purpose. All I am saying is that I think "value creators" could be used as well.