Big Tech Companies to Be Hit by 'Historic' International Tax Agreement

[I7guy]

Tax laws in all countries involved would have to be changed. That’s kind of the point.

“We will get some revenue by shrinking the use of tax havens, especially for intangibles, and we will get the benefit of multinationals locating any start-ups in the U.S.”

Biden set for G-7 boost in bid for all nations to impose minimum global corporate tax

President Biden’s call for a global minimum tax on corporate profits is expected to be supported by finance ministers from Group of Seven nations, when they meet in London on Friday.

www.washingtonpost.com

I’m not sure why you’re singling out the U.S. and also pretending it won’t have any benefit.

Yep, that’s what I’m saying. But IMO apple and the like paying taxes is like a raindrop in the ocean. (And I hope this doesn’t backfire because raising the taxes could cause companies to reduce capital expenditures…)

 

[I7guy]

Rather obviously, if you aren’t paying the maximum owed, then it’s not actually the maximum owed, is it.

Rather obviously you make it seem like a thing called a tax deduction doesn’t exist.

 

[tubular]

Rather obviously you make it seem like a thing called a tax deduction doesn’t exist.

You mean, those things that reduce the maximum owed?

 

[I7guy]

You mean, those things that reduce the maximum owed?

Yeah those. Those things that allow one to pay less than their fair share. Just like Apple.

 

[tubular]

pay less than their fair share

So every tax deduction is inherently unfair?

Glad to see you've come around to agreeing with my initial point, tax evasion is a moral issue.

 

[JMacHack]

Completely meaningless in the U.S. so long as tax deductions are still a thing.

 

[I7guy]

So every tax deduction is inherently unfair?

Glad to see you've come around to agreeing with my initial point, tax evasion is a moral issue.

100%. Tax evasion is illegal and criminal proceedings and seizure can apply. Tax avoidance is perfectly legit (as long as all laws are being followed). No moral issue with that.

 

[tubular]

So every tax deduction is inherently unfair?

Glad to see you've come around to agreeing with my initial point, tax evasion is a moral issue.

I meant to say tax avoidance.

So here's the state of play. You think tax deductions are both unfair and perfectly moral. And you think this is a coherent position.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

For me, this argument is separate from the debate about whether the rich should pay more. I want a system where everyone pays the same, so it's fair.

If you set up a business running a coffee shop, pay 15% corporation tax, and across the street from you an international coffee shop pays 0% tax because they've got creative bookkeepers, you wouldn't feel the situation was fair.

I know situations like this are currently legal. The big international coffee co. in my example isn't doing anything wrong; they are following the law. But I think the law should be changed to make this fairer, which it sounds like the G7 are doing.

I could live with a flat tax.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

100%. Tax evasion is illegal and criminal proceedings and seizure can apply. Tax avoidance is perfectly legit (as long as all laws are being followed). No moral issue with that.

I mean, are people looking to score moral points by paying more in taxes? This concept is bonkers. I do everything I can to make sure I legally pay the absolute minimum I have to pay. I don't dodge taxes, but I don't pay more than I have to. Corporations are the same.

The larger arguments and the negative commenters just care about soaking the rich and businesses. They complain about Apple, taxes and products that cost more than machines running windows. They cry because Apple takes 30% of App Store profits. They cry because their cable internet bills are too high. Basically, they cry because other people have more than them and ITS JUST NOT FAIR SOMEONE HAS MORE THAN ME!!!!

It's very much the same phenomenon at work when tech bloggers whine about "competition." You'll hear them say "competition is good!" But by "competition," they mean the larger and richer company hobbling itself so the poorer, smaller company can be in the same market.

But that's not "competition." Giving Secretariat a sedative before a race so others can keep up is anti-competitive.

 

[IIGS User]

It changes nothing.

Politicians are bought and sold by corporations. Corporations are about making money.

This is just the slight of hand to hide the NEW way they found to dodge taxes on their profits. You wouldn't be reading about this "change" had they not all ready had a different con in place.

Which will come to light in about a decade, when all of them have lined their pockets, and moved on.

What a joke.

 

[ravenstar]

Huh, 7 pages and not one comment about politicians actually doing something about a problem they are responsible for creating rather than trying to blame companies for using the rules they (the politicians) set up? But I'd hold my excitement about how this is going to even the playing field until I see all the details. The US has all these income tax rates on paper, but with all the deductions and exemptions (not to mention taxes on certain income that aren't called income taxes -- Medicare, Social Security for example) no one pays the rate they see on paper. I'm very skeptical that having a 15% rate on paper is really going to mean everyone pays 15%. The final product will tell us if this is a real tax reform or a publicity stunt. Politicians usually go for the latter.

 

[bobenhaus]

Now a 6 inch USB cable will cost 25 bucks instead of 20 bucks.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

You might want to check your assumptions and your maths… 15% tax would only be a 15% “increase” if they currently paid no tax at all. But even if it did increase by 15%, that’s tax on profit, which is only a fraction of the retail price. So a 15% tax increase does not translate to a 15% rise in retail price.

The tax system exists to pay for essentials (roads, hospitals, etc), not to subsidise the price of shiny new toys (iPhones, etc). Let big corporations pay their fair share.

Just to be a bit pedantic, if they paid no taxes at all previously, any increase would be incalculable in percentage. It’s not really a financially meaningful metric nor mathematically possible to calculate.

 

[hot-gril]

Or how about we direct the anger at both the wealthy and the politicians.

Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you

Economic elites and interest groups affect policy, but the general public has little influence.

www.vox.com

Plenty of wealthy people don't get involved in politics. But there is a wealthy person behind Vox who is involved in politics.

 

[vipergts2207]

Plenty of wealthy people don't get involved in politics. But there is a wealthy person behind Vox who is involved in politics.

This study that was cited has absolutely nothing to do with Vox. If you want to discuss, let’s focus on the actual study that was the subject.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yep, that’s what I’m saying. But IMO apple and the like paying taxes is like a raindrop in the ocean. (And I hope this doesn’t backfire because raising the taxes could cause companies to reduce capital expenditures…)

Considering where the last 40 years have gotten us, I’m rather unconcerned about trying a different strategy.

 

[hot-gril]

This study that was cited has absolutely nothing to do with Vox. If you want to discuss, let’s focus on the actual study that was the subject.

I'm not going to bother reading the entire study, and neither are most people. They're going to read the Vox article on it.

 

[hot-gril]

It changes nothing.

Politicians are bought and sold by corporations. Corporations are about making money.

This is just the slight of hand to hide the NEW way they found to dodge taxes on their profits. You wouldn't be reading about this "change" had they not all ready had a different con in place.

Which will come to light in about a decade, when all of them have lined their pockets, and moved on.

What a joke.

We're talking about US corporations operating in Europe, which is a hostile environment in some ways. Google has already been heavily fined by France a few times; is that what their lobbyists intended?

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm not going to bother reading the entire study, and neither are most people. They're going to read the Vox article on it.

Thanks for the useless commentary then. You being lazy doesn’t change the accuracy of the study or the article on it.

 

[hot-gril]

Thanks for the useless commentary then. You being lazy doesn’t change the accuracy of the study or the article on it.

Are you not lazy then, and you read the study yourself? If so, why did you post the Vox article instead of just directly linking to the study? Why is Vox reporting against their own interests?

At least I admit, I don't have time to go read the study. All I did was look up the authors. First author shakes my confidence in it. Prof Gilens earned his undergrad sociology degree from UC Berkeley. I know what my alma mater's sociology department stands for, and it has a common prefix with the name.

 

[I7guy]

Considering where the last 40 years have gotten us, I’m rather unconcerned about trying a different strategy.

Well okay. I am concerned. The robin hood effect of government laws doesn't really seem to help anybody.

 

[vipergts2207]

Well okay. I am concerned. The robin hood effect of government laws doesn't really seem to help anybody.

Anybody or just you? I think a lot of lower income people would have a rather different view.

 

[I7guy]

Anybody or just you? I think a lot of lower income people would have a rather different view.

How much do you think lower income people would benefit by this? Social security? Medicare? etc. Or are the increased taxes going to be used for the common good? Or projects that are invisible to those who may need help the most?

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Or how about we direct the anger at both the wealthy and the politicians.

Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you

Economic elites and interest groups affect policy, but the general public has little influence.

www.vox.com

I'm not angry at people for being wealthy.

Why would I be angry at people I don't know? Because they have more than me? Should the guy at the other end of town be angry at me because I have more than he does?

What a strange concept.