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

781–790 of 817 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#781

Post by orwin »

golergka wrote: post #773
orwin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But i could choose to pay less taxes, and i don't. Honestly i'm pretty happy with socialism right now, i lived in the bottom 20% for 23 years and still got to go to the hospital to get surgery at 3 y/o, my little brother did not die from his appendicite and my mother breast cancer was detected before it spread too much. I never suffered from malnutrition and access to free education allowed me to get into the top 20%…

Let me get this straight - while you "agree" to pay higher taxes, you actually get more from the government that you put in? It seems that your position first and foremost is aligned with your rational self-interest rather than abstract moral values.

Well i actually got more from the government that what i put in, but at this very moment, i certainly give more than what i get, and even with kids in the picture i'd still give more.

And even when my overall contribution to my country will be highr than what my whole family got (and it will eventually happen), i'd still be happy to pay my taxes so that other kids can have the same chances i had.

I believe in meritocratic society and i don't see how to achieve that without socialism and some taxes until everyone stop being petty, greedy and/or self-centered. Then we can all be libertarian.

Finally i'm an utilitarist (well, a negative utilitarist following Popper's definition) so my moral values are not abstract.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#782

Post by toyg »

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…

That 400 is a consumption tax that consumers pay, not the company. The company pays a fraction of that, depending on what in their expenses was also carrying VAT. So you just maximize your vat expenses and voilà, no real tax for the company.

> I don't know why we do this.

We do this because we know that global companies are sociopathic, and left to their own devices would never contribute to the societies they benefit from. So we try to drag them kicking and screaming back into human decency; and they try to escape in more and more creative ways. It's like asking why we pursue burglars.

> I'm very much not arguing for zero taxes

But you are; you are arguing for zero taxes for international companies, leaving only individuals and geo-restricted entities to deal with the task of paying for the cost of living in a civilized society. That's increasingly what happens in practice already, and it's a huge part of the problem. The best case in point is VAT, a regressive tax that is paid almost entirely by consumers - the same people who are also paying income tax, which is still the primary source of funds for any government. So individuals get hammered twice, while wealthy corporations stash away piles of money. That isn't right.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#783

Post by philliphaydon »

zajd wrote: post #254
philliphaydon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol tax isn’t about redistribution it wealth.

We have a progressive income tax, at least here in the US. Hard to argue that's not redistributing wealth, although I'd argue it's not enough :)

Education system is failing, protects Teachers and fails kids, and is protected by a board who doesn’t want to change because their pockets are being lined with lots of money. Doesn’t seem like redistribution to me.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#784

Post by henvic »

Let people protect their finance in peace.

If I earn money by creating a good product that consumers love I have the right to do whatever I wish with this money.

Socialism is evil. Let people be free to use their wealth for the benefit of society by producing more, donating, and so on. Why the hell would I want to give money to politicians to generate war and tragedy? It is a shame so many socialists try to destroy California and whatever is left of free-market in America.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#785

Post by ttoinou »

pfranz wrote: post #777
ttoinou wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another ? And every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own. Have youbever seen govt reducing barriers of entry ? I need examples Only govt can create monopolies, unless you're talking about mafias.

I wholly admit the government can do those things (that was the point in my original reply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regula…

    All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them
What did govt do exactly to prevent, I quote the WP article, " food markets in cinemas, airports, and sports arenas, college textbooks, the Kosher food market in the United Kingdom, and phone calls and food in jails and prisons" ?

    maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties
Yes !

    maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services
Yes but they also forbid some forms of private currencies and make mandatory to keep using their currency. If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?

    if governments only oppress a market
I didn't say that. Maybe govt are the best solution we have right now for homeland security, police and basic justice. For the rest of its activites, I'm pretty sure it's useless

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#786

Post by dgsb »

dontreact wrote: post #164
dgsb wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still live with choosing to not buy any iphone or mac book stuff.

I think you can't get a Mac, iPhone, or an Android phone as Google has similar tax avoidance schemes. (Although maybe this one isn't viable anymore?) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Doubl... Unfortunately, that's not really a tenable position for many users here.

Postponing for one year a material replacement does not seem that extreme, and it has impact on a company revenue.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#787

Post by fastball »

explainplease wrote: post #710
fastball wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says it's wrong?

Most people who aren't murderers, and a few who are. Are you saying that murder is not wrong? BTW, please don't troll. If you're just asking, "Who says murder is wrong?" to be rhetorical or make a point, don't. Instead, make your point explicitly in the first place, so that we can move forward in the discussion. I'm not interested in playing games, but I am interested in seriously discussing the topic. So, either you…

Is killing in war murder? If not, why not?

Is killing in self-defense murder? If not why not?

If yes, how are they "objectively" wrong?

If you're a pacifist that believes all killing is wrong, fair enough. But that doesn't make your standards "objective". There are shades of grey to all morality, you pretending otherwise does you no service.

The same applies in this case. Having popular opinion on your side does not make your morality "objective". That's not how this works.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#788

Post by improbable22 »

toyg wrote: post #782
improbable22 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That 400 is a consumption tax that consumers pay, not the company. The company pays a fraction of that, depending on what in their expenses was also carrying VAT. So you just maximize your vat expenses and voilà, no real tax for the company. > I don't know why we do this. We do this because we know that global companies are sociopathic, and left to their own devices would never contribute to the societies they benefi…

> tax that consumers pay

No, you should think of the tax man standing between the customer and the seller. Whether he takes the bank notes from the customer's hand just before, or from the seller's hand just afterwards, really doesn't matter.

The legal incidence of the tax is that the shop writes a check to the taxman, but this is not very interesting. The economic incidence is fuzzier and more interesting, and depends on the elasticities -- if the tax were made 500 euros, would the customer fork out more or would Apple collect less? This obviously depends on lots of things. It seems bizarre to me that when we discuss VAT as a consumption tax we follow neither of these things, and instead assign it to the purchaser -- but this is just some convention.

(I'm imagining sales tax not VAT for simplicity. Or that the company made the goods entirely from scratch. I think VAT will be collected on the wholesale price when the computer crosses the border from China, and then on the retail mark-up when it's sold... but no change to the moral of the story.)

By "sociopathic" you mean amoral. Like plants in your garden. The weeds will take over if you let them. Personifying them doesn't help with understanding this. But whether you pay the gardener by handing him the cash, or by pinning it to the thorn bush for him to collect, really really doesn't matter.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#789

Post by eru »

yardie wrote: post #501
eru wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? A few points, but I am not sure which one you are referring to: - interesting enough actual taxation in the US seems to be mostly flat in practice (after a certain threshold): rich people get more deductions and can hire lawyers to use all the loopholes - you can have a mostly fixed marginal rate of taxation on income, but still have progression in average rates. Eg give everyone $10k/year as an all…

I mean that flat-tax rates punish the poor. One may have to miss a meal to pay their taxes. The other will have a few less bottles of champagne to purchase. Even in your follow up post as soon as we make provisions for the reality we live in the flat tax goes back to being a progressive tax, again. So what we really need is a simpler progressive tax rather than a gradually complex flat tax.

The main argument for a flat tax is to simplify the system and make it harder to game. What really punishes the poor are complicated taxes--the kind that people who can afford lawyers and accounts don't pay.

Singapore and Hong Kong seem to do the right thing in terms of taxation: their systems are simple and the income tax is progressive, but the top marginal rates are pretty low by European standards (around 20%).

To help the poor, universal basic income seems like a good idea. It pairs well with my favourite kind of taxation: land value tax. See https://medium.com/basic-income/why-land-value-tax-and-unive... for a pretty insightful rant.

If an income tax is necessary at all, giving everybody a flat allowance per head plus a pretty flat rate should be good enough on the poor? (Otherwise, do whatever Singapore or Hong Kong or Estonia are doing.)

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#790

Post by eru »

chii wrote: post #478
eru wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that usually called a broad based tax or so? I mean I mostly agree with what you are saying, just noting that I'm used to different terminology. Yes, it's a good idea to put eg debt and equity on the same level; don't tax transactions that improve economic efficiency (tax consumption instead for example). Land value tax is still a great idea for these and other reasons. Eg you can jack the lvt really high and b…

LVT sounds good in theory, but a large number of rich people _are_ acting as rent seekers (they own property, and extract value via rents on people who work/produce actual value on it). It would not be politically feasible, unless the gov't is prepared to fight against those powerful land owners.

Yes, the political feasibility is one big problem. (The other challenge is to figure out how much revenue you could raise---there are some good theoretical arguments that elimination a tax on something else like labour income should increase the local land value and thus land value tax by enough to offset that loss, but I don't know whether that works out in practice.)

There is some hope for the political feasibility: some countries already have land value taxes with various imperfections like Estonia, and some Australian states, and some counties in the US.

Post reply on HN