Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eptcyka 1856 days ago
Starbucks doesn't need to resort to fraud to effectively pay 0% tax.
2 comments

it's not fraud as in "tax evasion" it's 100% legal albeit morally bankrupt "tax avoidance". the problem is that if you grow a company to a certain size the only way to compete is to be part of this rigged system. not a single fortune-500 company that is in the top 500 because they don't use thick layers of shell companies. the strategy is always to squeeze the supply end and the demand end while scooping the profits in the middle (the low-tax jurisdiction).
I do have to ask...why is it morally bankrupt? Do you go out of your way to pay more tax than is legally required? If not, are you morally bankrupt? Of course not. Tax laws are the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules, change them (democracy and all) and enjoy the positive and negative consequences as they unfold.
I think it's morally bankrupt because a direct analogy would be that it's not OK to bully someone unless you're strong enough that there won't be any repercussions.
right if you're a small company and you pay 0% tax you're probably getting shut down and owner is having some legal problems when they investigate you, if you're big enough you might get a small fine or maybe just have investigation dropped.
Not really. The main problem is that if you are small, you most likely don’t have expensive accountants who will find every possible way to find legal loop holes to reduce our tax burden plus you don’t have the political connections to lobbying for certain exclusions or deals by the politicians.

This is why small businesses are the ones which get hurt the most by things like raising taxes, minimum wage etc. There’s a reason why Amazon, Walmart etc are all pushing for those things- they know they can find loop holes and can afford to pay a bit more whereas the small business competition can’t and will legally eliminate competition.

Also I am not a financial genius but is the author of the article trying to deceive the readers with this:?

> In 2019, Uber claimed $4.5 billion in global operating losses (excluding the US and China) for tax purposes — in reality, it brought in $5.8 billion in operating revenue, according to CICTAR, an Australia-based research group.

“in reality” usually means contradiction but losses and revenue are not proving contradictions.

Framing this as an excercise in acquiring expensive accountants is missing the forest for the trees. Large corporations have such immense power that they can bend the legislation and receive special treatment from governments that smaller shops just can't. See all the tax breaks apple will be getting now, all the incentives programs that Amazon was shopping for when building HQ2.
The main problem is that there are such legal loopholes.
Agreed. Unfortunately I don't see that going away. Politicians don't write bills - lobbyists do.