Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

projekte.sueddeutsche.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 817 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#621

Post by ttoinou »

liberte82 wrote: post #613
apendleton wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're acting like laws are an unmoving fundamental property of the universe. In reality these very companies have reshaped the laws to their own advantage. Companies that lobby on tax policy demonstrably pay lower taxes; see e.g., https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/04/16/lobby-more-pay-les...

Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.

Chomsky's solution? Moar state !

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#622

Post by pwinnski »

valuearb wrote: post #468
jamesblonde wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it benefit society? Reduced state income that could be used to invest in infrastructure and people? Will the companies invest that money with society's interest at best better than the govt would? I don't think so. What do Apple do with their money? They horde it, waiting for a windfall to bring it back to the States and pay low/no corporate tax on the repatriated profits.

You tax things you want less of, not more if. Taxing corporate profits is a tax on investment. Apples actual income tax rate is in excess of 60% if they repatriate. First, they have to pay corporate income taxes in all their foreign countries. Then, they owe 9% to state of California on what’s left. Then they owe 35% to the US treasury on what’s left. Then they pay the remainder as dividends, and shareholders owe up…

This is not accurate. Currently they are paying between 1 and 7% on income, as the Paradise Papers document. If they re-patriated every bit of income to the U.S., they would owe an additional 35%. That brings the tax rate to 36-42% (actually slightly less since the 35% would be on the 99-93% remaining), and that's that.

What they then choose to do with the money after that, and what taxes individuals pay on their own investments, are not part of Apple's tax rate.

Also, good luck getting dividends taxed as normal income rather than capital gains!

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#623

Post by ttoinou »

styx31 wrote: post #80

What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate. But there are these big companies which can afford to create offshore companies/holding just to evade some tax system, and lower their tax rate. So, what? The tax rate of a country is now "artificial", because it will never be applied to all revenues from all companies, because th…

Is this really that difficult for a small company to evade tax? I think you can do it

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#624

Post by m3kw9 »

This guys seem to know nothing about economics. A company can be enticed with tax exemptions to setup shop there and in return help the count in many ways. The tip of the iceberg is employment, talent generation and the surrounding areas where the office is placed.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#625

Post by euyyn »

improbable22 wrote: post #523
toyg wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's accountants say Apple Paradise Inc. made the profit ... because they offset all local profits to expenses incurred in licensing the brand. > When they sell a cool computer for E2000, they have used their brand to sell it, and there tax is collected. But tax is supposed to be collected there and it's not , because Apple accountants immediately declare all profits as debits towards AParadise, so there is $0 p…

Of the E2000 the customer paid, about E400 is tax right away. That's far from nothing. You could argue it should be higher, or lower. It's frequently adjusted. My point is that this transaction is what certainly happened in Germany. Taxing this is very clear, transparent, and fair. Whether or not the global empire turned a profit that quarter (maybe you bought a Samsung!), and which bits of the global empire were los…

I admire the patience with which you've responded in succession to two different commenters that didn't bother to read your comment, to which they were replying.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#626

Post by adamlett »

nickpp wrote: post #366
adamlett wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies are granted by governments Sometimes, sure. But far from exclusively. Monopolies arise naturally in unregulated markets. The free market has a natural solution to monopolies, it's called competition - startups. That’s like saying that natural selection is the solution to hereditary diseases. Not so comforting for those suffering now.

You're right there, free markets take while to break monopolies. Time is a price we have to pay. Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions. This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies. Exactly what we were running away fro…

Time is a price we have to pay.

By which you mean that time is a price you think we ought to pay. I mean, we do actually have options.

Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions.

I struggle to come up with any example anywhere, where this is true.

This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies

I don’t see how that follows from your previous paragraph. But never mind, I get what you are trying to say, and I agree that there are plenty of examples all over the world of regulation that has the effect you describe. Sometimes simply because it’s bad regulation. But other times because it’s a worthwhile trade off. I bet you don’t mind the pharmaceutical industry being regulated. Or how about the aircraft industry. Even taxi medallions serve(d) a purpose.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#628

Post by skybrian »

tyingq wrote: post #240
loceng wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies evading taxes are responsible for increased hardship and suffering of a society as well, leeching off of the nations they exist in, and being able to outcompete the honest organizations and people in them. The damages are far greater than the tax avoided. "They are doing it too" isn't a valid excuse either.

They aren't, for the most part, doing anything illegal though. They are using the existing laws to their best advantage. The fix for this can't be trying to appeal to their morals. It would have to be something else that just limits the legal choices. Edit: If you disagree, are you saying that shaming them into not doing this solely on some moral compass is the right fix? Does that scale?

We can certainly blame companies for using loopholes secretly, rather than doing it openly, pointing out the problem, and working to get the loopholes fixed.

If the company position is that the right fix is to plug the loopholes then by all means be consistent about it.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#629

Post by otakucode »

There is a question in that letter which I wonder if it is intended as a threat. I might just be misguided. But asking about the questions asked about 'credible opposition party' and 'movement that may replace the current government'... I think Tim Cook (and others in his tax bracket) might see such a question coming from a media outlet as a bit of a threat. The general public think of the rich as simply normal people with way more money and power. They have no concept of how differently they relate to the world, governments, etc. They've got no idea that once you get beyond a few million dollars, once you've surpassed whatever an individual would reasonably ever need... you start planning for your family. When you get to a billion? Then you start planning for your legacy. You don't think "what will make me some money this week" or "month" or "year". You think on the scale of centuries. And you fully intend your dynasty (for some reason all rich come to fetishize bloodlines and draw irrational conclusions about the superiority of their genetics, likely a psychological defense mechanism against a sort of survivors guilt born out of all their compatriots they've seen fall/destroyed) to outlast flimsy flash-in-the-pan happenings of history like the rise and fall of currencies or redrawing of national boundaries.

When people talk about things like a large movement to automation, or things like Apple having a value greater than the GDP of nations, and things like that... they don't tend to follow through and consider things like... people have fought very, very large wars and killed many, many people over sums smaller. Those who think it isn't a game are only those expendable enough to be fodder for it.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#630

Post by fny »

ttoinou wrote: post #621
liberte82 wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.

Chomsky's solution? Moar state !

You inevitably need more state to combat antitrust.
Post reply on HN