Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Announces Digital Services Tax on Tech Giants (itproportal.com)

Posted by msmash on from the paying-the-price dept.

Technology giants will have to pay more tax in the UK under new regulations unveiled by the local government today. From a report: In his budget statement this afternoon, Chancellor Phillip Hammond revealed a two percent "digital services tax" on large tech firms such as Amazon, Facebook and Google. From April 2020, large social media platforms, search engines and online marketplaces will pay a 2 percent tax on the revenues they earn which are linked to UK users. The tax follows increasing pressure from both the public and politicians to take action against multi-billion dollar firms paying low rates of tax in the UK. Both Google and Facebook have been criticised for paying little taxes in previous years, largely by centering their UK operations in Ireland to avoid higher charges. Revealing the tax in Parliament, Hammond said that it will be, "carefully designed to ensure it is established tech giants -- rather than our tech start-ups - that shoulder the burden of this new tax."

53 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's becoming increasingly difficult to compute taxes for multinational corporations. Country B may not allow Country A to see enough info to compute a fair tax. It may be just easier to tax revenues instead of "profits", because money coming in and out of your own country is easier to monitor than trying to figure out what companies do and spend in other countries.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Shell games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will endup like hollywood, where the movie earns 900 Million Dollars, but somehow lost money and is in the red... mostly to avoid paying contracts that give actors or anyone 1% of profits. Plus they write it off as a loss.

    2. Re:Shell games by CastrTroy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You could just not tax businesses at all. Every dollar that businesses pay in taxes is a dollar that they could be paying their employees, or being used to lower their prices, or investing in growing.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re: Shell games by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Totally. Corporations are like Scrooge McDuck; they squirrel away all of their ill earned gains in a giant bank vault so that top executives can go swimming in it.

    4. Re:Shell games by youngone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could just not tax businesses at all

      That's been tried before. It ended in almost every country in Europe having a revolution, governments fell and people died.
      Have a good read about the revolutions of 1848. You will find that one of the triggers was the fact that in many countries the upper class (landowners and business owners) paid no tax. The costs of running the nations fell on everyone else.
      Did they spend their massive profits on more staff? Hilarious. Of course they didn't.

    5. Re:Shell games by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It's actually very easy. You tax the companies for the products that are sold to UK customers. Your UK branch sells 1000$ iphones to 20 000 000 UK customers in one year ? Deal, 2% of 1000 x 20 000 000 tax. Easy peasy. No way to evade"

      Easy, indeed. It is in fact so easy, it's already done.

      It is called... VAT.

      "If every country did that American companies would have nowhere to hide their ill-gotten gains."

      VAT exists since long. VAT is exactly what you are asking for. And even then, it seems there still are ways to both directly defrauding in VAT and not being taxed fair enough even if religiously paying it.

      There's a saying where I'm from: you'd better use your head for more than resting your hat.

    6. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They tried that theory in Kansas a few years ago with terrible results: it blew the budget to heck. True, KS could go without roads, cops, and schools to balance the shrinking budget; but the people I know actually like civilization. If YOUR group wants to go back to the tax-free cave days, that's find by me; just don't do it where I live.

      One problem is that the USA no longer has many capital-intensive industries. Investments often don't return enough to justify them in the owners' minds, so the owners find ways to pocket the money themselves instead.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      that's find by me

      Correction: "that's fine by me".

      Modnays.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re:Shell games by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      While that is a nice sentiment it is rather naive.

      Reality: CEO gets paid millions while the grunt workers doing, you know, the ACTUAL work get paid peanuts.

      e.g. Case in point Bezos and Amazon workers.

    9. Re:Shell games by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      There is a sense to this, but you'd probably need to redo a lot of other laws or you're going to get a lot of people personally incorporating for tax reasons. Essentially, you'd end up with a lot of people trying to like sovereign citizens where they're claiming that it's not CastrTroy who works for a company, but CastrTroy, LLC. that works for the company and receives the pay check, and being a business itself owes no taxes. There's probably whole layers of tax code fuckery that people would get up to.

    10. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Source? Please elaborate.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    11. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      ...in many countries the upper class (landowners and business owners) paid no tax. The costs of running the nations fell on everyone else.

      Not taxing businesses and not taxing business owners are different things. I don't think anyone is saying someone who earns money from a business (i.e. receives a dividend) shouldn't pay tax on that income. What people (including me) are proposing is you only tax dividends when paid out. If I sell a stock share at a profit, that's because I expect futuredividends to be higher than when I bought. But I haven't actually received those dividends so don't tax them yet.

      Theory aside, I like the idea because taxes are ultimately paid by people. I think it makes it more visible how much tax you're paying if only actual real, live people pay taxes for real, actual income they receive.

    12. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      They tried that theory in Kansas a few years ago with terrible results: it blew the budget to heck.

      I assume by "this" you mean remove the Kansas corporate income tax. Did they increase their property or income taxes at the same time? If you cut taxes without cutting spending, of course your budget will be shredded (at least in the short term). In the longer term, perhaps the Laffer curve will save you but that will take time.

    13. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I'm proposing: 'It may be just easier to tax revenues instead of "profits"'

      I guess I didn't make it clear that I was more or less agreeing with the 2% tax proposal. At least the general idea. A common approach is to tax profits instead of revenue. But, profits are easier to play cross-border shell-games with than in-country revenue.

      For example, a corporation may manufacture 50% of a product in Country X and finish the rest in Country Y. On their tax return, they will need to gave that 50% gizmo a cost in order to calculate profits.

      They can exaggerate or reduce the estimated cost of the half-gizmo as needed to change the profit computations in Country Y. There may be no way to verify the cost given for the half-gizmo because it's not sold on the market place, and Country Y's tax inspectors may not be able to easily visit Country X to audit their operations.

      As a semi-side note, the Trump family allegedly did similar tricks to dodge taxes. Trump Sr's and Trump Jr's corporations would sell and buy buildings, services, and ownership shares back and forth at inflated or deflated prices depending on that year's tax stance to hide losses from investors and/or hide profits from IRS. For example, an oven for an apartment rental unit might be $600 on the market, but sold to a cross-family rental unit for $650. (They only have to quote any catalog price for IRS, not the lowest.) In aggregate, the Trumps' pocket the $50.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    14. Re:Shell games by youngone · · Score: 1

      Not taxing businesses and not taxing business owners are different things.

      You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
      Here in the real world however, the two will wind up being exactly the same thing, and business owners will pay no tax.

    15. Re:Shell games by fazig · · Score: 1

      True. Trickle down works to some degree. But you know, that requires having enough employees that can put their money back into the economy, being interested in offering lower prices and invested in growth.
      Let's start with the first requirement. I wonder how many employees these companies have in the UK or Europe by extension to whom they could possibly pass down those 'dollars'?

    16. Re:Shell games by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The subject was taxing businesses, not taxing business owners. When you tax a business (e.g. via corporate income taxes) the tax becomes just another business expense and the burden falls mainly on the customers in the form of higher prices or less selection, or most typically both. If your goal is to levy the burden of government on the upper class then corporate income taxes are not a productive approach.

      The costs of running the nations fell on everyone else.

      Even if you taxed the rich at 100% of income (all else being equal, which it wouldn't be) the majority of the cost would still fall on everyone else; there simply aren't that many rich. The majority of people pay the majority of the costs for their own upkeep; that's the only sustainable approach. When governments tax the majority beyond what they can bear in order to funnel resources to a few powerful individuals, however, then the stage is set for revolution. It's more a matter of where the money is being spent than where it comes from.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    17. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you cut taxes without cutting spending, of course your budget will be shredded (at least in the short term)

      The proponents used the Laffer argument that cuts would pay for themselves.

      perhaps the Laffer curve will save you but that will take time.

      Please test that theory on another country first. I don't want to be a guinea pig for Fox Labs.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    18. Re:Shell games by youngone · · Score: 1

      in order to funnel resources to a few powerful individuals, however, then the stage is set for revolution...

      Have a read of the Wisconsin/ Foxconn story on Slashdot today. That's what you wind up with.
      To be fair, my country is no better. We have agreed to pay James Cameron 25% of the cost of his Avatar movies, with no cap. You can bet your bottom dollar (well, James can bet mine) that he won't pay a single cent of tax here, and the taxpayers funding his hobby will never see any of the billions in profit either.
      Apparently paying massively profitable companies to come and do business is a good "investment".

    19. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

      What's the difference between theory and practice? In theory, nothing. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

      Here in the real world however, the two will wind up being exactly the same thing, and business owners will pay no tax.

      And this is where we differ. If you tax a company, it must react in one of a few ways. It can raise prices. It can cut wages or benefits. It can try to make it's suppliers accept lower prices for inputs. It can cut its profit margin. It can lower quality. What exactly it does will depend on the specifics of the markets it's operating in. For example, if labor is tight, cutting wages is very hard. If they sell products in a very competitive market, raising prices may be a non-starter.

      Thus if you tax a company, it's very hard to predict which actual people will bear the burden of the tax. If you tax the business owners, you know exactly who will bear the burden, the people who make a profit from the business.

      One can, of course, ask whether that's the people you want to tax. Perhaps you want to tax return on investment. Perhaps you'd rather tax wages or benefits. Maybe a sales tax is best. No matter which you like, I think it's much clearer when you know who you're taxing and what they did to get taxed.

    20. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      Please test that theory on another country first. I don't want to be a guinea pig for Fox Labs.

      Don't get me wrong. I have no idea where on the Laffer curve we are. Maybe raising rates will raise tax revenue, maybe it will lower it.

      I do know that a tax rate of 0% yields zero revenue, a tax rate of 100% will also raise zero revenue. Any tax rate in between will raise some revenue so there must be at least one maxima somewhere. Where it is is anyone's guess and don't find the theory useful to determining tax policy.

    21. Re: Shell games by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      How DARE those corporate owners (shareholders) keep the profits! Terrible!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:Shell games by jezwel · · Score: 1

      If you tax the business owners, you know exactly who will bear the burden, the people who make a profit from the business.

      Great! Let's tax Sergey Brin and Larry Page on their share of Google income.
      Oh wait they paid their income tax to the IRS? What about all those other countries where they sucked in all their revenue? No tax back for them huh? What happens when shareholders are shell companies in countries that don't report on their shareholders? Oh the company paid that countries income tax of 0%, how nice.

      There must be better ways for companies to help pay for the infrastructure that supports their business, but canning company tax will create a lot more problems IMO

    23. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      Great! Let's tax Sergey Brin and Larry Page on their share of Google income.

      I know you're being sarcastic but we do. When Google pays a dividend (if they do), Sergey and Larry get a huge chunk of that and pay income tax. What people don't like is that if Google keeps the money (to pay future dividends, to have an acquisition war chest, whatever), I'm proposing they don't get taxed on that. Current policy is that income gets taxed now, not when it's paid out as dividends.

      What about all those other countries where they sucked in all their revenue?

      I don't have a solid answer for that, other than companies tend to sell their shares world wide so their income will get somewhat distributed. They'll also hire workers all over the world. It won't exactly match where their income comes from and where their customers are. At some point, I kinda give up trying to get everything to match perfectly.

    24. Re:Shell games by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well there's an easy answer for that one. Obviously they're paying the key actors $100m each, the rest is spent on hookers and blow. And when it crashes in the theaters and is out on the 4th week for something else, the answer is to blame the fan base.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the maxima for the 1%'s income may be different than the maxima for the rest. And sometimes having a safety net is better than more average cash in pocket.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    26. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the maxima for the 1%'s income may be different than the maxima for the rest.

      Yes! Very good point, you can extract the most tax revenue by having different rates for different people. I don't know if maximizing tax revenue is a good policy goal but the argument seems sound. The other way to spin it is the progressive tax argument, that it normalizes the pain of paying taxes because the rich can afford to pay more because the marginal utility of each dollar they earn is less.

      And sometimes having a safety net is better than more average cash in pocket.

      Yup, that's also a good argument against having national policies. Different people will have different preferences about whether they want cash or safety (or to be more blunt, cash for themselves versus safety for others). Having one policy for 300 million people ensures most people will be unhappy with the decision.

    27. Re:Shell games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Most people think short term and dump their problems onto others, sometimes turning to crime, when down and out.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    28. Re:Shell games by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "problem is business to business transactions are not subject to VAT."

      Of course they are. That's why it is called value ADDED tax.

      "Actually what i'd do is make it a combined purchase and sales tax for business to business transactions so the buyer and seller each pay half."

      I don't know where did you get your idea of how VAT works but, basically you reached the nut of the problem: no matter where you tax, it is always finally translated to the end buyer. The consequence is that, because of that, it makes sense taxing where it's easier to collect: that's why indirect taxes (like your proposal) are so popular: they are very easy to collect . A very different question is the ethics of such recollection -a government should collect a tax just because it's easy for them to collect it?

      "That way the taxman can easily check how much tax one business paid in sales against how much the other paid in buying and use those number as a fraud prevention mechanism."

      That's basically (almost) how VAT works: you pay for what you sell and discount by what you buy. Easy peasy. And back to square one: you proposal IS already implemented and still is far from producing the output you expect.

      I have another idea: any law proposal should come with a clear statement of intentions, how to measure its success and a time frame in which its goals are to be achieved. Failing the metrics in the given time frame implies its immediate repeal.

    29. Re:Shell games by jezwel · · Score: 1

      Great! Let's tax Sergey Brin and Larry Page on their share of Google income.

      I know you're being sarcastic but we do. When Google pays a dividend (if they do), Sergey and Larry get a huge chunk of that and pay income tax. What people don't like is that if Google keeps the money (to pay future dividends, to have an acquisition war chest, whatever), I'm proposing they don't get taxed on that. Current policy is that income gets taxed now, not when it's paid out as dividends.

      I wasn't being sarcastic - my country doesn't tax either of these 2 gents as they are not citizens nor taxpayers. All their dividends are untaxed, and a % of those divdends are made in my country, where the local subsidiary pays little to no tax via legal loopholes.

      What about all those other countries where they sucked in all their revenue?

      I don't have a solid answer for that, other than companies tend to sell their shares world wide so their income will get somewhat distributed. They'll also hire workers all over the world. It won't exactly match where their income comes from and where their customers are. At some point, I kinda give up trying to get everything to match perfectly.

      Right now the vast majority of revenue made in a country is unavailable for taxing by that country - this needs to be wound back so that companies help pay for the infrastructure that supports their paying customers.

    30. Re:Shell games by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this a little more. This issue exists whenever you have multiple tax jurisdictions. I don't know if there's a good way to resolve it that's fair to everyone in all cases.

      For example, in the US, Washington state has no sales tax and Oregon (it's neighbor) has no income tax. This if you work in Oregon and live in Washington, you pay very little tax. There will always be ways to game the system like that.

      The trick, of course, is to figure out who made what money where. As we've seen, companies have lots of incentive and ability to move their costs and revenue in such a way as to minimize their taxes.

  2. Where is their income tax usually paid to? by presidenteloco · · Score: 2

    So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?

    Is this going to be double taxation?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Where is their income tax usually paid to? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To which country? Ireland currently?

      They tell Ireland that they pay it in the US. They tell the US that they pay it in the Netherlands. They tell the Netherlands they pay it on the moon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Where is their income tax usually paid to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes?

      Doubtful they are paying at the moment.

      Multinational corporations have gotten really good at finding places that have friendly tax laws, and having the corporation from one country pay another for the privilege of selling the product.

      It's like Hollywood accounting. Somehow, it's all very expensive and losing money hand over fist, and the profits have been laundered through several layers of corporate shells where with enough accounting bullshit none of them are profitable.

      Countries are now just starting to say "no, you made revenues in this country, you're going to pay taxes on that".

      About time I say.

    3. Re:Where is their income tax usually paid to? by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Its a tax aimed at corporations that engage in tax avoidance using a Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich kind of scheme. Governments frequently complain about corporations doing this but never usually do much about these loopholes because their bigger donors also use them. This is just taking a weak shot at looking like they're doing something about it by targetting some of the most visible corporations doing it. The loopholes close in 2020 anyway so this is mostly for image and really little more than pissing in the wind. I'm sure their accountants already have backup schemes planned.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    4. Re:Where is their income tax usually paid to? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?

      Is this going to be double taxation?

      I dunno. Is it double taxation to tax my income when I earn it, then tax my income when I spend it, and by the way here's a tariff on that thing that you spent the income on? I'm mean, you're immediately equating an income tax with a services tax, so I'm merely drawing the same analogy with sales taxes and tariffs.

      How is this any different from a sales tax on digital services that is collected by Google? The US got rid of the 'I don't have a business presence in that state" exception', but I haven't seen widespread concern over 'double taxation' regarding that.

  3. UK becoming pirates after leaving EU? by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess the UK government is looking for emergency revenue sources now that the rest of the economy is going to be going away.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:UK becoming pirates after leaving EU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like no government has ever raised taxes before.

    2. Re: UK becoming pirates after leaving EU? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Boris is that you?

  4. Re:taxes by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    No different here than there. Country X places taxes on say - google for ads. Google raises ad rates from that country to cover taxes + x% adder to keep the profit intact. Person placing the add raises costs to cover increased advertising cost + y% to cover their profit margin. Cost to consumer goes up. It isn't always this direct - long term advertising rate deals and the like might tweak the cost for smaller companies to cover bigger advertisers - but in the end no company ever pays taxes itself. It all gets passed on in some form to the customer or taken out of the employees paychecks (or future raises). By the time everyone in the food chain has added their x%, the end cost to the consumer is frequently more than if they had just had their taxes raised by the government itself.

    Course the number of people that would advertise on google is somewhat self limiting, so the added good or service cost wouldn't be evenly distributed among all companies which would introduce more inefficiencies in the system. But in the end, the companies don't actually end up paying taxes if they are making a profit, and if they fail to make a profit long enough, they're history.

    If they make a point like locking out UK facebook users, it will probably be minutes before the tax is repealed.

  5. Why Just Tech Companies by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are just some of the tech companies being targeted? I notice that Apple wasn't included in this list and they are one of the biggest users of these tax dodges. Starbucks is another. If you are going to go after companies that are playing loose with the rules then why not go after all of them?

    1. Re:Why Just Tech Companies by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      TFA says: "In his Budget statement this afternoon, Chancellor Phillip Hammond revealed a two percent "digital services tax" on large tech firms such as Amazon, Facebook and Google." Judging from the way that sentence is structured I don't think the tax is limited to those three, it applies to all these tech giants so you can untwist your panties, turn off the klaxons, cancel the panic mode warning, stand down the life pods and just generally relax. Apple will be paying this tax too.

      I'm still not clear why this is only being levied on large corporations (and why tech over non-tech). It hardly seems cricket to only tax large corporations.

  6. Re: Freetards Rejoice! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Corporations can't vote but in any case Amazon and Google both have a presence here in the UK and benefit from our infrastructure and public services so why shouldn't they pay as much as local businesses who don't have KPMG to find ways around the tax system.

  7. Re: Freetards Rejoice! by reanjr · · Score: 1

    The rich pay all the taxes, but they receive outsized benefits from government infrastructure. If you actually follow the money, you'll find the middle class have the largest tax burden relatively speaking, followed by the upper class, and finally government aid recipients at the bottom.

  8. Local government by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Technology giants will have to pay more tax in the UK under new regulations unveiled by the local government today.

    It is a bit odd to call local a nation state's government. Is there a global government that oversees UK "local" government?

  9. Worth remembering IPT by Munich+Munchkin · · Score: 1

    Many years ago the UK introduced Insurance Premium Tax at 2.5% in 1993 as insurance premiums were exempt from VAT. It now has a standard rate of 12% and a higher rate of 20%. The VAT rate is 20%. This measure at 2% of revenue is not the end. Future governments will see how effective collection is and how the public responds to it. I would not be surprised to see it rise to near Corporation Tax levels but without the neat tax offsets. The companies that appear to have avoided being affected ? Watch next years budget, especially after Brexit.

    1. Re:Worth remembering IPT by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      This is a standard trick in the government revenue generation handbook - utilize voter ignorance. New taxes need voter support, so target a small group of targets for a small tax, while making sure nothing in the bill says anything about caps, or voters having to approve any increases or changes. It works even better if the targets are somewhat unsympathetic, like "big evil tech companies". Vote it in. Change at will. I recently watched a similar move pulled in Washington state - vote in $10 tax on electric vehicles ("only fair since they got EV incentives"). A year later, tax is $100, 2 years later $150. Funny thing, I called it when it was on the ballot at $10, but even I didn't think it would go 10x in just one year.

  10. Re: Freetards Rejoice! by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Am I supposed to contact the U.K. authority and file taxes because some of my users may have come from the U.K.?

    If your annual global revenue is over £500m then yes, you are.

    Until then I wouldn't worry about it too much.

    What happens when we end up with 190 different laws in as many countries? And then provinces and states?

    Then you have a situation much like the current sales tax one, and comparable solutions will also work.

    You pay taxes where you are incorporated.

    Maybe. In the UK you pay tax on your activities in the UK and it doesn't fucking matter where you're incorporated.

    If you make a sale, you pay sales tax where you have presence

    .. and business rates, corporate tax, payroll taxes, other fees, etc. Have you ever run a fucking business?

    I wholeheartedly disagree

    That's fine. Just avoid generating revenues in the UK.

    Not push everything back to the folks in Silicon Valley to pay for everything.

    Right now the push is for the folks in Silicon Valley to actually pay for the benefits they're getting, instead of enjoying a free ride due to international transfer pricing.

    This is a far more complex area than "waaah they want my money".

  11. Re:taxes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    in the end no company ever pays taxes itself. It all gets passed on in some form to the customer or taken out of the employees paychecks (or future raises).

    I agree. Its totally impossible that some rich asshole has to make do with a 250 foot yacht instead of a 300 foot one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:OFBD - Outright F*ing Brain Dead by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Who do they think they will charge this surplus to? Hint: It's NOT the shareholders.

    If the market would bear higher prices they'd already be higher.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:OFBD - Outright F*ing Brain Dead by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

    Companies don't pay VAT. They may collect it on behalf of the Revenue if they are selling direct to consumers but they don't pay VAT on thier transactions (or if they do then they get to reclaim it).

  14. Re:Freetards Rejoice! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    That's the part that annoys me. The poor always get away with not paying their fair share despite receiving every benefit..

    That's not true. If we took away government what would happen- chaos, anarchy.. every man for himself. True anarchy can never last- gangs would form and it would be the right of might ruling the land... gangs would run through those wealthier suburban neighbourhoods and mansions and pillage... sure the rich might try buying guards- but wealth and holding on to it would be more perilous- it would eventually run out without a stable platform.

    The poor would come take the riches from the rich. If government collapsed- the rich have far more to lose. A steady stable country benefits the rich more than the poor. It is in the rich's best interest that they keep the government afloat and finance it- the poor have much less to lose if government ceased to function.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  15. Re:taxes by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    It's not a question of tax distribution over the individual tax payer base. That's a completely separate question.

    I'm just saying that by the time every company in a product or service chain adds their x% to cover the taxes they pay on their income the end cost of goods or services they provide is higher than it could be - and eventually people are the end purchasers. Even products bought and paid for by a company for internal use eventually get charged out as higher prices to their final consumers - whether it is goods or services. If the companies don't cover their expenses they eventually go broke. As mentioned above, there may be odd accounting games played to show loss or gain in particular areas, but the bottom line still has to be covered somehow.

    Companies have an expense item called taxes (or multiple tax expense items depending on how big the company is and where it's located). That's it. Brand new companies may pay part of that from IPOs or seed capital (if they actually have a profit to pay on). Established companies pay it from prices charged on products and services. Since lower income people spend more on goods than the rich, you could even say that corporate income taxes are regressive when eventually recovered from the individual taxpayer.

    I agree that the compensation paid to C level executives is excessive. But corporate income taxes in most cases won't do anything to change that. If you tie their stock options to performance which might be hurt by tax rate changes and they get annoyed, the finance audit committee will just change the comparison benchmarks or pick different companies so they can get their bonuses. They should just do away with everything except cash compensation and then adjust the tax rates from there. That would be a start.