5 ms·
Amazon and Starbucks spend a lot of money to hire highly competent tax attorneys and other staff to minimize their payment of taxes. Instead of complaining, co
by davidf18 10y ago
Amazon and Starbucks spend a lot of money to hire highly competent tax attorneys and other staff to minimize their payment of taxes. Instead of complaining, countries need to pay more money to hire even brighter people to write better tax laws. Citizens of these countries need to elect officials who will do the hiring and not have obstructive laws that prohibits the payment of the large salaries and fees necessary to hire these competent people.
- greyman 10y agoBut what can you do if countries like Ireland or Malta just allows tax evasion?
- gozur88 10y agoThis was always the Achilles heel of the EU. In the end it can't work unless tax policies are harmonized.
- lhopki01 10y agoThe way the US won't work unless tax policies are harmonised between states.....oh wait.
- gozur88 10y agoOh wait. The difference is there's no EU-wide corporate tax, whereas US federal corporate taxes are relatively large compared to the state levies. So there's a much larger incentive for companies to seek out EU states that are willing to undercut their neighbors.
- davidf18 10y agoWell, you can threaten to throw them out of the EU if they don't fix their unfair (to other member countries) laws. The EU should have more statutory authority for laws like this just as in the case of the US Federal Government over State governments. At any rate, don't blame Amazon, Starbucks, but rather blame wealthy governments that refuse to spend the money for talent that can fix the laws (or iteratively "refix" them).
- rayiner 10y agoThe tax attorney thing is a red herring. Wal-Mart averaged a 29% tax rate from 2008 to 2012--higher than your average American and much higher than companies like Apple and Google. You think Wal-Mart can't afford good tax lawyers? Or to lobby aggressively for tax breaks? No, the problem both Wal-Mart and the local sausage cart have is they're "meat space" businesses. They can't shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions by parking key IP there. Their ability to arbitrage otherwise reasonable tax laws is limited by the physical nature of their businesses.
- rando444 10y agoThere are many more ways to skirt tax laws. Look at IKEA. They operate as a non-profit, but transfer money to a holding company which licenses the IKEA brand to the non-profit.
- davidf18 10y agoThe countries simply need to pass laws or use some sort of legal intervention that counter this abuse of the law. Many US firms were buying out foreign firms and transferring their HQ to the bought out firm, simply to avoid taxes, not for any other strategic or operational reasons. Pfizer going to have a $160 billion merger with Allergen for this very reason, called an "inversion" but the US government intervened and the merger and Pfizer's tax avoidance was called off. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-allergan-call-off-160-billion-merger-after-us-moves-to-block-inversions/2016/04/06/4fd55446-fc11-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-aller...
- davidf18 10y agoThe countries simply need to hire higher competent people to construct their laws including addressing those newer types of firms such as Apple and Google. Since Wal-Mart and Starbucks are both "brick and mortar" it seems strange that Starbucks can have favorable taxes but not Wal-Mart. Countries simply need to hire very competent people to construct the laws. Their problems with taxes is one of market competition for intelligent people to write the laws with Amazon and Google who hire people to "legally" skirt the laws, often acting in "grey" areas and loopholes.
- SixSigma 10y agoHaving corrupt sweetheart deals with Luxembourg helps too.