[amirmc]

> "The problem with preventing the use of 'tax havens' is that there's no non-arbitrary way to decide if a company is truly using another country as a tax haven..."

It doesn't matter whether a specific company uses tax havens or not. The problem is that tax havens exist (and there are reasonably good definitions of how to recognise one).

Companies, who's role is to maximise shareholder value/profits etc, will use them within the extent of the law. That means it's the laws that need to change.

[patrickaljord]

> It doesn't matter whether a specific company uses tax havens or not.

The only reasons there are tax havens is because there are tax hells.

[amirmc]

No. Tax havens exist because people (and companies) want to hide assets. That's independent of the existence of any tax 'hell'. Unless you're of the opinion that all taxation is bad (an opinion I disagree with).

[patrickaljord]

No, if taxation was low enough, the hasle of putting your money in a tax havens wouldn't be worth the time, money and trouble. Tax havens and the accountants needed to set them up are far from being free. If companies could spend the millions they spend on setting up these schemes on a low flat tax rate instead it would be worth it for them even if they ended up paying a bit more than by putting the money in a tax haven because of the time being saved and the good publicity + the positive effect that reasonable low taxes have on the economy.

[Nursie]

>> No, if taxation was low enough, the hasle of putting your money in a tax havens wouldn't be worth the time, money and trouble.

You can't practically lower taxes enough to compete with tax havens.

In general they have low populations and the companies don't actually do any major activity there (there are few societal costs), so the country can survive and thrive with a very low percentage tax take from many effectively non-resident companies.

Contrast this with countries that have much larger populations. The number of profitable corporations per capita is going to be lower than a country that attracts corporations in simply on the basis of their low tax rate.

You'll notice where countries like Ireland are involved, that do have a population to support, they seem to eventually regret the tax haven arrangements they agreed to in the good times.

>> If companies could spend the millions they spend on setting up these schemes on a low flat tax rate instead it would be worth it for them even if they ended up paying a bit more than by putting the money in a tax haven because of the time being saved and the good publicity + the positive effect that reasonable low taxes have on the economy.

You can't really believe this?

[amirmc]

You are making a lot of assumptions in your post. Have you questioned any of them? How much it costs to set up a system to avoid tax? How tax havens actually came about? How corporates actually use them? The information is out there and there's at least one good book on the subject (Treasure Islands by Nick Shaxon).

[patrickaljord]

Yes, Google has to pay an army of both lawyers and accountants to take care of all the crazy complex tax scheme internationally. I know several people who run startups with such schemes and they give 1% of their revenue to their accountant. If we got rid of the IRS and equivalent and just used a flat tax on the total amount of revenue, well, let's say the CPA industry would take a plunge and regular folks and companies like Google would save billions.