G20 Agrees To Push Ahead With Digital Tax (reuters.com) 129
Group of 20 finance ministers agreed over the weekend to compile common rules to close loopholes used by global tech giants such as Facebook to reduce their corporate taxes, a copy of the bloc's draft communique obtained by Reuters showed. From the report: Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other large technology firms face criticism for cutting their tax bills by booking profits in low-tax countries regardless of the location of the end customer. Such practices are seen by many as unfair. The new rules would mean higher tax burdens for large multinational firms but would also make it harder for countries like Ireland to attract foreign direct investment with the promise of ultra-low corporate tax rates. "We welcome the recent progress on addressing the tax challenges arising from digitization and endorse the ambitious program that consists of a two-pillar approach," the draft communique said. "We will redouble our efforts for a consensus-based solution with a final report by 2020." Britain and France have been among the most vocal proponents of proposals to tax big tech companies that focus on making it more difficult to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and to introduce a minimum corporate tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
a 0% tax rate means
A 0% tax rate means that there is no money to fund a military so all assets will be seized by a neighboring country with a military.
You can not operate a free market, or even a free country in any way without taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could just tax the citizens directly instead of corporations... Or you could tax sales, property, use, imports, exports, etc. But there is no good reason the corporate tax rate should be anything other than zero unless you want the government to try to control corporations through tax policy.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like if it were individuals who were taxed and corporations weren't then the wealthy would just put all of their assets in the name of the corporation and on paper be poor.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like if it were individuals who were taxed and corporations weren't then the wealthy would just put all of their assets in the name of the corporation and on paper be poor.
You know there are acres of tax law already preventing that, right?
Anything the corporation provides for you is itself taxable as income. And the IRS just loves to audit that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Then explain the wealth of the elite who pay themselves $1 a year and yet spend tens of millions every year.
They either have vast wealth of their own, or pay themselves $1 in salary but get loads of stock, or both.
E.g., Jeff Bezos took a salary of $80k last year IIRC, and turned down the additional stock offered by the board. Almost all his wealth come from stock he got years ago, as the founder of the company. The government does asses his compensation as close to $1 million, because they include the value of private security the Amazon provides him when he travels (security provided by the venue where he's sp
Re: (Score:2)
Another trick is to use one's stock holdings or other assets as collateral for an open-ended loan, and live off the loan proceeds. This is not considered "income".
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like if it were individuals who were taxed and corporations weren't
Nobody is saying corps shouldn't be taxes. We just shouldn't have corporate INCOME tax. It is very easy for corporations to manipulate their taxable income, and weasel out of the tax. Offshoring profits is one way, but there are many more.
It makes far more sense to tax corporations based on revenue, or excise taxes on resource consumption, or property taxes. These are much harder to cheat on, and have far fewer detrimental unintended consequences.
then the wealthy would just put all of their assets in the name of the corporation and on paper be poor.
They can already do that with an S-Corp or revocable trus
Re: (Score:2)
unless you want the government to try to control corporations
I think this is all that ever needs to be said about the interaction between government and anybody. Governments exist to control, period. It can be for good or evil, but that is the only reason government exists.
How else? (Score:2)
How else are you going to control them? Appeal to their humanity? their morality? their patriotism? Threaten them with jail time? Corporations are not people ("Citizen's United" not withstanding) and do not respond to normal incentives to do what is best for their community (or even for that matter what is in their own long-term self-inte
Equality. Necessary for a Free Market (Score:2)
Citizens are not equal in their use of government services. Hence, the Gas Tax exists so people who wear the roads/bridges out the most pay more than those who do not use them. It's not perfect, but it is more equitable than raising income tax on everybody or a regressive sales tax.
Corporations are not all equal in their use of government services; they rely upon and use a great many government services / infrastructure. Schemes are created to make it more equitable... Also not perfect but far more subject
Re: (Score:1)
Citizens are not equal in their use of government services. Hence, the Gas Tax exists so people who wear the roads/bridges out the most pay more than those who do not use them. It's not perfect, but it is more equitable than raising income tax on everybody or a regressive sales tax.
That's a perfect example of total BS when it comes to taxation. Use of passenger cars on the road produces approximately 0 wear. Almost all of the wear comes from heavy trucks. You use heavy trucks whenever you shop at a store (unless that store is on a rail line). If you actually wanted to tax people in proportion to the amount they used the roads, a sales tax based on the weight of items sold would be the only way.
But complexity is the enemy of fairness. Just have a flat tax and be done with it - exe
Re:Equality. Necessary for a Free Market (Score:4, Insightful)
You use heavy trucks whenever you shop at a store (unless that store is on a rail line). If you actually wanted to tax people in proportion to the amount they used the roads, a sales tax based on the weight of items sold would be the only way.
What, and make people pay a road use surcharge when the goods may actually have been shipped by plane or rail or boat? The end customer is not using heavy trucks when they buy goods at the store. The contractor selected by the store to move their goods is (possibly) using heavy trucks. If you tax the end customer directly according to the weight of the items they buy then there is no incentive for the store or its contractors to reduce their impact on the roads, which leads to a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario.
If you want people to pay for the upkeep of the roads in proportion to the amount of wear they induce the only equitable approach is for the road owner to charge a toll to the operator of the vehicle in proportion to the cost of maintaining the road—a fixed component for non-wear-related costs plus a charge proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight time the number of axles. The delivery contractor will this pass this toll onto the store, which will pass it on to the customer. Each party then has a proper incentive to minimize the portion of their revenues expended on tolls.
Re: (Score:2)
The end customer is not using heavy trucks when they buy goods at the store.
The goods got to the store how? Different means may be used for long-distance hauling, but a truck drove to the actual store, and that "last mile" is the least efficient part of the distribution chain. It is the primary source of road wear.
If you want people to pay for the upkeep of the roads in proportion to the amount of wear they induce the only equitable approach is for the road owner to charge a toll to the operator of the vehicle in proportion to the cost of maintaining the roadâ"a fixed component for non-wear-related costs plus a charge proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight time the number of axles. The delivery contractor will this pass this toll onto the store, which will pass it on to the customer. Each party then has a proper incentive to minimize the portion of their revenues expended on tolls.
My point though is "why would you want that"? We all benefit substantially from trucks bringing goods to stores, and we don't like regressive sales taxes, so how about the government just pays for roads out of the general fund. It's one of the very few things most peo
Costs passed to consumer (Score:2)
Actual costs should be reflected in the price. Walmart exploiting tax payer services without paying for them artificially lowers their prices; just as Amazon is exploiting to undercut Walmart. You subsidize their services with your taxes so it gets paid anyway in the end; but not equitably.... because your local stores lack the ability to CHEAT on their taxes. They still cost more due to being small but the difference in price is not as large as it appears due to all the cost externalization the big succ
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart exploiting tax payer services without paying for them artificially lowers their prices
You do realize this is a transfer of money from the middle class and wealthy to the poor, right? Those who pay a lot of income tax subsidize those who shop at Walmart?
just as Amazon is exploiting to undercut Walmart.
How's that work? Amazon pays its hourly workers a real wage, much more than Walmart. They seem to both benefit equally from roads and police and the like.
Their money leaves your community's economy, your state, and even your nation; aside from their abilities to accelerate the automation of jobs.
Lower prices benefit everyone shopping there. Most of the money from the customer that doesn't go to the cost of what's being sold goes to wages, mostly locally. It's not like Apple. Un
Re: (Score:2)
Just stating the facts. I'm not saying it is good to subsidize Walmart.
Amazon exploits differently and is undercutting Walmart who is now on the receiving end. Amazon leverages the cheap delivery network subsidized by the people; many tax loopholes Walmart can not. Walmart couldn't exploit delivery and internet during it's rise to power, it is much older (not to say they couldn't have adapted, but they stuck to what they knew until forced to compete.)
For most Amazon's existence and rise to power it complete
Re: (Score:1)
"Free" in "free market" never meant free from taxation. How did you get that idea?
Great start (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Income tax for a corporation never made any sense to me. Even if they pay it they don't pay it and never will no matter what G20 agreements are made. Consumers pay it. Companies simply pass it through. So this idea of corporations paying their fair share is a fallacy really.
Rather than make companies pay income tax, executives and company owners should not be able to shelter income or personal assets in a company, and pay income tax on that. In other words close the loopholes for the very wealthy. Or
Re: (Score:2)
Go reread that post a few times and let it sink it. Raising the costs for a business means they raise the cost of the goods and services they sell. If they don't do this, they will lose money and go out of business.
Sigh, you are just trolling us anyway. You couldn't possibly be that dim.
This will never end (Score:1)
Government had all its issues addressed. Why does it need more tax money?
Unless it's a pseudo-organism growing to spend to get elected.
Naaaah.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
These corps have more money than God, its sad you think they're somehow deserving of more.
Re: (Score:1)
What does "deserving" have to do with anything? Why should the governments get to take it away?
Because if the government didn't protect them with a police force and a military a neighboring country could just walk in and take all the money from them.
Paying taxes is a pretty sweet deal. The only deal that is sweeter is if everyone else pays taxes and you get all the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the government robbing you why don't you use your private security to protect yourself?
Re:This will never end (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem comes in where the second is given extra legal rights in excess of those protected for the governed. Further it should be more correctly said that any entity which can extend force over another, no matter the circumstances that lead to that outcome, that in fact that entity becomes government.
The moment limited liability protections are enacted for corporations, the moment they have the right to eminent domain or to capture private property from another(see Texas common carrier law for example), the stop being the governed, and become the government itself.
To an extent these extra legal rights are a matter of practicality, the organization of property ownership, and all the works required for productive endeavors are important to the maintenance of society as a whole.
Property, Corporation, Government, are all concepts created by the mutual consent of those governed by them, Things like the legal fiction that is money are created to aid in their management.
The forth branch of government known as corporation has grown well beyond the means of reason. It has perfected misuse of the powers granted to it to subvert the powers of the original three branches of government.
Corporations originally existed for the public good, a bridge needs building and maintenance, a city needs something to manage the docks, etc. with powers limited to that needed function, then they expanded to organize private property, such as merchant fleets, and yet still limited, it wasn't until later every business became a corporation, old blacksmiths, and farmers, and artisans of all types, where each held liable for their own actions with no special rights became corporations.
For awhile we where free from lords and kings, then we invented new ones, corporation, not organized by kingdoms and nobility, but by practical function and ownership. And slowly, a new nobility being born, an aristocracy of the ultra wealthy using the powers of corporation to curtail the branches of government which they do not control via writ fiat.
Low corporate taxes, privatization, are just tools to expand this control.
Re: This will never end (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point entirely. The question is "why should the richest people in the country not pay taxes?"
They do pay taxes. In the US, at least. But you're asking the wrong question. First of all, this is an issue of corporations paying business taxes, not personal taxes.
The question actually should be "why should YOUR country tell MY country how much we should tax anything"? This is the G20 deciding that some countries need to increase taxes -- which is a function of the country and not an unelected, unofficial global-scale peudo-government.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point entirely. The question is "why should the richest people in the country not pay taxes?"
Why bother buying politicians if you can't get some perks from them? As long as politics are bought and paid for don't expect the 0.1% to pay much in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what tax revenues are, the right will still want to lower the rates.
No matter what tax revenues are, the left will still want to spend money the government doesn't have.
Why choose left or right when you can have Trump do both. Lower taxes and spend more as well...
Win win, or lose lose?
They keep slapping "digital" on it (Score:2, Informative)
But truth is that any big corporation has been doing this tax optimization thing. Starbucks. Siemens. All of them.
Goo look up "Dutch Sandwich" or "Double Irish". The point is that those states colluded with big corp for that. In my opinion it's the politicians doing this who belong in jail.
Government is greedier than corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Considering that I don't spend any money with Google (or Facebook, but I don't have a Facebook account) for what I use them for, it will be some trick to "pass" these costs on to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you get 30% more ads to pay for the 30% tax rates, you'll end up paying for it in frustration.
Re: Government is greedier than corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless though, the average person has to work practically a third or half the year to pay their taxes--meanwhile billion/trillion dollar companies pay next to nothing. That's not quite right no matter which way you slice it.
Also, you say this won't even touch those big companies. Again that may be true but going from paying essentially 0% of profits as taxes to going to even 15% is nothing to sneeze at when talking billions.
In other words, getting these multi-nationals to pay some taxes back to the coun
Re: Government is greedier than corporations (Score:3)
The government runs the military, police and legal system that allows these companies to do business. Strangely enough those things cost a lot of money. If corporations don't want those things then they are free not to do any business in those countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies are nothing but collections of people. Why should corporations be taxed if they are just going to pass it on to an individual at some point? Tax the executives sure, but taxing the corporation is just a way for the government to collect money that the citizens don't see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo! You've identified why corporate income should be taxed.
Create a tax shelter and expect to see inefficient and excessive amounts of wealth accumulate in that shelter. We might need $300B [cnbc.com] for... something... and in the meantime those "business-related" expenses that the
Re:Government is greedier than corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the adage if you're not paying, you're the product, not the customer? Well, the product doesn't pay taxes. Facebook and Google will suddenly start to charge for their services? How much? My bet is $0.
This tax would come out of shareholder profits -- if shareholder profits had any realistic connection to earnings -- which might include you, but odds are does not. Meanwhile, it removes some of the pressure for governments to increase taxes that will definitely fall upon you, including incomes, sales, and property taxes. There's no need for me to subsidize your brokerage or retirement account to support a stock price.
As for Amazon, if they're no longer the lowest priced option, there's nothing preventing you from moving your custom to the lowest priced option. And there's certainly no need for me to subsidize your purchases from them. I'll cry you a river if their tax rate is raised above that of other retailers. We're in no danger of that now.
Re:Government is greedier than corporations (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the adage if you're not paying, you're the product, not the customer? Well, the product doesn't pay taxes.
Correct, their customers are the ad buyers and data brokers, who would see the price increase, which is passed on to their customers, and on and on until they reach the consumer. All money in any business starts with spending from a consumer or taxes from a taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then we shouldn't have any taxes, should we?
Or maybe we just shouldn't tax business activity at all, since businesses don't accumulate unnecessary stockpiles of money (and other resources), but merely pass on their profits to shareholders [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then we shouldn't have any taxes, should we?
Actually, no, we shouldn't. It doesn't make much sense to tax what are, financially, pass through entities which will just pass the tax along to their customers.
Or maybe we just shouldn't tax business activity at all, since businesses don't accumulate unnecessary stockpiles of money (and other resources), but merely pass on their profits to shareholders as dividends
You say that like one thing has anything to do with the other. Nothing says a company would dip into their cash reserves instead of maintaining those reserves and increasing prices.
Or maybe we should tax business activity at roughly equal rates so that we don't create massive distortions in resource allocation and markets?
I agree (and posted the exact same in another reply on this very article).
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are not pass-through entities.
They do.
Those are not cash reserves. Those are profits waiting for extraordinary events -- tax amnesties and/or new tax strategies -- that will permit a
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations are not pass-through entities.
The difference between people and corps is that they can. I, for example, cannot raise my salary if my tax burden increases. I can spend less to control my outflow, but I can't control my cash in. A company, to an extent, can.
They do....Those are not cash reserves. Those are profits waiting for extraordinary events -- tax amnesties and/or new tax strategies -- that will permit a higher fraction to be distributed to shareholders.
If you prevent cash from being accumulated in such quantities prior to tax being due, you eliminate the incentive to create such hordes and retain only a reasonable reserve. The profits actually get distributed to shareholders, rather than shareholders constantly paying each other for shares in cash on hand on the hope that the corporation will not fritter it away.
No, they don't. There is nothing to prevent the companies from maintaining their current margins and forcing them to eliminate cash stockpiles.. Increase taxes, they can just increase cost to cover it. The cash stockpiles are more to do with double taxing the entities. For example, m
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? A corporation can raise its revenue and/or prices by shear force of will but you cannot raise your salary?
Corporations are subject to the same supply and demand forces that you are. And none of that has to do with whether a corporation is a pass through entity [investinganswers.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, supply, demand, and price elasticity do not apply to corporations. Let me guess, you failed macroeconomics.
Projecting much?
False. [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All money in any business starts with spending from a consumer or taxes from a taxpayer.
Or from investors.
Or from loans.
Government debt isn't free (Score:3)
News to anyone that supports this: THIS TAX WILL BE PASSED TO YOU. No matter what.
News to you. It already is. My country (USA) spends just shy of $1 Trillion [cbo.gov] more than it brings in in tax revenue EVERY YEAR. I'm already paying for this and have been for 20+ years. Large corporations dodging taxes they should rightfully be paying just makes the problem worse. Taxes need to be raised to pay for the services we insist our government provide. Right now they are borrowing to pay for them which is worse because instead of paying a bit more for some products directly I end up paying more
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Large corporations dodging taxes they should rightfully be paying
This debate always devolves into subjective "should be" arguments.
There is only one correct answer to the question of "should be", whether that applies to people or corporations: they 'should be' paying what is legally required. Period.
Some people in the US pay nothing. Some people pay a lot. That is what they are legally required to pay in income tax. Some corporations manage to use the laws to pay what they "should be" paying according to the law.
You can argue that any certain category isn't "enough"
Debt and weasels (Score:2)
This debate always devolves into subjective "should be" arguments.
I'm an accountant so I'm the sort of guy you would come to to actually figure out how to avoid paying taxes and I think what they are doing is inexcusable. So yes they SHOULD BE paying these taxes and if you think they shouldn't then you're making excuses for companies that don't need them. They can afford the taxes because they only get taxed on profit. The fact that they found some legal way to weasel out of paying doesn't make it ethical. People and companies can do all sorts of things that are techn
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an accountant so I'm the sort of guy you would come to to actually figure out how to avoid paying taxes and I think what they are doing is inexcusable.
Unless you are helping people violate the law, or are claiming they are violating the law, then what they are doing is quite excusable. The law excuses it. Period.
What you might have meant is that you find the LAW is inexcusable for letting them avoid paying more than what you think they should, but that's very different. First, it's the law that has the problem, not the corporation. Second, you're back at your opinion of what they should be paying, instead of following the law that says what they should
Re: (Score:3)
News to anyone that supports this: THIS TAX WILL BE PASSED TO YOU.
That's not really true though... I always see people make similar comments when a company loses a lawsuit or get a new tax rate... it doesn't really work that way- companies try to make the most profit possible and they look at the psychology of users and how many will buy a product at what price to find a sweet spot where they maximize profit. The cost to the manufacturer/service provider doesn't really have much to do with the cost that the product is sold for. Look at Apple products and tell me if you
Good! (Score:2)
Good! If people were paying the true cost of Amazon, maybe they'd spend more in their local shops. If people had to pay the true cost of Facebook, they sure as hell would waste so much time on it.
Tax cheats (Score:1)
Shifting the burden (Score:2)
The new rules would mean higher tax burdens for large multinational firms...
No it won't. It will mean higher tax burdens in the customer's country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
International Taxation (Score:2, Insightful)
In summary, no binding agreement has been made. Tax havens still exist. Corporate taxes by country on the business as a whole instead of local sales issue still exists. Hiding profits by EU companies and converting profits as cash in tax havens by US companies still exist. The underlying issues on how corporate finances are audited and taxed is not fixed. Profit is easily be overstated or understated legally by moving the numbers from one side of the balance sheet to the other.
Governments cartel (Score:2)
Governments competing with each other for business is a good thing. Governments competition is the one thing keeping taxes from spiraling out of control.
But no, governments want to form a cartel and agree not to compete with each other. Essentially Ireland and other countries are being asked to squeeze more money out of their private sector, and they portray it as a good thing.
This is nothing but a legalized cartel.
Government cartel? dumbest statement today (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments are not in competition with each other, they are not a business and all of reality does not fit into business paradigms; stop trying to fit everything into 1 narrow view.
Governments reflect their citizens and are a necessary part of having a civilization; the price for which is taxation. Duh. (Sorry, if you are American and do not like your reflection.)
Yes, a cartel could hijack and run a government but that does not make the government a cartel; merely a society that allows their government to be operated by one.
Re:Government cartel? dumbest statement today (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments are not in competition with each other,
Yes, in this context, they certainly are competing. When one government changes something to attract something away from another government, that's competition. When Ireland sets low corporate taxes to lure companies away from the US or Germany, that's competition.
Re: (Score:1)
Why digital only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of those same tax laws can be used by non-digital companies as well.
The real problem is this:
Local company (a) pays for product they make, but pays huge amounts to parent company (b) in foreign low tax country. Because their 'cost' to make is so high, (a) shows no profit on the books, while (b) shows huge profit because they overcharged company (a) for whatever they are selling.
Yes digital products are easier to do this with, but there is little stopping company (b) from selling sparkplugs at a price $5,000 per sparkplug to company a. Or charging company (a) huge royalties for the right to manufacter something (a) invented but sold the patent to (b) for.
The real problem is that company (b) pays taxes to their home country even if most of their real profit comes from America (or other countries).
Tax companies based on where their profits occure, rather than which company they claim to be located in. If your profits all come from the US, then you should have to pay taxes on those profits in the US, not Ireland.
So what does VAT stand for (Score:3)
Other companies pay VAT.
That stands for "Value Added Tax".
What "value" does a government provide on fully digital products again?
If I spend $100k on making a tutorial video, and charge a UK user 5 pounds to watch - why should the UK government get any of that? What logical reason is there I should be required to give them anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Because their services and regulations are what have enabled you to have a UK user in the first place, versus a lawless land where John Smith filters your internet traffic unless you pay him a tribute, presuming that there's telecommunications services to begin with.
Re:So what does VAT stand for (Score:4, Insightful)
Because their services and regulations are what have enabled you to have a UK user in the first place,
This sounds very much like an argument for allowing Comcast to charge Netflix a fee for better access to Comcast customers. The UK users pay their taxes to get those "services and regulations" that allow them to buy the hypothetical video, why should the video provider ALSO have to pay for those same services and regulations?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the UK does not pretend to those users or anyone else that UK citizens' taxes are the entirety of the taxes required to operate their society with that level of services. The individual citizens pay only part, and businesses operating in the UK pay a part.
Governments deeming businesses doing busines
Re: (Score:2)
Because the UK does not pretend to those users or anyone else that UK citizens' taxes are the entirety of the taxes required to operate their society with that level of services.
And yet, they must be. If the new "tutorial video service" did not exist, how would the UK provide the services and regulations that would exist whether that video service existed or not?
Governments deeming businesses doing business with their citizens as operating within their taxing jurisdiction is not fundamentally unfair.
Argue with me about something I said, not something I did not. I simply pointed out the parallel between Comcast/Netflix and UK/tutorial video company in that both Comcast and UK charge their "users" for the services that they also want to tax Netflix/tutorial video to provide.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is no reason that "they must be." There is no service-to-tax-dollar match up for UK military, police, and civil regulatory structure versus "new 'tutorial video service.'" Those are services provided in common to all businesses operating in the UK and all citizens living in the UK, funded by taxes drawn from bu
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is no reason that "they must be." There is no service-to-tax-dollar match up for UK military, police, and civil regulatory structure versus "new 'tutorial video service.'"
So please explain how all those services exist if nobody ever buys the "tutorial video"? They do, and they are not tied to the VAT on that purchase. There is no incremental increase in the costs of military, police, etc services just because someone buys a tutorial video. Therefore the services are already paid for by the UK user's taxes.
I am arguing with you about something that you said.
NO, you are not. I never said that is was unfair for a government to tax a business doing business in their jurisdiction. Not once. I pointed out that the argument that th
Re: (Score:2)
Premise denied. "There's no incremental cost" -- what incredible bullshit. The costs of a fixed standard of services that society provides scale up with the population, e
Re: (Score:2)
If I spend $100k on making a tutorial video, and charge a UK user 5 pounds to watch - why should the UK government get any of that? What logical reason is there I should be required to give them anything?
You do not understand what VAT means. VAT is not a tax which is paid by a company. It is a tax which is paid by a consumer. Your tutorial video had value to the customer of 5 pounds (presumably without VAT). The customer pays 5 pounds to your company for the product and 1 pound VAT to the UK government thorough your company. Your company merely collects the VAT for the UK government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the problem is people have this misconception that if a corporation pays taxes, that somehow reduces the tax burden on individuals. Taxes are just shifting control over part of the country's productivity to the government. But individuals are the only source of productivity (obvious once you realize that corporations are just a bunch of individuals working to
Re: (Score:1)
That story goes both ways you know, it's just funny how Americans always argue that the rich should get richer so they can spend money to keep the economy going. You can also make the poor richer, and it will keep the economy going...
In fact, giving the small wallets more money is much better for the economy (not to mention side benefits like reduced crime, and less healthcare expenses).
So assuming the governments "greed" stays equal, then this tax on corporations will result in reduced taxes for the rest
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, giving the small wallets more money is much better for the economy
So don't think of Apple as a big wallet. Think of it as a collection of small wallets. Each a poor school teacher with a meager pension from a fund heavily invested in Apple and other corporations. You are going to leave these people with no health care and eating cat food in their retirement years.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The current system for taxing profit is perfect and accurately reflects profit. The long term solution is that Ireland, or a economic free trade zone in China or USA should offer a reduced rate of 0.1% corporate tax rate on profits.
What is corporate profit? It is an intangible number that represents the value of goodwill, applying to certain commercial transactions. I can create an office on the moon and say all my profit is earned there. This is less ridiculous than all other discussions I have heard
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds nice it theory, but the problem with your solution is defining where the "profit occurs" as you say. In your own example, company (a) profit (very little) occurs locally. Company (b) profit occurs in a low tax country. How would you define profit occurring? Try to define "where the profit occurs" for AMD CPU. TSMC sells the CPU to AMD (who designed it), AMD sells the CPU to a reseller, who sells it to a server builder in China, who sells the server to a company in Ireland, who places ir in a server i
How? (Score:2)
I am has of creation of tech of Africa (Score:2)
All world is know that Africa is being of bestest tech innovation and this is why our low tax countries is filled with patents for tech.
Why you not of belief?
Biased reporting? (Score:2)
Mmm... the framing of the article shows quite a bias towards the tax-dodging corporations they're writing about:
The new rules would mean higher tax burdens
and
make it harder for countries like Ireland to attract foreign direct investment
Oh, what a terrible idea to make corporations pay the taxes they owe to the citizens' countries that they made it from. Especially when those countries are full of socialist foreigners.
Governments LOVE money (Score:2)