"Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed 259
An anonymous reader writes: The Irish Finance Minister announced on Tuesday that Ireland will no longer allow companies to register in Ireland unless the companies are also tax resident. This will effectively close off the corporate tax avoidance scheme known as the "Double Irish" used by the likes of Google, Apple, and Facebook to route their earnings through their Irish holdings in order to garner an effective tax rate of, as in Google FY2013, 0.16%. Ireland's new policy will take effect in 2015 for new companies. "For existing companies, there will be provision for a transition period until the end of 2020."
Transition period? (Score:2, Interesting)
> "For existing companies, there will be provision for a transition period until the end of 2020
Why? Isn't that just leaving the loophole open but closing?
Going out of business sale (Score:5, Interesting)
> "For existing companies, there will be provision for a transition period until the end of 2020
Why? Isn't that just leaving the loophole open but closing?
Also known in consumer circles as creating a sense of urgency. I mean, you have a few short months in order to setup your new company such that you can take advantage of the double Irish, or you'll be playing against an unlevel field for the next 5 years.
Talk about land rush.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you set up your company before end of December, your company will be considered "existing" and thus you'll be able to use this loophole. If you set up your company on January 3rd, you won't have access to the loophole, like your competitors, and you'll be at a disadvantage, or an unlefel playing field.
Re:Transition period? (Score:5, Informative)
For legitimate business this is true. This was not for legitimate business.
Each country has it's own tax laws as to when and what revenue they will tax. Because each country makes their own they don't dovetail like you think they should. The US has some crazy rules and Ireland had a gap. The results was that some income from intangible property (patents and trademarks mostly) fell into a gap between Ireland and US tax laws so it would never be taxed.
Re:Transition period? (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as Ireland is concerned, that is exactly it.
Google, Facebook and Microsoft (to name three, I'm fairly sure there are more) hold huge development and support centers in Ireland. While corporate tax in Ireland is low, income tax is fairly high. The Ireland government isn't losing from this deal.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the two things are connected. Oh hang on, they're not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you haven't understood how society works, or how the Double Irish scheme works... or maybe even both.
Re: Transition period? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think he's listening. His eyes and ears are covered by the American mythology of the invisible hand.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but his informal and inaccurate observation with very limited scope was elevated to universal divine capital-T Truth by Americans.
Re:Transition period? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't understand what you are trying to do with your "all doomed if anything changes" attitude on a variety of topics especially when it defies what everyone can observe within a minute of background reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Transition period? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they're giving a 6-year transition (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a double Jameson and I can consider it.
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if serious...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the Scottish. Scottish men wear skirts like cowboys wear jeans.
Re:Of course they're giving a 6-year transition (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the Scottish. Scottish men wear skirts like cowboys wear jeans.
Correct. But Irish nationalists adopted the kilt [wikipedia.org] in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the follow-up. I forgot to say that the Scottish kilt is not just casual wear. It is also used in formal morning and evening wear, with the appropriate highland-style jackets.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's the Scottish. Scottish men wear skirts like cowboys wear jeans.
Do ye know why it's called a Kilt?
Because I kilt the last man who called it a skirt.
Re:Of course they're giving a 6-year transition (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing wrong with going pro.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes should always be paid where the revenue was generated
That's an argument for the U.S.A. closing loopholes that allow companies not to pay tax there. Higher taxes in Ireland won't change the amount of tax due in the U.S.A. It may encourage some companies to declare income differently, which may indirectly cause more tax to be paid in the U.S.A., but if you want the taxes paid where the money was earned, don't look at where it was sent; look at what allowed the companies to claim it wasn't domestic income in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand, if Microsoft sells a software license in Colorado, it's US Income. If Microsoft sells a software license in Japan and it's accounted on the income for Microsoft Corp. in Redmond, it's also US Income.
To avoid these taxes, Microsoft can set up shop in Dublin as a tax haven. When Microsoft sells a software license in Colorado, it's US Income, taxed before exporting to Dublin. When Microsoft sells a software license in Japan, it's Dublin income.
It actually seems fair to me. It's
Re: (Score:2)
For a more typical example, Starbucks [theguardian.com] is still fresh in public memory. They sold a lot of coffee in the UK, but made no profit there because their income and expenses were the same, so no UK tax. On the other hand, their Swiss coffee bean distribution business was very profitable. You might say they were paying too much for the beans in order to artificially boost the profits of their Swiss company (low tax) at the expense of their UK company (high tax), but they say that if you want good beans, they cos
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't work that way. Taxes are aggregate. I used to file my own taxes for my business.
That you bought and re-sold a license for $100 doesn't matter; that you sold a license for $100 profit, but bought furniture for the office and it depreciated by $100, will get you a net $0 profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Its also plenty of time for companies to set up a location sk the irish government still gets the revenue.
Hi-ho, Hi-ho, (Score:5, Insightful)
To a new tax haven we go!
*whistles*
Re: (Score:2)
The Principality of Sealand.
Why..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why wouldn't people just use the system of "where your customers pay you" for any multinational company to determine "where to tax is owed"? Much simpler and fairer between different nations.
Because they are not trying to be fair.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because taxes are used for paying for municipal/government protections, services, etc. If they have no physical entity then why should they pay for these things?
If they have no physical entity in Ireland then they shouldn't fly an Irish flag. They damned well have a physical entity in the US, and are receiving its protections, services, etc. They should be paying taxes there, and I'm not talking 0.16%. I'm hardly saying 30% is fair either, but it's way past time these fucking loopholes get closed up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're not making any profit, why the hell are they doing business there?
Re: (Score:3)
This is just for instance and the names and locales I picked are of course arbitrary, merely for the purp
Re: (Score:2)
Or like how that studio told Peter Jackson they didn't have to pay him [slashdot.org] more than a pittance because Lord of the Rings "didn't turn a profit."
Unethical weasel bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Because taxes are used for paying for municipal/government protections, services, etc. If they have no physical entity then why should they pay for these things? It's not that simple, is all.
Okay, then they shouldn't get any government protections or services at all. That includes the courts, so if they don't pay taxes, they lose the ability to sue anyone for things like copyright infringement.
Re:Why..... (Score:5, Informative)
I will mostly agree on you point. It ignores some of the difficulties of transfer pricing but it is the right principle. The double Irish worked because the US is the only country that does not charge taxes on where the profit is earned, but charges US taxes no matter where it is earned.
Re:Why..... (Score:5, Interesting)
the US is the only country that does not charge taxes on where the profit is earned, but charges US taxes no matter where it is earned.
But the taxes are not owed until the profits are repatriated. So the result of this idiotic policy is that little tax is collected, while companies are given a huge incentive to reinvest their profits outside America.
Re:Why..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why there should simply be a flat use tax. You sell anything to anyone, you're paying tax. Period.
But the government doesn't want this because they use their current nightmare system to manipulate companies into doing their bidding. Hire more people, get a tax break. Lower your carbon footprint, get a tax break. All of it results in a multitude of pet projects by the government that fail, and corporations that eventually don't pay taxes at all. Not to mention that it gives those same companies huge incentives to medal in politics.
Want to get the money out of politics? Get the government out of money.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why there should simply be a flat use tax. You sell anything to anyone, you're paying tax. Period. But the government doesn't want this because...
I don't want it either, primarily because it ends up with poor people paying a higher percentage of their income in tax. You can make adjustments for necessities, like food and gas, but that tends to make it so the middle class is paying the highest percentage of their income in tax. Also........
....because they use their current nightmare system to manipulate companies into doing their bidding.
If you think it's bad now, wait until you have a group of unelected officials determining what items are 'necessities' and should be exempted. There's plenty of room for regulatory capture and manipulation there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tax each transaction at 5 cents.
There's the loophole, rich people will buy things in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think it's bad now, wait until you have a group of unelected officials determining what items are 'necessities' and should be exempted. There's plenty of room for regulatory capture and manipulation there.
You're not understanding. NO EXEMPTIONS.
Food, hospital bills, baby stuff, agriculture, everything exchange of money should result in the same tax rate.
Flat tax on all sales, period, end of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The primary control on the price of an item is the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for it.
This is simplistic, because the primary control on what the consumer is willing to pay, is how much your competitors charge. I buy milk at Walmart for $3.80/gal because Costco charges $4.10. However, if Walmart raised their price to $10/gal, and Costco charged $11, I would still buy milk at Walmart.
Higher corporate taxes across the board, raise costs for all competitors, so each is able to pass on the cost to their customers without a competitive disadvantage.
Re: (Score:2)
But they still pay a smaller amount than people with a larger income.
Hmm... You are missing something... You are using "quantity" against "subjective feeling" in this case. Let's say you are making $10,000 a year and you are taxed at 10%, so it would be $1,000. Then another person is making $1,000,000 a year and he is taxed at 10% also which would be $100,000. Now, let's talk about what you said. Yes, the $100,000 is much more than $1,000; however, what do you feel if you are losing $1,000 from your overall $10,000? Do you think you should spend money on a new iPhone with th
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's unintentionally true - especially for assholes like the Kochs that are awarding gold medals to lapdog morons across the US.
Re: (Score:2)
So true! Where did the 8 or 9 Billion dollars Microsoft used to buy Skype came from? Or the 3 billion Microsoft used to buy Nokia with? Or the 1.5 billion Google used to buy their London District HQ?
Re: (Score:2)
Which raises their valuation, which raises their stock price
No it doesn't. Their stock price will go up if they make optimal investments. It does not go up if they consider the options, determine the optimal strategy is to locate a factory in America, and then look at the tax situation, and decide instead to invest in a suboptimal location overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot take tax out of deciding which location is optimal or not. It is exactly the same as social stability & conflict risk. These all have to be taken into consideration when deciding where you will base an operation.
A particularly clear example of this is if you watch capital flows in the mining industry. There are a lot of similar deposits around the world, but why does a particular multi-national choose Australia over Canada or vice-versa. For a long time Australia won because of a favourab
Re:Why..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of countries do only tax on the revenues from their country. America is one of the few countries that tries to tax globally. That's why companies are leaving America.
There are just so many reasons to leave the USA. National security letter shenanigans would mean that I wouldn't even have any management staff physically in the USA, there would be no staff in the USA to deliver a NSL to. Taxes? I'd probably prefer to hire non-US citizens, it makes banking with foreign banks a lot easier.
Sell to the US consumer but have no presence in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
While NSA letters are bad, what make you think that the same (and worse) isn't already going on in most other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why..... (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of countries do only tax on the revenues from their country. America is one of the few countries that tries to tax globally. That's why companies are leaving America.
There are just so many reasons to leave the USA. National security letter shenanigans would mean that I wouldn't even have any management staff physically in the USA, there would be no staff in the USA to deliver a NSL to. Taxes? I'd probably prefer to hire non-US citizens, it makes banking with foreign banks a lot easier.
Sell to the US consumer but have no presence in the country.
But.... you don't have to leave the USA. There aren't really any downsides to being an illegal alien here right now. They have the "right" to taxpayer sponsored health care, education, and welfare programs. You can even score a driver's license and vote in some places, too. Other than getting elected President and smoothing over security clearances (which most of us aren't going to ever do/need anyway), there aren't a whole lot of benefits to remaining classified as an Ugly American any more. I've been half waiting for some smaller country to figure out they can score some easy income by simply offering free citizenship to ex-USAans and a reasonable income tax rate of like, oh, say, 10%.
Just pay your renunciation tax, open up a new checking account at Bank of Mozambique so you can get paid directly by your company's Irish office, and shine on you crazy diamond. You don't even have to learn to drive on the wrong side of the road or get involved with that Communist metric conspiracy crap, either!
Re: Why..... (Score:2, Informative)
Is not that simple. This is not about the "sales tax" (VAT in EU) which is typically assessed and paid in a defined jurisdiction where the sale occurs.
This is about much more complicated corporate income tax. "Google" is not a company, but a brand. Under this brand there is a conglomerate of separate companies that are setup under different jurisdictions with different accounting rules.
Different Google companies ("legal entities" in corporate speak) provide services to each other under internal contracts. E
Re: (Score:3)
I personally know families in which the wife does not work and is stay-home mom because is "cheaper" vs. two working parents and kids in day care. This is because two spouses working would put them in a higher taxable income bracket which will also make them receive less or none of some tax deductions. Plus they will have to pay for day care. With the wife staying home, taxable income of just one working spouse is lower, there are higher tax deductions, and no day care costs. Tax evasion? No, simply a personal example of tax optimization.
Very bad example. even if they're in a higher tax bracket they'l probably still have more money. And I doubt that the reasoning goes like the way you described it. Most of the time it's because daycare is so expensive that the stay at home is the better choice (economically).
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. This is more like the mom is a citizen of a country that only taxes here 3% on income while she lives in the U.S. and she charges the husband's small business $120,000 a year for "housekeeping and babysitting services".
As a result, the husband has no net income and pays no taxes. It is set up with here as a foreign national, legally hired in the foreign country but only working on site temporarily so she pays no taxes here. Net result- a total of 3% taxes paid elsewhere while she lives and pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, more money, but when divided across the extra hours worked (plus the extra expenses like babysitters, daycare) you'll be earning $3 per hour. Is that worth it for you? To get up in the morning, be away from your kid, suffer through a dreadful commute and deal with a boss?
That was a situation for my mom. Working extra hours meant she was paying more in taxes from just crossing the bracket threshold, making it not worth it for her.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what I said: second salary + additional tax from 2 salaries combined resulting in a higher overall bracket - smaller tax deductions - daycare $0. Two, of the four variables in this equation are tax related because of the first variable (second salary).
Yes, but the situation could also work the opposite way. For example, there are a number of tax credits and deductions that are available only if the spouse works, especially child care credits or FSAs for dependent care. Depending on the spouse's income, this could be enough to offset the extra tax bracket effects.
Your reasoning is only valid in a limited number of scenarios, such as where the spouse's earning potential is REALLY low and the overall family income is high enough to already cut off the p
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Many US families do the same thing as Google, at a smaller scale. I personally know families in which the wife does not work and is stay-home mom because is "cheaper" vs. two working parents and kids in day care. This is because two spouses working would put them in a higher taxable income bracket which will also make them receive less or none of some tax deductions. Plus they will have to pay for day care. With the wife staying home, taxable income of just one working spouse is lower, there are higher tax deductions, and no day care costs. Tax evasion? No, simply a personal example of tax optimization.
The IRS would probably see that as tax avoidance.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they would then do absolutely nothing about, because it's completely legal and rational. In fact, it's the mechanism the government relies on when they use tax policy to manipulate you towards their various economic and social behavioral goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is legal, so that's not an issue.
Note that what all these companies everyone here loves to hate are doing is also legal....
And when Ireland changes its rules so it's no longer advantageous to be based out of Ireland, they'll move HQ to elsewhere, and Ireland will be out some tax dollars that won't be much by US standards, but might be a lot by Irish standards (or not)....
Re: (Score:2)
And hopefully such havens will be closed down everywhere and companies will pay a non-ridiculous tax rate.
Re: (Score:2)
$1000 worth of child care either way, taxed differ (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say childcare for X kids in this city costs $1000.
If mom works, perhaps in a childcare center, she pays FICA and income tax of $250 in order to bring home $1000. She spends the $1000 on childcare and is left with $0. Her net gain for month is that her kids were taken care of. To get that benefit, she did $1,250 worth of work.
Suppose mom stays home and does the $1,000 worth of childcare herself. She doesn't get a check or write a check, and pays no taxes. Her net benefit at the end of the month is that her kids were taken care of. To get that benefit, she did $1,000 worth of work.
Mom saves $250 in taxes by "working for her family " instead of doing the exact same work in a childcare center. There's a big tax difference based on which organizations are involved, even though the work done and the benefit received are identical.
Re: (Score:2)
the mom staying at home does pay taxes (on X% of $0 is still $0).
Well, since we're being technical, I wouldn't call it paying them as there's no actual transaction. Satisfy the tax code, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I picture economists reading your comment and cringing in pain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats so important about January in that situation? Safari Books Online started doing this (charging EU VAT on EU customers) back in 2004/2005 due to changes in EU tax regulations for non-EU companies selling products to EU customers.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest issue with that is that most of these taxes are on profit, and profit can be shifted around pretty much at will. For example, Google(Ireland) could buy all the equipment needed for google.com, and "sell" it to Google(US), for an amount that just happens to resemble the profits of Google(US). So, Google(US) has no profit to tax, while Google(Ireland) has much profit (and little tax on it).
That's one reason some people favor sales/use/value-add taxes instead; it is harder to shift that around (a
Re: (Score:3)
"Much simpler and fairer between different nations."
1. In almost all cases the company exists in fewer countries than all of their customers. This would require a company not trying to game the system to maintain income tax accounting for vastly more countries.
2. What does "where your customers pay you" mean for an international purchase? (See the parallel arguments concerning sales tax an interstate commerce.)
3. Why shouldn't sovereign nations be allowed to have their own laws?
Re: (Score:2)
It simply can't work. While you are trying to force a tax on income and that income crosses national borders it will be almost impossible to decided which tax system it should fall under.
If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address. Who pays what tax where?
Realistically we need some kind of transaction layer tax system that captures at point of sale. Think VAT or GST style but on every transaction. This should be implemented and income a
Re: (Score:2)
So, in your example (If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address.), where, exactly, is the "point of sale"? New Zealand? Australia? Wherever the Amazon billing department processes your credit card? Wherever the product was packaged up for shipping to you?
And why?
Re: (Score:2)
That system is already being used: it's the sales tax.
But countries like taxing multiple times, so they also tax corporate profits, and finally tax the profits again as either capital gains or dividends (corporations also pay other taxes, like real estate taxes).
This multiple taxation means that the US has one of the hi
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reason why corporations are leaving. And they are going to continue to leave unless we bring our corporate tax rates in line with other countries, meaning lower them significantly.
Yes, and this will be a conservative vs. radical argument as always, with conservatives who want to take it in small increments, and radicals who want to slash it all and implement a 9-9-9 plan. Of course we have very few conservatives in our countries; in truth, we have radical liberals who want to slash welfare and corporate taxes haphazardly, and other radical liberals who want to raise taxes and boost welfare haphazardly.
Today, radical liberals have the public ear: the Democrats are in favor now, b
Re: (Score:3)
That's generally what each country does to the companies operating inside it.
But here's the problem. Lets say an iPhone costs $400 to make, and sells retail for $1000. One Apple-related company pays $400 to get the phone made in china, and then sells the phone to Apple Ireland. Apple Ireland pays $450 to get the phone, then sells the phone for $995 to Apple Australia or Apple USA or whatever. Australia/USA can tax the profits of the local company, but the local company only made $5 per phone, and then used
Re: (Score:2)
Not fair. You should also take into account where the employees work, the raw materials (if any) come from, factories (if any) exist, managers work, middle managers and upper management exist to make a clear assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
With physical products, it's tricky, but understandable. I buy a pair of headphones made in the UK and have them shipped to me in the US. The taxes I pay are numerous, local, state, national, international. Is sales tax the responsibility of the buyer or the seller? It should be obvious, until you get into the topic of use tax. If I buy a car in Delaware, there is 0% sales tax, but Pennsylvania will want me to pay a use tax (that just happens to be exactly the same as PA sales tax). I leased a car i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why..... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They're not lying. They are telling the truth. They structure their business models to make sure that the money is earned in the least taxable manner.
It's common sense. A for-profit corporation exists to maximize shareholder value within the confines of the law. To do anything less is a breach of fiduciary responsibilities.
LK
Re:Why..... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Shareholder capitalism is the doctrine that companies exist solely to make money for their shareholders. It is frequently contrasted with stakeholder capitalism, which holds that companies exist for the benefit of their customers, workers and communities, not just for ever-fluctuating number of mostly remote and unengaged passive investors who just happen to own stock in them, often without even being aware that they do.
"The rise of shareholder capitalism in the U.S. is often dated to an influential article in the Journal of Financial Economics in 1976, titled “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure” by Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling. They argued that shareholders should demand higher returns from complacent corporate managers. The idea of shareholder value was publicized by a 1981 speech in New York by Jack Welch, who had just taken over General Electric, and by Aflred Rappaport’s 1986 book “Creating Shareholder Value.”
"The shareholder value movement sought to persuade corporate managers to ignore the interests of all stakeholders like workers, customers and the home country, other than shareholders. Granting CEOs stock options, in addition to salaries, was supposed to align their interests with those of the shareholders.
"The theory had an obvious problem: Who are the shareholders and what are their interests? Most publicly traded companies have shares that are bought and sold constantly on behalf of millions of passive investors by mutual funds and other intermediates. Some shareholders invest in a company for the long term; many others allow their shares to be bought and sold quickly by computer software programs.
"Unable to identify what particular shareholders want, CEOs with the encouragement of Wall Street have treated short-term earnings as a reliable proxy for shareholder value. (...)
"Shareholder value capitalism in the U.S. since the 1980s has even failed in its primary purpose — maximizing the growth in shareholder value. As Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman Business School at the University of Toronto points out in a recent Harvard Business Review article, between 1933 and 1976 shareholders of American companies earned higher returns — 7.6 percent — than they have done in the age of shareholder value from 1977 to 2008 — 5.9 percent a year.
"For his part, Jack Welch has renounced the idea with which he was long associated. In a March 2009 interview with the Financial Times, the former head of GE said: “Strictly speaking, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.”
"In the aftermath of the failed 40-year experiment in shareholder capitalism, Americans need not look solely to other democratic nations for models of successful stakeholder capitalism. The U.S. economy between the New Deal and the 1970s was a version of stakeholder capitalism, in which the gains from superior growth were shared with workers, CEOs were moderately paid and the rich engrossed far less of the economy. In reconnecting with America’s native tradition of stakeholder capitalism, American companies can learn from the example of Johnson & Johnson, whose credo was written by Robert Wood Johnson in 1943:
"We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services.We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world.We are responsible to the countries in which we live and work and to the world community as wellWe must be good citizens.and bear our fair share of taxes.We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources.Our final responsibility is to our shareholders.When we operate according to these principles, the shareholders should realize a fair return."
The failure of shareholder capitalism [salon.com], Salon, Mar 29, 2011
Just enough time.. (Score:2)
What about the Dutch Charity? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, like how IKEA is organized? Google could set itself up as a charity dedicated to the preservation of web sites.
Re:What about the Dutch Charity? (Score:5, Informative)
Great link here [economist.com]. It's a shell game complicated enough to make a mollusk blush.
Rich get richer (Score:2)
Of course give them until 2020. They can all squeeze a few hundred billion in that time.
You wonder why US economy suffers? It is because of schemes like this to save a buck and starve a worker/citizen/parent/homeowner/mentor.
Come on....... Which avenue will they hit for the next tax evasion scheme?
When a politician's lips are moving (Score:2)
This could easily be implemented in 2015 or at most 2016. Taxes change all the time and often by huge amounts so drastically changing this wildly unfair situation would be nothing out of the ordinary.
But I will
Bad summary? Or horrible editorializing? (Score:2, Troll)
"Tax evasion" is a crime. "Tax avoidance" is what is being done here.
Re:Bad summary? Or horrible editorializing? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tax evasion" is a crime. "Tax avoidance" is what is being done here.
"Tax evasion" has one legal meaning and another colloquial one. Colloquially speaking, "tax evasion" includes tax avoidance of this character.
Source: talking to people who aren't tax lawyers.
Re:Bad summary? Or horrible editorializing? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tax evasion" has one legal meaning and another colloquial one. Colloquially speaking, "tax evasion" includes tax avoidance of this character.
In other words, tax evasion is what other people do when I don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Source: talking to people who don't know shit.
FIFY. I suggest using better sources. Tax evasion has a specific legal meaning. It truly doesn't matter what the ignorant think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public opinion always matters.
No amount of public opinion will hold the tide back.
Arrrrgh (Score:2)
You know, it's like how when more than half of the population uses a word wrong, the meaning changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Colloquially speaking, "hacking" means malicious exploitation of computer vulnerabilities for personal gain or other nefarious purposes.
Colloquially speaking, a megabyte consists of one million bytes.
Colloquially speaking, "virii" is a fake word made up by computer nerds who didn't understand Latin.
Should I be expecting Slashdot to get on board with these colloquialisms as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)