The 15% Tax Rate • Hacker News Board

Re: The 15% Tax Rate

#121

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 2:43 AM UTC

cluda01 wrote: post #119

yummyfajitas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Google Ireland is choosing not to invest money in the USA because of the hostile business environment in the US. So what? Is Google Ireland somehow obligated to do business in the US in an effort to pay more US taxes? Is the Guinness Brewing Company or Tata similarly obligated to do business in the US just so the US government can tax them? And on the flip side, is GM obligated to do business in India so that In…

The shareholders of Google own stakes in Google, Inc. which is an American company not Google Ireland. Google Ireland is a subsidiary of Google, Inc. Ultimately the end goal of Google, Inc. is to maximize profit for shareholders. To pretend that Google Ireland is some independent company company that makes its own decisions where to do business isn't particularly prescient in my opinion. Given the billions of dollars…

You are making the implicit assumption (2) that Google's "fair share" includes some fraction of the money they make outside the US.

I disagree - I believe taxes are payment for government services received. Google Ireland and the Guinness Brewing Company did not receive government services from the US, and hence their "fair share" (to the US) is precisely $0.

Incidentally, the shareholders of Google USA may not live in the US. And similarly, the shareholders of Guinness may be located in the US. If it turns out that some large fraction of Guinness shareholders live in the US, should Guinness start paying taxes in the US for it's Irish operations?

(Guinness does, of course, pay taxes in the US for profits made by it's US subsidiary.)

Re: The 15% Tax Rate

#122

Post by Aloisius » Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 10:54 PM UTC

estevez wrote: post #63

Aloisius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the rich don't go around buying stupidly expensive things. They don't get rich by spending. They get rich by saving. There are billionaires that live in modest homes and don't particularly act or spend like their rich, but they enjoy all of societies benefits that created an environment that enabled them to become rich. They should pay for it so that future billionaires and millionaires can be made.

Or they could just kill the estate ("death") tax, ensuring that those future billionaires are their descendants.

The goal is not to create billionaires, but to create an environment where people try to become billionaires. Simply spawning them serves no benefit.

Re: The 15% Tax Rate

#123

Post by p_alexander » Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 7:49 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #121

cluda01 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholders of Google own stakes in Google, Inc. which is an American company not Google Ireland. Google Ireland is a subsidiary of Google, Inc. Ultimately the end goal of Google, Inc. is to maximize profit for shareholders. To pretend that Google Ireland is some independent company company that makes its own decisions where to do business isn't particularly prescient in my opinion. Given the billions of dollars…

You are making the implicit assumption (2) that Google's "fair share" includes some fraction of the money they make outside the US. I disagree - I believe taxes are payment for government services received. Google Ireland and the Guinness Brewing Company did not receive government services from the US, and hence their "fair share" (to the US) is precisely $0. Incidentally, the shareholders of Google USA may not live…

When Google transfers its IP that was created in the US to an overseas company "headquartered" in the Bahamas so that their subsidiary in Google Ireland can license the IP and not pay money to Google US, thereby avoiding US taxes, then Google Ireland certainly received benefit from the US government. This holds up so long as you believe that Google receives government benefit from US laws, regulations, and infrastructure, which I think they certainly do.

So it's not so much about forcing truly international companies to pay taxes in the US (though they should pay taxes if they are indeed subsidiaries making money from the work of a parent company when that parent company repatriates profits), it's more about exposing the legal-by-letter-but-not-by-spirit practices of companies that hide money generated in the US overseas.

See http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134619750/how-offshore-tax-hav...