Earlier quoted context omitted.
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
It's not necessarily that simple. The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 grants a right to privacy. It is not clear whether or not the right under copyright law to copy an image is always sufficient to give you a right to publish the image. That depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, it does not, as a result of the way ECHR has been implemented in local law through the Human Rights Act 1998, tho…
Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
It's not necessarily that simple. The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 grants a right to privacy. It is not clear whether or not the right under copyright law to copy an image is always sufficient to give you a right to publish the image. That depends on jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, it does not, as a result of the way ECHR has been implemented in local law through the Human Rights Act 1998, tho…
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#23I for one hope the countries in question will patch the tax holes, but not as much as to make the companies evade to other countries. The national economies would be vastly improved, at the expense of shareholder dividend.
Well, this problem is fundamental to trying to tax entities that don't have any specific location. Taxing people is quite simple because you can't split a person up - just count the days they reside in a particular tax jurisdiction and once it goes over a certain number of days per year, you say "you are resident here, benefiting from our services, so pay us tax" and as long as that number of days per year is reasona…
Equating companies with actual people seems to be a uniquely american view (also, complaining about "double taxation" of corporate profits). Personally, I don't think those who pay the tax are those who "deserve" to vote or be represented by politicians/laws. In my view, companies (and their investors) have the privilege of being able to profit by providing services to citizens, and they should pay (be taxed) for this privilege.
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, this problem is fundamental to trying to tax entities that don't have any specific location. Taxing people is quite simple because you can't split a person up - just count the days they reside in a particular tax jurisdiction and once it goes over a certain number of days per year, you say "you are resident here, benefiting from our services, so pay us tax" and as long as that number of days per year is reasona…
> Companies get taxed without representation Equating companies with actual people seems to be a uniquely american view (also, complaining about "double taxation" of corporate profits). Personally, I don't think those who pay the tax are those who "deserve" to vote or be represented by politicians/laws. In my view, companies (and their investors) have the privilege of being able to profit by providing services to cit…
Taxation without representation is pretty widely recognised as problematic though. Not for nothing did it help trigger the war of independence against in the colonies against the British. Think about it: if you can't influence politicians in any way, what stops them taxing 100% of your labour? The only thing that stops governments doing this at the moment is the fear of consequences from their citizens: either at the ballot box in democracies or at the hands of the mob in dictatorships. Companies can't vote and they can't rebel, so there has to be some kind of pressure that pushes back against ever higher taxation. Usually this is indirect: countries fear that if they tax companies too much, they'll go bust, people will lose their jobs, and then those people will vote.
But when companies are largely distributed and a government doesn't feel any real exposure via their own population, the natural tendency is to say "if you want to sell to our citizens, you have to pay us lots of tax" and there's not much a company can do about it except simply deny an entire population their services, which is about as useful a response as a person deciding the best way to lower their tax bill is to throw themselves off a bridge. Nobody wins in this situation!
> In my view, companies (and their investors) have the privilege of being able to profit by providing services to citizens, and they should pay (be taxed) for this privilege.
Since when is the ability to make a profit by engaging in trade a "privilege"? People were doing that in the earliest tribes and farming settlements where the closest thing to a government was the local alpha male. The privilege of taxation is one people grant to governments in return for the stability and ability to make long term plans that they provide; but that privilege can be revoked and has been throughout history.
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#25Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#26Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
Well, it looks someone has covered the CC by-sa license already so it sure looks fine to use, they're missing citation of the license though.
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#27Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#28This is common knowledge for ages, good to see it properly proven. However, it seems there's something else at play here when you realize Juncker has just started his term as European Comission president, and the TTIP deals going on. It seems fishy that this only appears now and with such fanfare.
Dont forget that germany officially punished Cyprus for doing similar things.
And lets not forget he is not an elected President
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#29Anyone got any ideas on how governments could effectively clamp down on this? In Australia, IKEA paid 1%* tax over the last 12 years, even as sales surged 500%: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/luxembourg-tax-... (The Guardian article has since removed the 1% reference, though it was in there when I first read the article.)
Re: Leaked Documents Expose Global Companies’ Secret Tax Deals in Luxembourg
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies get taxed without representation Equating companies with actual people seems to be a uniquely american view (also, complaining about "double taxation" of corporate profits). Personally, I don't think those who pay the tax are those who "deserve" to vote or be represented by politicians/laws. In my view, companies (and their investors) have the privilege of being able to profit by providing services to cit…
I'm not American and don't live in America, so I guess you need to rethink that bit. Companies are clearly not people. If they were, they wouldn't be able to go jurisdictional shopping so easily. Taxation without representation is pretty widely recognised as problematic though. Not for nothing did it help trigger the war of independence against in the colonies against the British. Think about it: if you can't influen…
Obviously, but here we're talking about people having no representation - not companies.
> "if you want to sell to our citizens, you have to pay us lots of tax"
No country that I know of demands "lots of tax". Usually, they just want to receive their "fair" share of tax - e.g. 20% on the profits on the products sold in the country/to the citizens. That's not outrageous, and companies still increase their profits by serving the market. Of course, companies and governments might disagree on what is a "fair" tax, but basically, this just means "as much as local companies are paying" (otherwise, being foreign amounts to having an unfair competitive advantage).
> Since when is the ability to make a profit by engaging in trade a "privilege"? People were doing that
People engaging in trade is not a privilege. Companies, however, is! There are many benefits of forming a company, if nothing else the legal structure (profits can be legally distributed in predetermined ways), liability protection, and (probably the most important of all) immortality.