Outrage At Microsoft Offshoring Tax In the UK, Google Caught Avoiding US Taxes 768
Master Of Ninja writes "After the ongoing row about companies not paying a fair share of tax in the United Kingdom, and with companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google being in the headlines, focus has now turned to Microsoft. Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country."
And over here in the U.S., dstates sent in news of Google getting caught doing something similar: "Bloomberg reports that Google is using Bermuda shell companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes worldwide. By routing payments and recording profits in zero-tax havens, multinational companies have been avoiding double digit corporate taxes in the U.S. and Europe. Congressional hearings were held in July on the destructive consequences of off-shoring profits. Why aren't the U.S. and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the U.S. and European treasuries by allowing profits that did not result from activities in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands to be recorded as occurring there?"
I'm .. I'm stunned! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, actually I'm not. Not in the least. It's the way of things now, even when your motto is "Do no evil" or "What evil would you like to get into today?" Wall Street expects certain targets to be hit and the way to do that is cut corners and use loopholes.
How odd that you would seek to keep something (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's a thought; if you want companies to pay more taxes then make taxes reasonably low enough that companies find it more bothersome to play legal shell games than simply pay a tax.
In the end all the talk of taxing "the rich" or "greedy multi-national corporations" or some other bugaboo is absurd on the face of it, because you are seeking to attack the very people that have the legal and financial resources to simply shift money elsewhere where governments are less greedy themselves. In the end by heavily taxing people or groups with lots of money you simply get less from them than you would have otherwise. It sure sounds great on TV news bytes though!
VAT? (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe more countries should move to a VAT system. That way, it doesn't matter what they make. If the product is sold in the nation, it gets taxed, period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Whether you love or hate taxes... (Score:1, Interesting)
You should find this behavior reprehensible.
This is not a tax avoidance strategy available to people with incomes below a a couple of hundred thousand dollars, which is almost all of you. We have a massive debt, and infrastructure we currently (rightly or wrongly) rely on the government for. Someone has to pay those things. If large corporations and high-income individuals aren't, that means we're forced to pick up their burden simply because we can't afford the same tax avoidance strategies.
So, regardless of how you feel about taxes being theft or whatever, this should be outrageous and unconscionable.
Re:Can't steal what they never had (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the argument we use for file "sharing", so let's not turn it on its head for tax. You want to earn it, make the argument for it.
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own – nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless – keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Re:compete instead of complain (Score:4, Interesting)
Owners can live anywhere in the world. Corporations should pay taxes where the profit is generated to help pay for the external costs that made those profits possible.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think he remembers his apartment dwelling days quite clearly.
Is that why he takes so many expensive vacations on the US taxpayer's dollars? (Michelle too)
Seriously, it takes the UK less than $60 million per year to support the entire Royal family, while it takes the USA over $1.4 billion per year to support a family of four in the White House. Whether you like Bush or hate Bush, he (Laura too) didn't take as many expensive vacations and was less expensive to support.
Here's an article about this. While in a UK newspaper, the money amounts in dollars rather than pounds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210323/Obama-family-costs-taxpayers-1-4BILLION-year.html [dailymail.co.uk]
It's expensive any time the President and/or family does anything, because large numbers of people are involved (security, etc.) but it's worse when the vacations are places like Spain or Hawaii. Bush caught hell in the news media just for taking a vacation at his ranch in Texas, but its okay for Obama to go anywhere, nobody cares.
Obama has also played more golf than Bush ever did. Bush quit after the press gave him hell about it: "troops are dying and you relax with golf" I don't really care, golf is cheaper than vacations, but the double standard blows.
http://obamagolfcounter.com/ [obamagolfcounter.com]
Re:This was required by law. Really. (Score:4, Interesting)
The top 1% of tax payers earn what - 75% of total earnings in the US? They should be paying 75% of all income taxes. No, 20% is not plenty - even if that figure is accurate. The more you make, the more you pay.
Heh - I went googling for the actual percentage of total income taxes paid by the top 1%. I found a site with a wilder spin that I've read before - it claims they pay 38%, or almost double what you've stated. Which, only goes to prove that someone with an agenda can make any claim they like, and back it up somehow.
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change. Set it somewhere, anywhere - then ENFORCE IT FOR EVERYONE!
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is easy to figure out how to hurt "shell" companies. All you have to do is tax transfers of wealth between corporations. Period. Taxing income is stupid, because all you have to do is hide the income long enough to get it to an offshore holding company in some island in the pacific. BUT if you put a 1% (or whatever) tax on money going out of the country, corporation to corporation, and you have all the revenue you need. Put a tax incentive of .75% tax break on any US corporation bringing money from offshore, and you'll spur the economy.
Tax the things you don't want, incentivize the things you do want and you can fix the world. Problem is, most politicians do the exact opposite, by taxing productivity and rewarding failure. The fix is simple, but we are unwilling to mess with status quo too much.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Interesting)
The kind of plans some of receive from our employers that they now want to tax as income (at upwards of $5000/year in some cases).
Lots of countries consider private medical insurance to be a taxable benefit. It is a form of remuneration, after all.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Interesting)
* - There was another assassination but I'm not sure if it was early 20th or late 19th century.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't say transfers of money, I said transfers of money out of the country, corporation to corporation. Corporations that transfer money, inside the country are not taxed. Are you being productive, then you won't mind 1%, if you're not, you will. Like I said, you incentivize the opposite, so that people get a bonus for bringing money into the country. It is really that simple, it would cause a shift in how business is done.
In your case, Starbucks paying "licensing" fees to Starbucks Holding Company would be taxed straight up 1% (my example, not a real number) on the totality, not the "profits". While Starbucks paying NEC USA (registers) would pay nothing in taxes for that transfer. NEC USA would pay the tax when transferring money to parent company in Japan (or wherever)