5 ms·
Once tax havens and double dutch schemes are unavailable to legally operating businesses, we can be very hopeful that instead of accumulating digits in a bank a
by cm3 11y ago
Once tax havens and double dutch schemes are unavailable to legally operating businesses, we can be very hopeful that instead of accumulating digits in a bank account, companies like Apple and Google will be forced to spend like the rest of the economy does. Spending is what's keeping the lights on generally speaking, so allowing some wealthy companies to just sit and mountains of wealth benefits nobody. Of course they need a war chest but nowhere near what they have now. Remember recent news about people being scared Apple would become a bank. And I'm only speaking of company wealth in digital numbers. Private wealth and immovables etc. should be exempt. The best is to give incentives to spend. Apple and Google could be incentivized to spend it on projects that benefit them and the public, but without exclusivity contracts of 20 years, maybe more like 5 years if needed.
- lumberjack 11y ago>companies like Apple and Google will be forced to spend like the rest of the economy does Spending on what? I think one big problem here is that the capital is possessed by entities that were nurtured in very specific markets. Take Apple. They are really nothing more than a "shiny gadgets/personal computing" company. They have a ton of potential to invest in other markets but they do not have the expertise to do so. What are their options: 1) start acquiring and undoubtedly mismanaging companies that are outside of their market domain 2) setup a wealth management unit that invests passively in equity markets and such. I think this could easily be elaborated into an argument against the orthodox liberal economics claim that says that markets allocate capital to the most able entities; the implication being that those same entities will make best use of said capital. I think here it is clearly not the case. Sorry, but I don't really trust Apple to come up with a decent EV solution (I know they are trying). I don't even trust them to invest in the correct EV startups. What do they know? It's not their market domain.
- justincormack 11y agoReturn the money to shareholders who can spend or invest it.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoOr, to the employees who made it, whom can spend or invest it.
- cm3 11y agoAnd that way making the economy stronger and more dynamic. Money isn't worth anything if everybody would just hold onto it in some ledger.
- snitko 11y agoSpending is only good if it is wise. If you tell a company "sorry, you have to spend it now" it is equivalent of telling you "sorry, I don't care if you don't like any house on the market now, you'll have to buy now, you can't wait". That's no freedom, but slavery. Only when you have a choice of hoarding vs spending, then you help the economy to truly grow by providing everyone with the best products and services. Incentivizing spending at all costs simply means creating more useless things instead of making technological breakthroughs and improving quality of life. When you say "you don't trust Apple" it doesn't matter. Apple made its money honestly. It didn't steal from or rob anyone. More importantly, simply because Apple made so much money, it must mean it knows damn well how to invest it.
- cm3 11y agoAt least in my post I said "incentivize" and not "punish" or anything to the same extent. One big issue is with their shareholders whose mindset may not allow increased spending and less dead digital cash.
- Kliment 11y agoHonestly? By evading taxes they are stealing from hundreds of millions of people.
- snitko 11y agoThat's your opinion. I think taxation is extortion. Who's to say I'm not entitled to my point of view?
- cm3 11y agoIgnoring fairness of certain taxes and issues with tax laws in general, taxes are the rent one has to pay for living in a place. If you don't have income you usually won't pay most taxes at all. It's arguable how much of the tax system works and what parts are just plain broken and favor certain interest groups, but that's an implementation detail. If you visit places where much of the population evades taxes, you'll find that the state of roads and infrastructure in general is worse than someplace with people paying their taxes. I'm with you if you argue that tax laws are unfair and do not reflect the live circumstances of most people. If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea, etc. I suppose you want more of a pay-what-you-use society where, if you just stay at one place most of the time, you pay considerably less taxes. Whether that can work universally I don't know.
- cm3 11y agoOne major spending they could do is bringing back more production to the US and thereby increasing the locally available know-how. Right now more and more production skills are only available outside the some companies' hq countries. Apple is a good example due to the high prices their customers are willing to pay.
- zavi 11y agoThese papers have nothing to do with Google or Apple.
- cm3 11y agoThey may not, and I didn't say they do. The tax haven and money hiding aspect reminded me that so much money just sits in a ledger digitally somewhere without benefiting anybody but the well-feeling of shareholders. A stronger economy due to more spending will also benefit shareholders.