Amazon Tax Structure Like Something Out of a Bond Movie, EU Says (bloomberg.com) 175
Amazon's efforts to minimize its taxes in the European Union were given a code-name evocative of a spy thriller with British agent 007, according to an EU lawyer, who claimed the arrangements broke the bloc's state-aid rules. From a report: "Project Goldcrest -- it sounds like the title of a James Bond movie, but it is not," it's the name "Amazon gave to a complex tax construction by which it fundamentally reorganized its global business," European Commission attorney Paul-John Loewenthal told a hearing at the EU's top court on Thursday.
"In 2006, that project had one purpose to ensure that Amazon would avoid paying tax on its European profits." Under that plan, "Luxembourg provided a measure to Amazon by which Amazon could exempt the vast majority of its European profit from taxation in return for investments in Luxembourg, thus affecting intra EU trade and distorting competition," he said. "That is the very definition of fiscal state aid." The EU's executive arm is appealing a painful defeat inflicted by a lower court, which overturned a decision to force the ecommerce firm to pay back $265 million of tax breaks regulators deemed to be an unfair subsidy.
"In 2006, that project had one purpose to ensure that Amazon would avoid paying tax on its European profits." Under that plan, "Luxembourg provided a measure to Amazon by which Amazon could exempt the vast majority of its European profit from taxation in return for investments in Luxembourg, thus affecting intra EU trade and distorting competition," he said. "That is the very definition of fiscal state aid." The EU's executive arm is appealing a painful defeat inflicted by a lower court, which overturned a decision to force the ecommerce firm to pay back $265 million of tax breaks regulators deemed to be an unfair subsidy.
Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Luxembourg needs some freedom applied to it.
Give the EU Central Committee in Brussels a bit of time to figure out a way to do that without offending everyone or triggering climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland and Bermuda also need to go on that list.
Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should expect nothing more and nothing less from a business.
I have my own small company and I do everything I can within the defined law to keep as much of my hard earned money as I can.
Now...who's gonna start bitching and moaning about this?
If you don't like the rules and laws being followed, then lawmakers need to change things.
But please, don't start with the "morality" of this or that. This is business and there is no morality in paying taxes. There are laws and you simply have to follow them.
It should be no surprise that ANYONE tries to find the best way to maximize keeping their money.
If you are about to bitch about this....how many of YOU voluntarily pay more tax than is legally required of YOU?
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:4, Interesting)
You beat me to it. Don't complain about people "abusing" tax loopholes. They're not abusing it, they're using it exactly as intended by the ones that made the loopholes. Direct your complaint to the ones writing the loopholes into law.
You might also want to pay close attention to where all that cash is coming from that's filling up that politician's offshore bank account too. But the legality of THAT is just another thing that needs fixing, and again, don't complain about the ones doing it, go after the ones that legalized it.
That whole "the ones benefiting from the bad laws are the same people in charge of PASSING the laws", is a difficult positive-feedback cycle to break. How do you convince them to kill their golden goose?
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:4, Informative)
In "The Federalist Papers", the American founding fathers put forth that a government has to be designed to survive and perform in spite of the failings of humankind, rather than depending on human virtue. (They also said that *society* needed a separate moral authority in order to thrive - but they even spelled out that that could be *but didn't necessarily need to be* the Bible. I think a lot of our social problems stem from being in a transitory period between our moral authority being religious and a coming one based in secular humanism. I also worry that the transition is failing.)
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there's your problem.
In general, people are not intrinsically "moral".
We are just another animal that inhabits the earth, we just have a bit higher developed brain.
But in general, humans are out for survival and they care primarily about themselves, their families and tribe if they have one.
The reason for religion in many cases...was to put morality out there by giving humans something higher than themselves to strive for....
People that count on the innate goodness of humans to be fair and treat each other kindly, are often shocked that this is not the outcome that has ever proven to occur.
Human nature is not naturally moral.
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's in some ways the impression of the US that Europe has: shouty individualists who are so mistrustful of government and look down on society to the point that they only care about "my rights!", the consequences be damned. Society is treated as an adversary rather than as a fellow deserving of consideration. Anyone who's ever said "you can't require me to put the shopping cart back in the corral!", to use a widespread example, is participating in this line of thinking.
The UK govt suffers from this as well, as was illustrated by Boris Johnson: their government operates based on many unwritten rules, a fair number of which Boris decided to ignore with minimal or delayed repercussion. Happens in the US too, especially but not only in the previous administration, with politicians stonewalling and litigating every inch of ground.
There are systematic abuses of the system in the EU as well (welfare abuse, for one), but because they're not adversarial in this way they feel less toxic.
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
People with fewer means do not have the capacity to do that, so they pay more taxes, and as a result they stay with less money
I hope I don't have to spell out the implications of that. This is a societal problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, life is not fair.
Never has...never will be.
That should have been a lesson taught early....apparently the last couple generations that got a prize for participating didn't quite catch on what the real world is like.
There always have been and always wil
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws are made and are in the hands of humans. It is a CHOICE that they are the way they are, and in benefit of the few on top.
You're saying "it is what it is" because you're on the comfier side clearly. And good for you, really (unless you exploited others to get there). But if somebody robs you at gunpoint, don't be quick to blame it on the person, look at the chain of events that led there.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, my hope in that case is...that I can draw, fire and eliminate the threat to my person faster than they can harm me.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless such crimes where you live lead to the demise of one of the two and it's the only healthy option.
Re: (Score:2)
No...absolutely NO fantasy about it.
I hope I NEVER have to draw my weapon.
But the second someone threatens my life or my family or friends with me...then they become nothing more than a dangerous threat that must be dealt with.
I'm not out to kill anyone, but I will keep shooting until
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why more to lose? If you both have guns pointed at each others heads, you both have a life to lose. Can't really say either party has "more" to lose. When you are dead, you've lost it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws are made and are in the hands of humans. It is a CHOICE that they are the way they are, and in benefit of the few on top.
In this case they probably aren't. And it seems the EU is working to change laws to eliminate such loopholes available only to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they'll never change the rules. That would upset the likes of Halliburton, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Bechtel, Total SE, EADS/Airbus, Dassault, and Daimler... you know... all the various companies that paid for those rules and loopholes to be there in the first place. Let's be real here. None of these assclowns... certainly not the politicians who passed the tax rules into law in the first place... is upset over tech companies reducing their tax burden. It's not about the money. Or, rather, it's not
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they created the rules, and it appears Amazon analyzed and played by the rules to maximize their profits.
You should expect nothing more and nothing less from a business.
Why should we?
One of the aspects of a functional society is that individuals don't walk around acting like ruthless utility maximizers, why should businesses?
And note that businesses often do act somewhat fairly when dealing with each other because they understand their consequences for getting a reputation as an unethical partner. However, we haven't found a way to enforce the same kind of behaviour when dealing with governments.
I have my own small company and I do everything I can within the defined law to keep as much of my hard earned money as I can.
Now...who's gonna start bitching and moaning about this?
You probably should. Consider how the tax avoidance game works, the bigger you are the more lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists you can hire to help avoid paying taxes.
Right now you're probably paying a higher percentage of revenue as taxes than a big corporate competitor since you don't have the resources to invest in serious tax avoidance.
If you are about to bitch about this....how many of YOU voluntarily pay more tax than is legally required of YOU?
Voluntarily? No. But like most people I don't really have the option of fake moving to a low tax district or other games I suspect people would see as dishonest.
Companies didn't use to fracture themselves into a multitude of parts so they can incorporate in one place but do actual business in another all while trying to get profits in the lowest tax jurisdiction possible.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the aspects of a functional society is that individuals don't walk around acting like ruthless utility maximizers, why should businesses?
Because businesses are "people" without conscience or moral. A business is, essentially, a psychopath.
A person has moral considerations. Most at least do, let's not talk about CEOs of large corporations, but most normal people do. And they may even have those moral considerations when working for a corporation, but in there, they also have something that keeps them from using it: The corporate structure.
Let's imagine you have a job at a corporation and your boss has to choose one of his team to fire because
Re: (Score:2)
One of the aspects of a functional society is that individuals don't walk around acting like ruthless utility maximizers...
Oh, you mean the Corporations who are run by accountants and lawyers, the very definition of ruthless maximizing assholes? Greed is so good, it will kill us all.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect that of others...and I do walk around maximizing everything to my advantage that I can.
I'm only on this earth for a short time, and I want to do EVERYTHING legally possible to make the best of my time here.
People by nature are not altruistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect that of others...and I do walk around maximizing everything to my advantage that I can.
I'm only on this earth for a short time, and I want to do EVERYTHING legally possible to make the best of my time here.
People by nature are not altruistic.
Altruistic? Not quite. But highly empathetic and cooperative. That's why sociopaths are so rare, because it's fairly maladaptive to walk around trying to exploit your community.
I long ago accepted that the world is not fair...never has been never will.
I do the best with what I can....I don't really waste time thinking too hard about those better off than me, nor those worse off than myself.
Again life is short...don't have time to waste it really bothering to much with other people outside my sphere of friends or family.
We could also take more seriously the idea that corporations, and more specifically the people within them, have a responsibility to act ethically.
Re: (Score:2)
So have the lawmakers create a simple tax code with no wiggle room. That's would be fair. Why be mad at someone or a group of someones for following the law? The tax code is the problem, not the people following the tax code to the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
So have the lawmakers create a simple tax code with no wiggle room. That's would be fair. Why be mad at someone or a group of someones for following the law? The tax code is the problem, not the people following the tax code to the letter.
"Don't get mad they're just following the rules" isn't a very convincing argument when they literally rewrote the rules despite strong public disapproval [fivethirtyeight.com].
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:3)
It sounds like Luxemburg is the one not playing by the roles. I'm sure Amazon will want to get back some of that investment.
Re: (Score:2)
played by the rules
The story here is that there's a lawyer out there who doesn't think they did. The morality of legal tax evasion doesn't really factor into it.
Re: (Score:2)
But please, don't start with the "morality" of this or that. This is business and there is no morality in paying taxes. There are laws and you simply have to follow them.
It should be no surprise that ANYONE tries to find the best way to maximize keeping their money.
You are 100% right and I won't argue the point, if you follow the tax laws then you're fine. Morals shouldn't be a factor if you're following the law, except for when they do.
The "morality" of this case comes from how we both know the law wouldn't be applied equally, unless you've somehow convinced yourself that if we set-up our personal finances the way Amazon has we wouldn't end up in a 9x9 concrete box for tax evasion. We both know the law doesn't apply equally to the rich and the poor, which is what m
Re: (Score:2)
You're a piece of shit, and I would not want to work for you. "There's no morality to not paying taxes"? Really? So, let's just not repair the street in front of your business, or the sewers, or water, or electricity. Oh, and no police on call. And while we're at it, you don't get to use the courts to enforce contracts. And you don't get to hire anyone who's gone to public school, or a public university.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you didn't read me fully.
I said no morality involved with paying the bare minimum tax that is in compliance with the tax laws in force.
So, do YOU voluntarily pay more taxes than what you owe at the absolute minimum?
Do you refuse to take deductions?
If in the US, do you take advantage of the part of the form where you can pay more than you owe?
If someone is breaking tax law, and doing thing
Re: (Score:2)
Now...who's gonna start bitching and moaning about this?
People who have less than you do, and firmly believe that you are evil because of it, and must be punished by taking all your stuff and giving it to them.
But you knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you've bought into the scam of Amazon and other big businesses. Most likely, you are paying a higher percentage of revenue to taxes than big companies. When you say "they" created the rules, I bet you think you mean the EU, but it's really Amazon and the other big business that created those rules that exclusively favor themselves, then paid some lobbyists to get some politicians to pass them.
If you own a small business, you are nothing like Amazon, and they'll do anything they can to squas
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they created the rules, and it appears Amazon analyzed and played by the rules to maximize their profits.
Sure, if you don't understand the rules of state aid you may say that.
I have my own small company and I do everything I can within the defined law
So you actually followed the rules, Amazon aren't, they are being aided by Luxembourg. Either you comparison is irrelevant or you don't understand what's going on. And given how you seemingly exist exclusively to make pro-business and anti-EU comments I'm guessing it's the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The author framed this as Amazon being shitty because they decided to take advantage of rules that Luxembourg put in place to incentivize investment in Luxembourg instead of paying taxes to the EU. Sounds like they have a beef with Luxembourg, not Amazon.
And really, it's just the EU having a whine because Amazon would rather build shit that helps their growth than just erase a sum of money from the balance sheet in the form of tax payments.
Luxembourg wins because they get some jobs and economic a
Re: (Score:2)
Ah so you're an asshole for money! Ok that's fine then. I thought initially you were doing it for free and that masse me angry.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Corporations, like individuals, including you have the right of free speech and to make appeals to elected officials who are the ones who actually vote on and decide what the law is going to be.
Don't like the rules, your argument is with the politicians (and those who voted for them) and not the corporations.
Your inanity here is theft, as the storage of your comment and the time people will read it coul
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations, like individuals, including you have the right of free speech
Yes, that's sick and wrong. Corporations are not humans, and there is no need or public benefit for them to have rights.
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:2)
Corporations are not humans
They are groups of people who have chosen to associate to achive some common purpose. Protected by the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
They are groups of people who have chosen to associate to achive some common purpose. Protected by the First Amendment.
They are also groups of people who have limited liability for corporate actions, which as individuals they would have no right to. Making conditions, like campaign finance rules, for giving that limited liability to the group of individuals that are incorporated would not be infringing on the individuals' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are not humans
Agreed.
there is no need or public benefit for them to have rights
That's a debatable point, but ultimately a moot one. Whether or not you think there is "need" or "public benefit" does not change the fact that corporate entities are composed of people, and those people do not suddenly lose their rights because they are associated with a corporate entity. Your suggestion results in a world where e.g. the New York Times does not enjoy the protections of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thanks for quoting the first amendment. Quite helpful of you to bold and italicize the relevant bit, I would be quite ignorant of its relation to freedom of the press otherwise. Truly, your timely intervention has saved the day.
The person I am responding to calls for a world where corporate entities do not have rights, as there is "no need or public benefit" for them to have such. Under such a regime, the corporation (yay, more bold italics) that is the NYT does not enjoy the freedom of the press.
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's sick and wrong.
In your opinion.
The majority of people are against corporate personhood [americanprogress.org]. Pretending I'm the only one who feels this way, or even that it is not a majority view, is a lie. You, sir, are a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
"money is speech" -- not so Supreme Court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Others responded with much of what I was going to say, however I'll add one more bit: Why are you opposed to labor unions having a voice?
Yes, you are.
If you draw a diagram of those upset by the outcome of Citizens United, and those who support the labor movement, there is very little non-overlap, yet the vast majority ignore the fact that Citizens United wasn't simply about government arguing it had the power to ban books or movies, but directly related to labor union spending with regards to elections.
Righ
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the people inside of a labor union have free speech rights, then the labor union effectively has free speech rights. GTFOH with that bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
So predictable, remember when I said "Unions are special for reasons you will list, but reject the same reasons being applied to configurations of people you don't like."? Yeah, you just did...
Argument you support:
Argument you will reject:
Funny how that works
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't vote, something unions and businesses have in common, why should they have political rights like the right to bribe politicians.
At that, in common law, bribery is illegal, and the 1st amendment did not over ride common law, just said no new statuary law to be passed by Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
An alien does not have political rights, even foreigners generally don't have political rights. A simple line is being a voter for political rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Be specific, be it an extra-terrestrial, a visa holder, or an unlawful immigrant, true, they cannot vote, they cannot donate to a political campaign... do our laws say they cannot speak their opinion or share their views on topics without fear from direct recrimination as a consequence of such speech?
Re: (Score:2)
The moment I can shoot a corporation and it stays dead is the moment I accept that a corporation is a person.
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:2)
You can't (for the same reasons you can't shoot people). But the courts can sentence them to death. Why they don't more often escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very possible to shoot people. Not legal, unless in a war, but very possible. You point a gun at a real person's head, you pull the trigger, that person dies.
How exactly do you shoot a corporation so it stays dead?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you shoot a corporation so it stays dead?
Nationalize it. Just take the assets and move them into a public entity. No compensation to the shareholders. There's only so many times investors can afford to resurrect a company and lose 100% of their investment.
The other advantage to nationalization is that if the company is run well under public ownership, the piece of the market that they take with them will be more difficult to fill by a new competitor. And the fear that such ownership will instill in the private capital marketplace of growing publi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I can shoot a person. Happens all the time. You are confusing ability versus legality. You can most certainly shoot someone dead. You just might not be LEGAL in doing so. Depends on the circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Your acceptance, through unwarranted violence is not required.
You simply need to accept the law as written exists and has power, specifically the Dictionary Act (1 USC 1) [cornell.edu], which notes:
Don't like it? Then elect people who can and will change it.
Re: (Score:2)
If elections could change something, they'd have been outlawed a long, long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote President Obama "Elections have consequences."
Do you like the current configuration of the US Supreme Court? Elections lead to that.
Do you have a laundry list of things you didn't like about Trump and how bad he was? It was also elections which saw his renewal of office not go through.
Crazy how elections do see results, perhaps not as big as you want, but they do matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But please, don't start with the "morality" of this or that. This is business and there is no morality
People like you oppose morality because you know if you were held to account for it, you would be found wanting. Corporations lobby for both tax avoidance and bailouts, collectively that is theft, and you're here for it.
Is it immoral for someone below the poverty line not to pay taxes and perhaps actually get a check from the government? For a small business to use any deduction or credit allowed to stay in business and keep people employed? Using every legal means to minimize taxes is not immoral; it's simply playing by the rules as established by the government. If one feels they aren't paying their fair share they are free to not take deductions they could if they wanted.
I dislike many of the special breaks given to bu
Re: (Score:2)
Is it immoral for someone below the poverty line not to pay taxes and perhaps actually get a check from the government? For a small business to use any deduction or credit allowed to stay in business and keep people employed?
You're conflating things which are not remotely similar to make your argument. We call this "reaching".
The largest corporations 1) envision laws which would make them more profitable at the expense of The People, 2) literally pay lawyers to write bills, 3) literally provide the completely-written bills to congresspeople who they have bribed^Wlobbied to bring them to the floor and support them, 4) bribe^Wlobby other congresspeople to support them, and 5) profit at the expense of The People through this manip
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Morality is not a concept that applies to paying what you legally owe in taxes.
And this is not tax avoidance...that is illegal.
Minimizing how much tax you have to pay by following the applicable laws is perfectly legal and expected behavior of ANY tax payer.
The environment we live in isn't like that though is it? The tax system in many places and the laws that govern it, particularly the US have been deliberately constructed in such way that the lower income brackets can't really afford the services of people providing the kind of 'tax minimization services' you describe. The result is that Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc... pay less than 3% effective taxes thanks to laws they lobbied for, laws their lawyers and lobbyists literally wrote for the congress critters that sponsored them, laws that favour these corporations while everybody from the common wage slave through small and into medium sized businesses pay a far greater effective tax percentage than the mega-corporations. When was the last time anybody here who doesn't own an international mega-corporation, anybody who is a common wage slave or who owns a small business, pay less than 3% effective taxes? I don't really give a damn about your philosophy and political ideals. This is not fair and I will gladly vote anybody into office who promises to make and Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc... pay a double digit percentage in effective taxes. That's how democracy works in countries where it hasn't been gerrymandered, bullied and corrupted into a parody of its former self.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your solution then? People volunteering to pay more tax than they owe under the current rules, and if they don't they get publicly shitposted all over the Internet?
You don't have a beef with Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. - you have a beef with the bent lawmakers that enacted the current ruleset for whatever reasons they did, be it quasi-bribery "PAC donations", ideological stance, etc.
Re: Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:2)
Actually, tax avoidance is perfectly legal [investopedia.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Morality is not a concept that applies to paying what you legally owe in taxes.
That's up for debate and depends on the kind of political and economic ideologies you adhere to. At least, from your statements I can defer our definitions of "applicable laws", "taxes", "avoidance" and "morality" are very different.
Even the capitalist in me (* I'm slightly left leaning for a Western European) cringes when I read stories like these and learn what some wealthy individuals and companies get away with.
Capitalism is not about corrupting the markets you sell on to satisfy the cravings of your sh
Re: (Score:2)
Small addendum on my previous text:
Apple, Amazon. Tomato, tomato.
Re:Hey..as long as they played by the rules.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Important legal point. In the US tax evasion is illegal, that is defined as not following the tax code, in other words, breaking the law.
Tax avoidance is legal, and is defined as arranging you financial affairs in such a way as to pay the minimum allowable amount of tax.
"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his [or her] taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The line can be fuzzy though, much to the delight of lawyers. In the above case the corporate reshuffling was deemed to cross the evasion line.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax avoidance is legal, and is defined as arranging you financial affairs in such a way as to pay the minimum ...
However, arranging your affairs through contrivances in order to avoid having to pay a tax may turn out to Not be a legal way of not paying tax.
For example, the IRS and the courts alike regularly disregard transactions that are "Of no economic substance", under the Economic Substance doctrine, and find that Yeah, taxpayers don't escape owing tax by doing that. [cornell.edu]
Turns out that any transaction arra
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hate the player, hate the game son.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given ever increasing government spending, deficit spending, long detached from actual revenue... do you honestly believe that if the law was changed and Amazon paid more, that individual taxes would go down?
History has shown that that the government(s) tend to see it as a windfall and an opportunity to spend even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Governments spending money usually means that some of it ends up in the pockets of taxpayers. I.e. me.
Re: (Score:2)
The better route to keeping more money is the pockets of tax payers is to NOT have to pay too much tax to the govt. to begin with!!
Keeping as much money in your pockets is the best way to.....keep YOUR money in your pockets as a taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends mostly on how rich you are. The poorer you are, the more you should be interested in a high tax rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the theory of Keynesian economics.
People keep pushing it, and things fail, <sarc>obviously the govt just didn't spend enough</sarc>
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. It works over here.
If it doesn't for you, get a better government. The one you have is faulty.
Re: (Score:2)
"Here" is... where exactly? I'm sure I can find problems with any government you'll note.
Re: (Score:2)
By the same logic, you can't levy fines on corporations for breaking the law because they'll just pass them on to their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the police shouldn’t investigate any crimes that cost less than the manpower.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, what's the economic value of some bum on the street, why bother investigating the homicide?
(I should not say that, there might be people who don't say that sarcastically...)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. Corporations can’t be punished. Not as if they all haven’t been posting record profits the last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying taxes isn't (or shouldn't be) a punishment.
On the other hand, when big firms simply get fined for breaking laws, YES they do pass the costs on - which is why government punishments should have extra clauses, like "you can't do this thing any more," or "the division that did this is barred from government contracts for a while," along with "the person who decided to break the law gets charged with the crime gets prosecuted."
In extreme cases, you get "death penalties," like "AT&T is an abusive mono
mr bond I expect you to die & pay an big death (Score:2)
mr bond I expect you to die & pay an big death tax
Worst Bond Movie Ever. (Score:2)
And running in a statistical tie for Worst Action Movie Ever, alongside of Jurassic Park: Budget Resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of Bond, I really enjoyed No Time To Die. Just watched it for the first time the other day. Pretty solid movie. The villain could of been overall cooler but still very fun movie to watch.
Taxation is about law not spirit of law. (Score:2)
It's the government's burden to figure out how to extract money from the (rich or not rich) public and a public burden to conserve as much of it's money as practical.
No surprise even if legal AI are used and as those become more democratized everyone will have access to new ideas to validate.
007 License to Audit (Score:3)
Amazon Tax Structure Like Something Out of a Bond Movie
If James Bond worked for HMRC [wikipedia.org] instead of MI6.
Goose....Gander? (Score:2)
I'm curious if the EU is pursuing the famously arcane and Byzantine structure of IKEA with just the same implacable fervor?
https://www.channelnews.com.au... [channelnews.com.au]
I mean, they certainly seem to aggressively pursue AMERICAN companies, just checking to see if they pursue, say, Swedish or Chinese companies with that same energy.
Give people the same power (Score:3)
Let each of us be able to use any and all loopholes and count our debts against our earnings.
If corporations can be people, then the obverse should be true.
If governments want taxation to be easier (Score:3)
Then they should make simpler taxation rules. Instead, governments all around the world have convoluted tax schemes with many different loop holes, credits, deductions and various rates and exemptions. I can't really fault a corporation for taking advantage of the tax code when it's deliberately made this way.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They keep Ireland and Luxembourg, two jurisdictions well known for having such "tax benefits", in the EU.
If they don't want this, they can vote to kick them out of the EU and solve the problem. Why are they attacking Amazon for doing something THEY allow to do?
Is it because they put those rules there, way before amazon used them, for benefit of their own companies?
Is it because they don't want to show weakness by "breaking" the EU even more?
Is it because those countries have a significant amount of euroGDP?
Re: (Score:2)
They keep Ireland and Luxembourg, two jurisdictions well known for having such "tax benefits", in the EU.
If they don't want this, they can vote to kick them out of the EU and solve the problem.
What's the solution if they don't want to kick them out of the EU, and thereby weaken it? It's called the European Union, not the European Oh Well That's All Right We Didn't Need You Anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
They keep Ireland and Luxembourg, two jurisdictions well known for having such "tax benefits", in the EU. If they don't want this, they can vote to kick them out of the EU and solve the problem.
No, there exists no procedure to expel a country from the EU.
Re: Luxembourg anti-EU tax regime (Score:2)
And we keep Texas and Delaware for much the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
As if the US government was passing out offers to states to leave. Texas might actually take them up on the offer. California might also.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they attacking Amazon for doing something THEY allow to do?
The Commission is not attacking Amazon. The Commission is attacking the tax arrangements that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg offered to Amazon. Amazon is allowed to file opinions to the court because they have an obvious interest into the matter. Commissioner Margrete Verstager, in charge of the Internal Market, previously attacked the tax arrangements granted by Luxembourg, Netherlands, Beigium to a long list of multinationals (including European ones). https://www.carscoops.com/2022... [carscoops.com]
Four EU countries are
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who'd know better how tax evasion works and how to fight it, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Sickeningly, he is now President of the European Commission!
Juncker's term as President of the European Commission ended in 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
by Jean-Claude Juncker over the 20 years he was their Prime Minister. Sickeningly, he is now President of the European Commission!
God with a name like Jean-Claude Juncker I did not expect to see a middle aged blonde woman when I googled "President of the EC". His trans conversion therapy must be on point!