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

Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

businessinsider.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 431 posts

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#371

Post by ericmay »

boringg wrote: post #348
ericmay wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fine if he thinks it’s stupid, but then he shouldn’t complain that he doesn’t pay enough either as if only he could pay more then he would do so. BS! I don’t have a problem with the guy or with his wealth, but the whole “oh but if they’d only tax me” thing is infuriating. Hell, he could just endow any number of non-Ivy League schools and pay for kids to go to college.

I have a genuine question do you know what Buffets philanthropies do or his plans with his wealth? Or are you just reacting to talking points?

I'm reacting to his talking points - I'm not sure what his philanthropies will do with his wealth, but I assume not give it to the IRS so I think the point still stands.

Anybody who wants to pay more taxes can write the IRS a check. It's very easy to do.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#372

Post by salawat »

refurb wrote: post #358
bluecalm wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make more money because they are more productive and their services are highly valued. Those people already bear disproportional burden when it comes to taxes. I mean, what do you really want? Everyone works according to abilities and everyone is provided for according to their needs?

I’m not arguing the rich need to pay more, I’m arguing that the OP is wrong to argue he’s just a “normal worker” and shouldn’t be paying a large tax burden when he makes more than 99% of the population. Basically when the OP says “the rich should pay more” I’m saying “ok, but that includes you”

You're misdefining rich I think in the sense it may be being used in this case as a proxy for "companies and taxpayers doing things to obfuscate their actual flow of monetary value".

Even if one makes say 1000000 in income, no equities, and takes the standard deduction, they are not the Rich being lamented here. They would not be doing end runs around tax obligations.

Yes, you blow the minimum wage folks out of the water salary-wise, but it doesn't mean they are in any different a boat than any other tax payer trying to do it right.

Which can actually be surprisingly difficult if you do anything other than basically "money comes in, money goes out". I'm actually somewhat afraid of doing any of the more advanced reading in the tax code, because it'll probably end up with me makimg a few appointments with the IRS to get someone to explain things to me. Their writing style is terrible, and I tend to lose track in the forests of ambiguous antecedents.

I say this as someone who isn't a stranger to reading legal docs or standards for fun.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#373

Post by lasagnaphil »

amelius wrote: post #242

This is the definition of hacking: using a system (in this case the global financial system) in ways it was not intended to be used.

'Hacking' kinda loses its novelty when almost every single large multinational corporation is doing it, though. How boring...

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#374

Post by burkaman »

esyir wrote: post #368
burkaman wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would you want the law to change if you don't have a problem with what they're doing? Honestly I don't think you're right about what "most people" think. I can't remember ever seeing a protest about the tax code, but there was a global social movement about vilifying immoral corporations. And frankly I think it's more effective. If you try to argue about tax policy, it's easy for a well-educated opponent to k…

Because fundamentally, most people don't have issues with people playing by the rules of the game. People don't like shit laws, but they hate kneecapping themselves more. And more effective? Has the railing about this since the 90s changed anything there?

I hear what you're saying, I just don't agree that most people think this way.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#375

Post by throwaway2037 »

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #343
throwaway2037 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+9000 votes! I agree 110%. I didn't say it, but the 50-55% "all-in" should also include capital gains receiving no special treatment for high-income people.

Which special treatment is this ? Might be more sensible to give smallish tax breaks for CGT to ordinary workers and reform the taxation of worker share options no more crippling tax bills for worthless options. Id also encourage listed companies to offer UK style share saves to all workers to allow those lower down the food chain to actually get some equity.

You wrote: >

Good question. For the United States, I reference: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/10151...

If you hold one year or more:

Filing Status: Single

0% rate: Up to $40,000

15% rate: $40,000 to to $441,450

20% rate: Over $441,450

In the above, personally, I would like to remove the brackets for 15% and 20%. My point: For anyone beyond middle class, tax capital gains as regular income.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#376

Post by fighterpilot »

cjpearson wrote: post #287
fighterpilot wrote: post #78

I've heard this suggested before: abolish all corporate tax and increase capital gains tax to equal income tax. This will level the playing field between large and small businesses, since the former has the means to dodge byzantine corporate tax laws. It will also give an incentive for companies to stay onshore. Any downsides?

Probably the biggest downside is that the government would lose a major policy tool. If there are no corporate taxes then there's no way to incentivize companies via tax breaks. It would also become more important to enforce taxation on corporate benefits. If a company provides a car, jet, mansion etc for an executive's personal use, then they need to put a monetary value on that usage and tax it as income. It's not…

Your third point is a good one. It would take a very clever reframing so the public understands the rationale, although it's doubtful that could ever happen.

Regarding your second point, how does this become more of a concern when corporate tax rates are low? If a company buys an employee a car using pretax income, that will be tax free regardless of the capital gains or corporate tax rates.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#377

Post by fighterpilot »

nodamage wrote: post #261
gruez wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck exfiltrating it back to your bank account.

The difference is you only need to transfer enough money to your personal bank account to cover your annual expenses. So if you make $500k/year but only spend $100k/year, then the other $400k will continue to grow tax free.

That's a pretty big difference. Makes the idea of a sales tax only kind of attractive since it doesn't disadvantage income over capital gains.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#378

Post by bourgwaletariat »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #265
bourgwaletariat wrote: post #110

Honest question: Who here will stop using Uber because of this? Anyone?

Plenty of companies do this, especially successful companies. Google, Apple are all doing the same sort of thing this isn't unique to Uber by any means.

Stop using them too, then. I already did.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#379

Post by bradlys »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #328
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the top 1% are "normal workers" like me - engineers at Google - or my cousin - a radiologist - or one of my best friends - an investment banker - or lawyers, or owners of successful small businesses, etc... These "normal workers" pay a lot of that 40% of the tax bill. There aren't that many CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and board members, A+ list celebrities, and aristocrats. You're getting into the .01% - tha…

Reading the other comments, I looked closer at your choice of professions. 1) Engineers at Google earning 400K+ USD per year are receiving a large chunk in stock grants. I guess 1/3 to 1/2. (And the last 10 years have been very, very good for equity prices in tech majors.) I assume those receive capital gains tax treatment when sold. If held for at least one year, you receive generous tax savings. Is that fair? 2) Ra…

RSUs and such don’t have capital gains treatment like you might be imagining. If you sell the day you vest, you get income taxed. If you sell a year later, you get income taxed. You will only get capital gains on that which you earned above what you got when you vested. (No different than just selling the stock and buying it again immediately - you will owe income tax even if you still hold the stock btw) Only ISOs and other private equity will get that preferred treatment. (Which is far more risky and the stock is not tradable after all and typically bordering on worthless anyway)

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#380

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

thrwhizzle wrote: post #310
throwaway2037 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I assume when you write "normal workers" that you mean non-executives and non-passive income earners. (Executives can get a lot of equity or dividends that accrue taxes at lower rates; passive income earners use asset depreciation to lessen tax burden.) The top 1% in the US is ~400K USD. Real question for OP (and others): What do you think is a reasonable effective income tax rate? (Please do not confuse effec…

>What do you think is a reasonable effective income tax rate? (Please do not confuse effective and nominal tax rates!) In my view: "All in" should be about 50-55%. When I say "all in" I mean absolutely everything -- federal, state, local, national pension, national health (if applicable), yada yada yada. Who is this for? The “rich” or for everyone else? An effective rate of 50-55% is obscene. I would relocate for any…

Where do you live?

In California - if you don't have a ton of mortgage interest deductions and you count state income tax - you're above 39.5% on $400k. If you count both sides of payroll tax, you're in the mid 40s. And even if you own a home, if you count property tax, you could be close to or above 50%.

The median state income tax is about half of California's at $400k - and property taxes here are somewhat low. Most places - you're gonna be above 40%.

Post reply on HN