Google Used 'Double-Irish' To Shift $75.4 Billion in Profits Out of Ireland (irishtimes.com) 209
Google shifted more than $75.4 billion in profits out of the Republic using the controversial "double-Irish" tax arrangement in 2019, the last year in which it used the loophole. From a report: The technology giant availed of the tax arrangement to move the money out of Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company via interim dividends and other payments. This company was incorporated in Ireland but tax domiciled in Bermuda at the time of the transfer.
The move allowed Google Ireland Holdings to escape corporation tax both in the Republic and in the United States where its ultimate parent, Alphabet, is headquartered. The holding company reported a $13 billion pretax profit for 2019, which was effectively tax-free, the accounts show. A year earlier, Google Ireland Holdings paid out dividends of 23 billion euros, having recorded turnover of $25.7 billion. Google has used the double Irish loophole to funnel billions in global profits through Ireland and on to Bermuda, effectively putting them beyond the reach of US tax authorities. Companies exploiting the double Irish put their intellectual property into an Irish-registered company that is controlled from a tax haven such as Bermuda.
The move allowed Google Ireland Holdings to escape corporation tax both in the Republic and in the United States where its ultimate parent, Alphabet, is headquartered. The holding company reported a $13 billion pretax profit for 2019, which was effectively tax-free, the accounts show. A year earlier, Google Ireland Holdings paid out dividends of 23 billion euros, having recorded turnover of $25.7 billion. Google has used the double Irish loophole to funnel billions in global profits through Ireland and on to Bermuda, effectively putting them beyond the reach of US tax authorities. Companies exploiting the double Irish put their intellectual property into an Irish-registered company that is controlled from a tax haven such as Bermuda.
Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Google used the double Irish.
Who wouldn't when they could legally avoid a bunch of taxes. Do YOU voluntarily pay three times the amount you're legally required to?
The double Irish was closed off by law 2018- January 2020.
(No new ones after 2018, companies already set up that way got a year to change their corporate structure.)
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they fail to take advantage of any legal strategy to reduce their tax liability, they would be derelict in their duty to their shareholders.
Umm.... how do they pay share dividends on money they never officially earned?
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which "they" are you asking about? Alphabet, the publicly traded patent company, has never paid dividends. The "double Irish" subsidiary paid dividends, but only to its corporate parent. That subsidiary declared the income, and paid no tax on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why most stock has value other than people believing it has value.
That's true of virtually everything, even money itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered how the management buyout managed to pass the scrutiny of fiduciary responsibility.
If management has an idea on how to make the company more profitable, doesn't their fiduciary responsibility hold them to using that idea for all shareholders, versus uses it to only enrich themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
If they fail to take advantage of any legal strategy to reduce their tax liability, they would be derelict in their duty to their shareholders.
This is not true. You either know its not true, which makes you a liar. Or you don't know its not true, which means you are not fit to take part in this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been a corporate apologist for years. Your tongue must be raw from all the boot licking. When are you going to stand up and demand some accountability?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue it's actually immoral to pay more taxes than you are legally required to. If I pay the government $1000 extra in taxes a year (which is what you're doing if you don't take advantage of "loopholes") that's $1000 that will go towards $30 staplers, more money for our already oversized military, etc... I could just take that $1000 and go buy some homeless guys meals or pay part of some poor kid's medical bills or something and do more good in the world. Or as a corporation, I could hire more people an
Re: (Score:3)
If they fail to take advantage of any legal strategy to reduce their tax liability, they would be derelict in their duty to their shareholders.
And thus we have the corporation-as-psychopath model.
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:2, Insightful)
Let us also not forget the most important thing that needs to be said: government wastes most of its money, and prints even more of it. It is just bad at spending money. You know who is better at spending money? Shareholders. Companies. Employees. We drive economic activity. Government drives waste and is a poor vehicle for our economic choices. We o
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Informative)
Government drives waste and is a poor vehicle for our economic choices.
Bare assertion fallacy. Just saying something doesn't make it true. A dollar spent on government generally pays somebody's salary, who then goes on to pay for goods and services, and so in a real sense that government spending goes right back to private companies by one route or another. A dollar of government spending can often generate several times as much in follow-on economic activity.
It's a valid question to ask whether government or privatized services are a better fit depending on the sector - but a kneejerk, generalized hatred for the government shows that you don't actually understand any of the complexity of the question.
After all - if you really believe what you're saying here, you're saying that military, police, roads, schools - it's all a waste. We should go to mercenary armies, like the good old days. Get rid of universal schooling, too - people who have the money can send their kids to private schools, everyone else can stay illiterate.
Government is just the name we use to describe collective organization for the mutual good. It's why we both have cushy enough lives that we can afford to waste time arguing on the internet.
Re: Bare assertion fallacy (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean "No True Sco---Double Irishman" pays taxes.
It's used where that's the only option (Score:2)
Skateboarding is pretty crappy way to travel, and I'll use a skateboard if that's the only option I have. Using X in cases where X is the only feasible option doesn't mean you want to use when there are much, much better options available. So ...
> After all - if you really believe what you're saying here, you're saying that military, police, roads, schools
The military protects the *country*. Having one military protecting you and a different one protecting your next door neighbor is pretty much imposs
Re:It's used where that's the only option (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really disagree with anything you're saying. What I really wanted to point out was this: Generalizations are often your first clue that someone is about to say something stupid and irrational (Including that one? You tell me.)
At any rate - the idea that "the government is the problem" is just as dumb as the idea that "business is the problem". The government can do a kickass job at many things, and the private sector can do a kickass job at many things, and we get the best results when we use the right one in the right place, using the strengths of one to address the weaknesses of the other. And yes, sometimes government is the only option, but sometimes it genuinely outperforms the free market, or does something that's a massive good for humanity and just plain wouldn't happen (or would happen much more slowly) without public funding.
Without government, particle accelerators don't exist and the Hubble telescope doesn't exist. Ever since science has existed, government has funded primary research - via patronage, back in the day of Galileo, but through democratic governments collecting taxes and funding grants today. The funding of science has returned incalculably greater value in terms of improving quality of life and reducing suffering than the taxes that were collected to finance it, although the return on any individual discovery can happen years or centuries later.
That said, the ability of private industry to pursue ever greater efficiency in manufacturing and distribution is unparalleled, and has brought tremendous returns in terms of bringing more material wealth to more people and consistently increasing standard of living. We would never get the pace of technological advancement we enjoy without the competition and furious efficiency of free markets.
The critical thing that will decide where we go from here is not government vs business, but whether we continue to commit to the values of liberalism (universal education, free press, individual rights, free market economics, democracy, science). These are very much under attack in our polarized political climate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's not true. I wonder who thinks stronger?
"My dad thinks bigger than your dad".
I think that I'm right. I think the level of intellectual debate on the internet is sinking rapidly. Why don't we ask the man on the street what he thinks? After all there's no way to prove what most studies show, so why don't we just make it up with thinking power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taxes raise revenue, but they also disincentivize the activity being taxed.
Sometimes, that is good. Most people think that cigarette and alcohol taxes rightfully diminish consumption. Likewise, many people approve of gasoline taxes and support broader carbon taxes.
But most taxes are directed at productive activity. Payrolls are taxed. Incomes are taxed. Profits are taxed. This is done for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks: That's where the money is. But these taxes reduce economic acti
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes only disincentivize activities for which there is an equivalent activity that is taxed at a lower rate. If there is no alternative, then people aren't going to stop doing necessary things just because those things are taxed.
In the case of gas taxes, there are alternatives: increasing efficiency, and using public transportation. In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, there are other leisure activities. In the case of carbon, again there are cleaner alternatives that the tax will push people to adopt.
In
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps you could explain what, exactly people do instead of working and shopping?
Most people earn more than they need and spend much of their money on non-essentials.
So the obvious alternative to working and shopping is to work less and shop less.
And that is exactly what happens. Tax increases are often followed by an economic slowdown, while tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an assumption on your part. With zero evidence to back it up. And it is based on a fallacy: that the money collected as tax just disappears, rather than continuing to flow throughout the economy. In point of fact, the money collected in taxes generates more money by financing useful activities and infrastructure that are positive externalities.
You may be thinking of the Laffer curve, which states that there is a certain tax rate which maximizes government income. Tax above this rate, and overall econ
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, we do need just enough taxation to fund the things the government is mandated to do.
Oh if it were that simple. There's a little problem with this and that is the existence of voters. Mandates change with each electorate but things one government commissions often take and last more than one term (like going to the moon), This is why governments tend to expand, it's not just empire building, you the voters ask for it (and both parties do this).
On the federal level, they are actually only empowered and mandated for a very limited number of items by the US Constitution.
And at the state level they are pretty much empowered to spend your money on whatever they like. The problem is someone has to have these powers, vot
Re: (Score:3)
On the federal level, they are actually only empowered and mandated for a very limited number of items by the US Constitution.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
2 "items", specifically - which cover a whole hell of a lot. ;)
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:4, Informative)
That's right. They hide money from taxes so they can pay profits to investors.
If they hide money from investors, where do you think it's gonna go?
Not to the employees who are responsible for the money. That's fraud---specifically, embezzlement---and people go to prison for it all the time.
So, in contrast to tax avoidance, smart people generally don't do it. There's always a paper trail because corporate accounts are subject to auditing by SEC, shareholders, and possibly other entities.
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this sentiment.
There is nothing unscrupulous about legally following the tax code as written to minimize your tax bill.
If you don't like it...change the laws, which in this case, it appears they did by doing away with the "Double Irish" that they used this one last year it was available t them.
Seriously....if you take every legal deduction you are entitled to on your taxes,
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me explain the issue.
It isn't minimizing taxes by following the tax code, it is spending millions, if not billions, to change the tax code in your favor. It is the *creation* of the loopholes that aren't available in any remote manner to the average person. Then going on and comparing what a corporation does with taxes to an average person by saying "well, why don't YOU minimize your taxes?"
Because I don't have millions for lobbiests, and billions for advertising to get a grass-roots army of useful idio
Re: (Score:3)
It's not unscrupulous - it's just good accounting. Any company that wants to survive will maximize their revenue in alignment with the current laws. If you want them to pay more in taxes, then you change the laws, you don't whine that they should just be paying more taxes than they legally have to out of the goodness of their hearts.
If you came across a $1000 exemption that was available to you while doing your taxes would you honestly be like "nah, I can get by without it. The government needs it"?
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Informative)
"It shows how the ideology of shareholder value maximization lacks any solid foundation in corporate law, corporate economics, or the empirical evidence. Contrary to what many believe, U.S. corporate law does not impose any enforceable legal duty on corporate directors or executives of public corporations to maximize profits or share price."
https://corpgov.law.harvard.ed... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
What law(s) and what country are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it funny how so many of these corporations virtue signal, but when it comes to taxes, they're not all that keen on putting their money where their mouth is.
Indeed. Like noted conservatives The Beatles, they are not so fond of the Taxman when they become rich themselves ...
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common attack on rich people who complain their taxes are too low. When people like Warren Buffet mention that his tax rate is lower than his secretary, people argue that if he really cared, he'd pay more taxes.
Why is this argument persuasive? How is Warren Buffet paying a few extra million going to fix our debt? He knows this. H
Re: (Score:2)
Pay three times the taxes they're legally supposed to? Did you read the same article?
Or are you just a thief, stealing things (like public roads) that my taxes pay for, and you don't, forcing me to pay higher taxes?
Re: (Score:3)
If roads needed to be built and we did not have them; believe you me, we would find them privately. They would be better built, and cost less.
Bullshit. Who do you think builds roads? It's not civil servants.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think that the tolls you would pay on the natural monopoly of private roads would be lower than the current taxes you pay for roads, you're a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
I never get morons like this.
Government may be inefficient, but it doesn't have a requirement to make a profit. Businesses are also inefficient, but they are 100% profit driven. If the market will support them charging more, they will charge more. The government doesn't just keep upping prices to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. Businesses do all of the time.
Unless you have a long-term contract for services with the price specified in it with a business, you have zero guarantee that you'll e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Local cooperatives ... arrangements with the government ... subsidies
So, not really private.
Re: (Score:3)
Do YOU own enough politicians to get written-to-order laws allowing you to cheat your way out of paying even a pittance for the burdens you place on the society you parasitize?
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:2)
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I am deeply disappointed that ostensibly domestic corporations persist in using offshore tax havens, calling them parasites is disingenuous, because they are providing valuable services. I don't know about you, but losing access to Gmail, Google Maps, Google Drive, and Android would be a huge downgrade for me. That earns them a little bit of grace in my book... but only a little bit.
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
What pisses me off is when these snakes do this while saying that they want a corporate tax hike [slashdot.org]. Close the "loopholes" you take advantage of first if it's such a big problem and then we can talk. Also stop asking cities to eliminate property taxes in exchange for opening an office there.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to dislike them for taking advantage of tax laws to minimize their burden. I do the same with my personal finances and so does everyone else assuming they know how to do it themselves or hire someone else who's aware of various exemptions or deductions available.
What pisses me off is when these snakes do this while saying that they want a corporate tax hike [slashdot.org]. Close the "loopholes" you take advantage of first if it's such a big problem and then we can talk. Also stop asking cities to eliminate property taxes in exchange for opening an office there.
I wish I had mod points for this comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the Googles of the world wont ever do that. A corporate tax hike is after all to their advantage.
1) Its plays all the right notes for the ignorant masses - see look at google the understand my struggle and trying to make things more fair. It of course baloney but that does not matter.
2) They know any hikes will fall disproportionately on smaller competitors, you know the kind that don't have a large army of tax attorneys and financial engineers to spot loop holes and arbitrage opportunities like thi
Re: (Score:2)
They can ask for a loopholes to be closed while still taking advantage of them while they're there. Not doing so would put them in an uneven playing field versus any potential competitors.
IE, I'm against UBI, but you can bet if they started issuing checks I'll take one, because if my taxes are paying to issue them I might as well take what amount of it I can back otherwise I'm just shorting myself compared to others.
This argument ignores them lobbying for these laws (Score:3, Informative)
I probably do. I can't afford to spend a few million a year lobbying for tax dodges while sucking down subsidies. I was lucky to get a few thou last year during one of the greatest economic upheavals in modern history, and the mega corps fought tooth and nail against that because they benefit from a workforce on the verge of financial ruin.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm single, healthy and don't own a home (Score:2)
Corporations are not people. Fuck Citizens United (Score:3, Insightful)
Can YOU pull a double Irish with shell corporations all over the world? Get fucked with this "but they're only paying what they HAVE TO" bullshit.
Re: Corporations are not people. Fuck Citizens Un (Score:2)
Well, at least I could have. I'm pretty sure the "double Irish" has been eliminated and 2019 was the last tax year you could use it. So despite all the money they spent on Lobbyists, they weren't able to "buy" Tax Loopholes.
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal isnt the same as Moral. Just because they CAN doesnt mean they should.
Its egrarious that working class people have to pay upwards of a third of our paycheck to keep the state alive, whilst we struggle to keep our heads above water, whilst most of the wealth is hoarded by multinational megacompanies that just shift the wealth offshore haven and not pay a cent to that very same state for whom without the existance of capitalism, and therefore multinationals, could not exist. Then use their fat war funds to bribe and distort the demcratic will of the state to only favor the corporations over the workers.
Its representation without taxation.
We are paying Googles tax for them, and we never voted for that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Legal isnt the same as Moral. Just because they CAN doesnt mean they should.
Now do the government. It's not fair to judge the morality of the corporations without judging the morality of the government that you claim they are morally obligated to give their money to.
Re: Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:3)
Oh, silly me. There I go thinking it was "fuck you, I got mine."
Re:Of course they did. Everyone did. No more (Score:5, Insightful)
As every lawyer will tell you, and what makes your argument so childish, is that society as a whole knows about 'the letter' of the law and 'the spirit' of the law. The letter is what is printed on paper, like the constitution, while the spirit is what is meant, intended, to be the effect of the law.
Getting out of charges of rape because a police officer entered the crime scene without probable cause means that by letter of the law you were not guilty, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that you didn't do the deed.
Google abused the letter of the law to get out of paying taxes. It is 'legal' only in the sense that they cannot be charged with a crime for it. They, and all of us here reading this, know damn well that they broke the spirit of the law and simply found a way to avoid contributing to society while taking all they could away from it.
Do YOU voluntarily pay three times the amount you're legally required to?
This is pathetic. No one pays three times what they are legally required to, and Google doesn't even pay what they are morally obliged to.
Every man with a straight spine does however pay according to the spirit of the law. I use the roads built by taxpayer money, the hospitals paid for by taxpayer money, the vaccine paid for by taxpayer money, the police paid for by taxpayer money, and a lot more. Unlike you I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I knew I was a parasite on society. I *want* to contribute to a better society, for my own pride and satisfaction; being an immoral leech would prohibit me from doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is deeply dishonest. Most people would call it lying if they knew how it works. There's a company that pretends to be four companies, so that the companies can say they don't own the intellectual property the company owns and pay license fees to each other for intellectual property, which allegedly is the only profitable part of the entire business. If you claimed that you give all the money you earn to your twin brother, who for all intents and purposes is you and lives in the Bahamas, to pay him
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I also don't go out of my way to attempt to reduce my tax burden to $0 but still reap the benefits of the stable democracy in which I live and work. I pay my taxes because society has a value to me and while I could probably find some accountants with barely-legal schemes to keep my money out of the hands of the government, that's not what I want.
When I have fantasies about being a billionaire and spending my vast wealth, the biggest one is to lobby the government to implement a tax regime whereby b
Re: (Score:2)
Do YOU voluntarily pay three times the amount you're legally required to?
Yes I do. I refrained from setting up a tax-minimizing trust, I refrained from incorporating myself as a business and writing off home improvements as tax expenses, I refrained from off-shoring my assets, and so on. I managed to refrain because (1) it's basically not fair for me to do these things, to take advantage of tax structures only available to people with above a certain amount of money+time, (2) I'd rather invest my time into making my life more balanced, and contribute the output of my professiona
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Why do such loopholes even exist? It's no wonder countries can't afford to take care of their own citizens when billions of dollars in taxes are missing from a single company. And how much is lost in taxes when you add Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Google's corporate taxes harm other countries, and the taxes on employees aren't high enough to make up for that.
Re: (Score:2)
How many employees do these companies have in Europe anyway?
Re: Why? (Score:2)
I'm not sure why Ireland should give a single fuck about the revenue streams other countries have setup. If it's good for Ireland, the Irish don't need to go far afield for more opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate lobbying over the decades has paid off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These companies are simply HQed outside, so as to avoid taxation here.
Europe has this right. We need a CONSUMPTION style taxation, which is they have a VAT. This removes all the write-offs, tax breaks, exemptions, etc from the formula.
We could probably do the same with Sales tax, but there is a lot to like about VAT, esp. if it is progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
/Oblg. But America has the best government money can buy! /s ;-)
Part of the problem is Corporate personhood [wikipedia.org].
Shower of pricks (Score:3)
It's daft that they'd rather tax some poor auldwan living in a tiny cottage in Mayo to live in their own cottage than make these megacorps pay their way. Then they go out of their way and spend their own money to fight for Apple's cause when it turned out they owed 13 billion.
There is a lot of rumbling also about UBI and how it will be everyone's saviour when the Google robot overlords take over the world but 0 talk about how it's going to be paid for. Really they should be taxing the absolute bejaysus out of any heavily automated business and it should be on the purchase side - 50-70% VAT for anyone buying google ads would be a start. Of course these big corps hand out so many brown envelopes the stupid cnuts of politicians would try to raise the money from stamp duty on cheque books or income tax from the few people left in this country who actually try to produce some useful goods.
Recently due to Covid there were some government grants people running small businesses could get to open an online store. Of course many recipients pump this money straight into the Almighty GOOG for online ads. I know at least one person who did this. Really there should be a grant for starting up a competitor to Google Ads in Ireland but of course no such luck.
TLDR;? Irish govt will try to shaft the ordinary Joe trying to eke out an existence every time and freely hand over the money to megacorps
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR;? Irish govt will try to shaft the ordinary Joe trying to eke out an existence every time and freely hand over the money to megacorps
Well, yes. The same Irish govt that protected* the IRA murderers who fled over a border they did nothing to enforce but start bleating about how important it is to enforce the same border the moment it might cost them some tax revenue. I mean, dead people is one thing but losing money is serious.
So, yeah. Banana Republic, as the man said: Glad to see the place again;It's a pity nothing's changed.
*Or indeed were the IRA murders.
Remind me why (Score:4, Interesting)
do we need to allow trade with tax havens such as Bermuda again? Do they produce anything worthwhile?
Re:Remind me why (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand why Google is doing it. What I do not understand is why we are allowing them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, just because we are all trying to pay as little tax as possible is not a reason to allow tax havens to exist.
Big countries would benefit not trading at all with Bermuda. Our taxes are all higher because Google is allowed to dodge taxes through Bermuda. Are you saying you like to pay tax? Well if not, you shouldn't like the fact that big corporations can avoid tax through tax havens and you can't.
Don't blame the companies or rich ppl (Score:2)
All of these ppl are the ones responsible not for taxation, but for the CUTS and Write-offs they have given them. Probably the worst was in 2005, when the GOP and W re-did corporate taxes and actually made it legal and easy to do this garbage.
Far better is for America, in fact the west, to get rid of ALL corporate write-offs, tax breaks, exemptions, etc. and then simply put a straight tax on gross sales receipts, say 1% if truly located i
Re: (Score:2)
Far better is for America, in fact the west, to get rid of ALL corporate write-offs, tax breaks, exemptions, etc. and then simply put a straight tax on gross sales receipts, say 1% if truly located in the nation, OR 5% if located outside.
lol none of your woke overlords, limousine liberals, or woke corporations (ahem e.g. Google) actually want that.
Re: (Score:2)
Free college is $80B/year (Score:5, Interesting)
How many of these tax dodging companies would it take to pay for universal free 2-year college for everyone in the US? Let's pretend that of the $12B, they probably should have paid 20% to either US or IE. Wouldn't take too many $2B revenue streams for either country to pay for programs that promote long-term improvements in the standard of living of their people.
Of course, I'm sure some nutter will want to argue about how it's oppression and destroys capitalism. But people are free to have their opinions, even if they don't know what kind of capitalism we have [wikipedia.org].
I have a solution (Score:2)
And, before someone says "They will just move the company overseas", it is simple to require a company have a wholly owned subsidiary in the United States which is used to tax the income of the subsidiary BEFORE profits are shifted to the parent corporation.
Just repeal the corporate tax. (Score:2, Insightful)
The corporate tax structure exists not because it is fair and not because it is a workable way to raise government revenues but because it's politically popular to talk about Sticking It To The Man, regardless of the real-world effects.
The statutory corporate tax rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, much higher than most places in Europe, and we have a 'worldwide tax' meaning that a company based in the US has to pay US tax on revenue even if it's for something that from start to finish was pr
Re:Just repeal the corporate tax. (Score:5, Informative)
The statutory corporate tax rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, much higher than most places in Europe
The facts change, but the claims remain the same, decade after decade. The current U.S. corporate tax rate is 21% which is below the world average of 23.85% [taxfoundation.org], so no, the U.S. is far, far away from having "one of the highest in the world".
More relevant than any statutory rate is the actual rate that is paid, since any number of special rules can be used to eliminate corporate taxation mostly, or entirely - as 91 of the Fortune 500 managed to do last year.
When one computes the actual tax rate (as a percentage of GDP say), it turns out the U.S. has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the developed world, 36th in the OECD in 2018 in fact (data found here [oecd.org].
Re: (Score:2)
This. Our current tax system is designed for tax avoidance and evasion.
We need a consumption tax instead.
Buy electricity, invoice includes a consumption tax
Mechanic works on your car, invoice includes a consumption tax
Google charges for its services, invoice includes a consumption tax
Get rid of 1040s and April 15, probably much of what the IRS does today.
missing piece (Score:2)
Companies exploiting the double Irish put their intellectual property into an Irish-registered company that is controlled from a tax haven such as Bermuda.
...a strategy that works because western politicians have been bought/bribed/sorry "received campaign contributions" in order to build the loopholes into tax laws that allow that shit.
Why they're still in office and not in jail will be something future history classes will debate hotly.
Why can't they just close the loophole (Score:2)
Why corporate income tax should be abolished (Score:2)
The solution to this problem is so simple
- Abolish all corporate income tax that is spent on R&D, capital infrastructure, and wages
- Increase the tax rate on dividend payouts, so they are taxed higher than regular income
These two simple changes would make it so that all income comes back home, and is immediately re-invested in the company - growing jobs and wages massively. Companies would have zero incentive to offshore income. The taxes the government would take in from income taxes on the employment
Re: (Score:2)
This can be applied more generally and have all tax evasion and avoidance eliminated by abolishing all taxes.
Next we can abolish all crime by making everything legal.
Re: (Score:2)
- Increase the tax rate on dividend payouts, so they are taxed higher than regular income
Dividend payouts are not corporate income. They are the profit share paid out to share holders and are taxed as personal income. They are why 401K accounts, pensions, and people invest in stocks with a good yield. What you are suggesting would hurt retirees, encourage people to sell stocks because no dividends, and encourage increases in payout and benefits to executives.
Abolish all corporate income tax that is spent on R&D, capital infrastructure, and wages
>
You seem ignorant of corporate income tax. A corporate income tax levied by federal and state governments on business profits. The p
Double Irish, Usually Served... (Score:2)
With a Dutch Sandwich. [investopedia.com]
">
By all means (Score:2)
"Controversial" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it difficult to believe you don't drive on any public roads or enjoy things like paramedics, schools, and fire departments. But perhaps you find they interfere with your life?
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the competitors these multinationals have which can't do these loopholes and end up paying tax?
Re: Good for them. (Score:2)
Funny how companies like Google never seem to be started in your little workers' paradise, isn't it. I wonder if there's a reason for that, or if it's just a coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)