[cs702]

Wow.

Power, in all its forms -- economic, cultural, social, political -- is highly concentrated among impersonal giant corporations today.

For this kind of legal tax avoidance would be impossible without mutual understanding, collaboration, and coordination across national boundaries among many disparate groups of people, all serving their corporate masters in one way or another (as their employers, as their customers, as taxpaying entities, etc.).

Consider only how many people and organizations must be involved to make tax treaties and regulations around the world amenable to this kind of tax avoidance.

Whether this kind of concentration of power is good or bad for society, I'm not sure.

My best guess is no -- but I'm not certain. For there is also evidence that large-scale, concentrated business investment has been a force for good worldwide.[a]

--

[a] See, for example, Marc Benioff's book, "Trailblazer: The Power of Business as the Greatest Platform for Change" at https://www.amazon.com/Trailblazer-Business-Greatest-Platfor...

[buboard]

The corp. tax loss is 10%

Its becoming clearer that the world is shifting towards coordinated world-wide tax rates, similar to how central banks are coordinated. Modern trade is complex and almost always multinational. Clear and easy tax rates will actually allow anyone to enjoy fair taxation, instead of the current unequal situation in which megacorps can use complex schemes to drastically reduce their rates, while normal businesses can't.

Incidentally , the most unequal territory in terms of shifted profits is Europe. An EU-wide corporate tax of 20-25% would be good for business

[yahwrong]

What's the point in being a big multinational conglomerate if you can't use your size to leverage favorable tax terms over your competition?

[thecleaner]

It is weird that in Germany, you hit the highest bracket so quickly. It would be great if individuals were taxed like corps - pay after your expenses like rent etc. In this place there is nothing to save taxes on. Even if rent goes up, tax rate stays the same. Not counting the ridiculous system of Church tax which is just infuriating.

[gamblor956]

Tax rates are clear and easy. Corporations were taking advantage of loopholes that increasingly no longer exist.

[buboard]

They are really not. E.g. i have to use a US business to collect in-game payments because accounting for all the various taxes and VAT is a f’in nightmare.

[gamblor956]

I did not say tax compliance was easy. But figuring out the rates is a simple table lookup.

Also, using a US business to collect in-game payments no longer lets you avoid VAT compliance if you sell to EU customers. Which is why you can now use an EU VAT compliance "one-stop shop" which does it all for you.

[Mirioron]

Does that one stop shop have reasonable VAT minimums yet?

[gamblor956]

The one-stop shop will work with you whatever your VAT liability is.

If you mean do the EU countries have reasonable thresholds, then that's a country-by-country issue. As it should be...

In that respect, tax is no different than each platform or website having its own API and TOS. We don't make every Facebook and Google use the same API and TOS, so why should we force countries to use the same tax thresholds?

[IAmEveryone]

You're attributing this to malice, or even conspiracy. But it's just basic game theory: because international cooperation has not kept up with the mobility of capital flows, national governments succumb to the mechanics of a Prisoners' Dilemma, or race-to-the-bottom, or tax competition, or whatever you want to call it.

I'm pointing this out because when people draw the conclusion that "all politicians are corrupt" they tend to weaken the very institutions that could solve these and many other problems.

Of course there's also the fascinating tendency of the US public to empathise with corporations. That's why they can't even solve this entirely obvious dynamic within their own borders, and happily pay Amazon's taxes in an entirely zero-sum competition for HQ2.

[Iv]

There is a theory saying that Brexit campaign was financed by the people afraid of the EU banking transparency laws, that would threaten many UK-based tax havens.

[iudqnolq]

Then why did the financial sector campaign heavily against Brexit, and most of the employees in that sector vote against it? Brexit would make it much harder for Europeans to use British financial products.

> Britain’s financial services industry, the country’s biggest tax earner, risks being cut adrift from its main export market - the European Union - after Brexit.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-finance/britai...

[Iv]

Because managing tax havens is a very small part of the sector in number of employees.

[buboard]

If you look at the data, there’s plenty of EU tax havens to use

[thecleaner]

Any one that is particularly employee friendly ?

[mpweiher]

And it still wasn't enough...

[Iv]

But they won't protect you from US taxes, they won't protect you from Putin's probes, from EU sanctions or from anti-terrorism laws.

Switzerland's haven status was shot down by the GWB administration, and Cyprus surprise taxation made a lot of shady billionaires weary of EU.

[rolltiide]

I’m glad you are questioning your views on taxation and concentration.

These things don’t happen in a vacuum and the non-participant’s view is highly distorted and intentionally manipulated.

Exhibit A is the IRS’ role. For most people the IRS is viewed as an adversary that retroactively attacks them and unilaterally decides how much that person will pay them. For perceptive people the IRS can preemptively approve your plan of how much you won’t pay them, and most of these multinational tax saving schemes are signed off by the IRS in advance.

This reality always escapes the populist furor that results in changing a tax rate or two, primarily because the people are not exposed to it and can only imagine some arbitrary loophole and an adversarial IRS that is limited by an interpretation of a passed law. When the reality is very different and not adversarial at all.

[njarboe]

It would be interesting to see how these numbers have changed since 2016 with the new US corporate tax scheme. The promise was this avoidance would be greatly reduced. I wonder if it has been?

[eeZah7Ux]

> Power ... is highly concentrated among impersonal giant corporations

That power ultimately belongs to the billionaires that own the relative majority of stocks. The faceless companies are just proxies.

This is where wealth inequality comes from.

[moosey]

I consider libertarianism to be contemporary monarchic support, due to exactly these issues. Corporations are run as monarchic or dictatorial structures, with some controls.

Ultimately, we have a choice: work hard to build the government that we want, or allow it to falter to the energies of the billionaire class. Or, even worse, allow the billionaire class choose the government that they want.

[disintegore]

It's time for syndicalism to make a comeback.

[nicoburns]

_left libertarianism_ that applies the same logic that right-wing libertarians apply to governments to any large organisation is pretty interesting (and a lot more internally consistent).

Under that worldview you end with strongly progressive taxation funding something like a Universal Basic Income, which allows you reduce corporations' economic power without just moving it to the government.

That said, government is definitely the appropriate place for a lot of decisions to be made.

[buboard]

> Corporations

What you say is self-contradictory. Corporations are literally a creation of the state. Libertarians do not support the State's protection of corporations and do not support corporatism.