41–50 of 55 posts
Personally, I'd rather that Google keep as much of their money as possible and continue to spend it as they see fit. I believe that society benefits far more from a company like Google having and spending the money than any federal government.
Since this became such a public debate issue in Europe, I've actually more or less landed on the idea that maybe corporate taxes (taxing profits) are a lost battle. The only way to really combat it is for different countries to collude and perhaps sanction tax havens. Even then, I doubt they will be able to raise much tax. Modern tax systems are diverse by design: sales tax/VAT. Excise/sin taxes, income taxes, CGT, e…
> The only way to really combat it is for different
> countries to collude and perhaps sanction tax havens.
> Even then, I doubt they will be able to raise much tax.
Personally, I'd rather that Google keep as much of their money as possible and continue to spend it as they see fit. I believe that society benefits far more from a company like Google having and spending the money than any federal government.
Maybe I've seen too much big money fraud, but sometimes the combined weight of a very wealthy and powerful federal government is all we have separating the mostly civil society we have now to one where we are constantly being bilked by what amounts to mobsters.
I'll give you an example. The urine screening industry. Many players in that industry set up labs and then proceeded to give doctors, hospitals and clinics kickbacks for approving 'enhanced' urine tests for thousands of dollars rather than the dozens of dollars they used to cost.
The other players (insurance companies, honest competitors, the government) are slow to realize what's happening. Within a few years these unscrupulous companies have amassed a massive war chest.
Whistle blowers appear. They are sued into submission. Competitors complain. They are sued into submission. Insurance companies start to sue. They are sued in return. State level politicians are brought in as investors or otherwise paid so they can ride the gravy train. This gives insurance companies pause. In the mean time the owners and officers of these companies are still bilking all of us to the tune of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of dollars.
Only the combined weight of the federal government with essentially all the time and money in the world, which has just now amassed enough evidence to go after some of the worst offenders, pose a threat to these people. Anything else is a mere nuisance.
Sometimes it is very, very good to have a counterweight to the power that can be bought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations pay out taxed dividends from their profits.
Taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary people's income though. (And more to the point the kind of person who gets money from dividends is less likely to spend it on tax-generating economic activity like buying food)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary people's income though. (And more to the point the kind of person who gets money from dividends is less likely to spend it on tax-generating economic activity like buying food)
Yes, the logic is that the corporation paid tax on their profits before dividends. Perhaps there's a case for corporation tax abolition and increased dividend taxation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the logic is that the corporation paid tax on their profits before dividends. Perhaps there's a case for corporation tax abolition and increased dividend taxation?
I actually wouldn't be averse to that, but it'd be hard to internationally coordinate such a change (and it would have to be internationally coordinated, or corporations would move to the places that had the lowest corporation tax while their owners would move to the places that had the lowest dividend tax). And there's still the problem of keeping your wealth in a corporation and avoiding paying tax on it until you…
Since this became such a public debate issue in Europe, I've actually more or less landed on the idea that maybe corporate taxes (taxing profits) are a lost battle. The only way to really combat it is for different countries to collude and perhaps sanction tax havens. Even then, I doubt they will be able to raise much tax. Modern tax systems are diverse by design: sales tax/VAT. Excise/sin taxes, income taxes, CGT, e…
Except if you don't tax profits, you're forced to tax consumption instead, forcing consumers to bear a larger than fair share of the tax burden. It's really hard to properly tax corporations because they have the resources and the motivation to really fight back. But we shouldn't stop trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any point in taxing companies at all - they provide jobs for tax payers.
Obviously providing jobs for tax payers isn't unique to companies. I can pay for a nanny, chauffeur, and private cook even if I don't have a company. Since your logic is "X provides jobs so X shouldn't be taxed" then I shouldn't have to be taxed if I have any household staff, no? That logic makes no sense. (If it makes sense to you, please elaborate. How many employees and how many FTEs does one need before this spec…
In a global economy, where corporations can exist anywhere they like, taxing corporate profits is almost a guarantee that we'll see the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs happen to corporate headquarters. The corporations will move to countries with lower tax rates because they can and because it will save them billions. I'd move my HQ to keep a billion in the bank instead of giving to the clowns trying to run the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously providing jobs for tax payers isn't unique to companies. I can pay for a nanny, chauffeur, and private cook even if I don't have a company. Since your logic is "X provides jobs so X shouldn't be taxed" then I shouldn't have to be taxed if I have any household staff, no? That logic makes no sense. (If it makes sense to you, please elaborate. How many employees and how many FTEs does one need before this spec…
A corporation doesn't get liability protection for free, the corporation itself remains liable for whatever it does while the shareholders (but not board members) are protected. In a global economy, where corporations can exist anywhere they like, taxing corporate profits is almost a guarantee that we'll see the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs happen to corporate headquarters. The corporations will mov…
You are correct in that it's not "for free", and the corporation is liable. My point is that corporate existence only occurs through state involvement, and there's no obvious reason why the state cannot make money from that.
You follow up with a market reason. Your statement is correct. Companies (and people, and employers) can use tax differences in the world to their advantage. You are free to move your HQ should you wish.
And that leads us to the topic mentioned by the linked-to article. Quoting from the OECD's "About BEPS" page:
> In an increasingly interconnected world, national tax laws have not kept pace with global corporations, fluid capital, and the digital economy, leaving gaps that can be exploited by companies who avoid taxation in their home countries by pushing activities abroad to low or no tax jurisdictions. This undermines the fairness and integrity of tax systems. The project, quickly known as BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) is looking at whether the current rules allow for the allocation of taxable profits to locations different from those where the actual business activity takes place and if not, what could be done to change this.