6 ms·

This is not the fault of Capitalism alone. In a healthy democracy, the people vote in the Government, who can impose fines, tariffs, penalties and such on compa

This is not the fault of Capitalism alone. In a healthy democracy, the people vote in the Government, who can impose fines, tariffs, penalties and such on companies and business practices that the people (via the people they elect) deem to be working against them. Sadly, as you point out, this creates a direct incentive to lobby or otherwise attempt to control Government by large and powerful companies. The only way to prevent this is to impose fines, tariffs and penalties on businesses undertaking this behaviour (effectively disincentivising it financially), since it fundamentally unbalances the power dynamic between Government and business. However if you've got nobody left to elect who will fight that corner for you, you're kinda stuck.

fleitz 9y ago
The people of Ireland have democracy, perhaps they have different views on taxation than you do. It may come as a surprise to you but some people aren't so greedy as to believe that they are entitled to the fruits of other's labour.
- kunimu 9y ago
  "some people aren't so greedy as to believe that they are entitled to the fruits of other's labour." There is a distinct and strong sense of unaware irony in this comment.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Most Irish citizens had no idea about the extend of this.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    I think most Irish people are aware that the primary appeal of the country to multinationals is as a tax-efficient English-speaking common law bridge into the EU, in approximately that order. The specific amounts flowing across the bridge, no, I don't think people are generally aware of the numbers. But because it is a bridge, we Irish don't really have a strong claim on that money: the revenue was generated somewhere else, and it's going somewhere else, it's just resting in Ireland for a while. There's a bunch of hypocritical talk from other EU countries criticising Irish tax rates, all the while having lots of carveouts and tax breaks of their own that reduce supposedly high rates to nearly nothing in various deals. For example, France has an effective rate of about 8% on profits for companies in the the CAC40. Luxembourg is much worse, it's practically a tax haven that avoids being listed as such somehow, probably down to location. In principle I'm in favour of something like the common consolidated corporate tax base. The problem with taxing multinationals comes down to game theory: if there's a common market between countries, there's a race to the bottom in tax rates for hosting multinationals. So there needs to be a pact.
  - fleitz 9y ago
    So what you're saying is their corporate tax law wasn't enough of a concern to them to actually read it?
    - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
      This was not a law but a secret bespoke areangement.
      - fleitz 9y ago
        That seems unsupported by the article, in 2015 Ireland changed its laws, Apple consulted a law firm on advice on how to proceed and sought assurances from the govts involved that it's understanding of the law was correct. Where is this agreement you speak of?
        Oletros 9y ago
        The case against Apple is not about Double Irish, is about a secret agreement with Irish Government on how to account the revenue in Ireland
        lovich 9y ago
        This is a little off topic but the question will help me parse your posts better. Is there any situation you can imagine where Apple, or any corporation, could have done anything wrong when it comes to how it pays taxes?
        fleitz 9y ago
        Of course there is, this is what tax evasion is about. There's a decent case to be made that the Apple and Ireland were wrong in Apple following Ireland's tax code, we'll see how the case turns out on appeal. I would say that when the sovereign is in agreement the payment of taxes that it can't be construed as evasion, however, I'm not super well versed on how much of a sovereign Ireland really is given it's membership in the EU. Perhaps the EU is the real sovereign in this case and Apple has erred in consulting with the Irish government who lacks authority to set tax policy in its territory.
evv 9y ago
It's a noble idea that government should exist to protect consumers from corporations. But it will never work unless there is some authority that could protect the governments from the corporations.
- rockinghigh 9y ago
  That authority is the justice system. Corporations also have rights and they can defend them by going to court.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Money is power and capitalism consolidates money. So capitalism consolidates power. Consolidated power can change the rules in its favor to consolidate more. The only options are prevent entities from consolidating money (which means you're risking losing capitalism), Or prevent entities from using money and power to change the rules (which, if you think of all the ways gratuitous money could be used to influence, is the social equivalent of solving the halting problem).
- L_Rahman 9y ago
  > each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. We call that crony capitalism and it is very much the opposite of a free market. I do agree with you however that we don't have effective barriers between money and government (or other forms of) power and therefore the stable state for liberal democracies with capitalist markets is crony capitalism and regulatory capture.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Yes. This is why I'm in favor of term limits, as well as a rule that outlaws "revolving doors"[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    This is why I favor making our representatives an actual representative population using random selection. Our current selection process overwhelmingly favors white male lawyers who are good at talking corporations into giving them money for their election campaigns.
hammock 9y ago
>The only way to prevent this is to impose fines, tariffs and penalties The ONLY solution to an abuse of power by government is more government exercise of power? How about limiting the powers of government to remove the "direct incentive to lobby"?
- fredley 9y ago
  So they only players left are the large corporations? I don't think you can have thought this through, so I'll take you through it: Nation states are social constructs, whereby some people collectively lay claim to some land, and have their claim recognised by all the other states. In order to be able to do this, a key thing you must be able to do is defend your patch of land. This requires some sort of military, who will need paying. You can further entrench your position and standing amongst the group of nation states by doing trade with them. The greater your economic output, the more likely the are to treat you well, be your ally, and do trade with you in return. However, keeping a military, and generating power and providing infrastructure to enable economic activity (roads, ports, airports, healthcare(?), fire, police etc.) costs money, and to raise this money, the state charges people tax. All states raise money via taxes, and it's the predominant way they do raise money. So there's the question, who do you tax, and how much? Do you tax everyone the same (a poll tax), or do you tax people who have less money less? Or people who have more money less? The power to decide who pays is one of the key roles of Government, and one of the main expressions of Government power. I would be interested to hear how you would see a limitation of the powers of Government, by which I assume you mean limiting their ability to set tax law would work.
  - hammock 9y ago
    Thanks for "taking me through that." Never thought about that before now. Let me take you through your scenario.. you give government increasing power to censure corporations it doesn't like, effectively making it kingmaker of the economy. You end up with something like China where every company is state-sanctioned, and there is widespread graft and corruption.
    - 9y ago
smaddox 9y ago
> The only way to prevent this is to impose fines, tariffs and penalties on businesses undertaking this behaviour (effectively disincentivising it financially), since it fundamentally unbalances the power dynamic between Government and business. That is neither the only way, nor a particularly effective way. I think we should go back to having representatives who represent a reasonable number of people (~100-500), and who are not full time politicians. Then regulatory capture would be much more expensive and difficult.

fleitz 9y ago

The people of Ireland have democracy, perhaps they have different views on taxation than you do. It may come as a surprise to you but some people aren't so greedy as to believe that they are entitled to the fruits of other's labour.

kunimu 9y ago
"some people aren't so greedy as to believe that they are entitled to the fruits of other's labour." There is a distinct and strong sense of unaware irony in this comment.
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Most Irish citizens had no idea about the extend of this.
- barrkel 9y ago
  I think most Irish people are aware that the primary appeal of the country to multinationals is as a tax-efficient English-speaking common law bridge into the EU, in approximately that order. The specific amounts flowing across the bridge, no, I don't think people are generally aware of the numbers. But because it is a bridge, we Irish don't really have a strong claim on that money: the revenue was generated somewhere else, and it's going somewhere else, it's just resting in Ireland for a while. There's a bunch of hypocritical talk from other EU countries criticising Irish tax rates, all the while having lots of carveouts and tax breaks of their own that reduce supposedly high rates to nearly nothing in various deals. For example, France has an effective rate of about 8% on profits for companies in the the CAC40. Luxembourg is much worse, it's practically a tax haven that avoids being listed as such somehow, probably down to location. In principle I'm in favour of something like the common consolidated corporate tax base. The problem with taxing multinationals comes down to game theory: if there's a common market between countries, there's a race to the bottom in tax rates for hosting multinationals. So there needs to be a pact.
- fleitz 9y ago
  So what you're saying is their corporate tax law wasn't enough of a concern to them to actually read it?
  - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    This was not a law but a secret bespoke areangement.
    - fleitz 9y ago
      That seems unsupported by the article, in 2015 Ireland changed its laws, Apple consulted a law firm on advice on how to proceed and sought assurances from the govts involved that it's understanding of the law was correct. Where is this agreement you speak of?
      - Oletros 9y ago
        The case against Apple is not about Double Irish, is about a secret agreement with Irish Government on how to account the revenue in Ireland
      - lovich 9y ago
        This is a little off topic but the question will help me parse your posts better. Is there any situation you can imagine where Apple, or any corporation, could have done anything wrong when it comes to how it pays taxes?
        fleitz 9y ago
        Of course there is, this is what tax evasion is about. There's a decent case to be made that the Apple and Ireland were wrong in Apple following Ireland's tax code, we'll see how the case turns out on appeal. I would say that when the sovereign is in agreement the payment of taxes that it can't be construed as evasion, however, I'm not super well versed on how much of a sovereign Ireland really is given it's membership in the EU. Perhaps the EU is the real sovereign in this case and Apple has erred in consulting with the Irish government who lacks authority to set tax policy in its territory.

evv 9y ago

It's a noble idea that government should exist to protect consumers from corporations. But it will never work unless there is some authority that could protect the governments from the corporations.

rockinghigh 9y ago
That authority is the justice system. Corporations also have rights and they can defend them by going to court.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Money is power and capitalism consolidates money. So capitalism consolidates power. Consolidated power can change the rules in its favor to consolidate more. The only options are prevent entities from consolidating money (which means you're risking losing capitalism), Or prevent entities from using money and power to change the rules (which, if you think of all the ways gratuitous money could be used to influence, is the social equivalent of solving the halting problem).

L_Rahman 9y ago
> each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. We call that crony capitalism and it is very much the opposite of a free market. I do agree with you however that we don't have effective barriers between money and government (or other forms of) power and therefore the stable state for liberal democracies with capitalist markets is crony capitalism and regulatory capture.
enraged_camel 9y ago
>>Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Yes. This is why I'm in favor of term limits, as well as a rule that outlaws "revolving doors"[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
- shkkmo 9y ago
  This is why I favor making our representatives an actual representative population using random selection. Our current selection process overwhelmingly favors white male lawyers who are good at talking corporations into giving them money for their election campaigns.

hammock 9y ago

>The only way to prevent this is to impose fines, tariffs and penalties The ONLY solution to an abuse of power by government is more government exercise of power? How about limiting the powers of government to remove the "direct incentive to lobby"?

fredley 9y ago
So they only players left are the large corporations? I don't think you can have thought this through, so I'll take you through it: Nation states are social constructs, whereby some people collectively lay claim to some land, and have their claim recognised by all the other states. In order to be able to do this, a key thing you must be able to do is defend your patch of land. This requires some sort of military, who will need paying. You can further entrench your position and standing amongst the group of nation states by doing trade with them. The greater your economic output, the more likely the are to treat you well, be your ally, and do trade with you in return. However, keeping a military, and generating power and providing infrastructure to enable economic activity (roads, ports, airports, healthcare(?), fire, police etc.) costs money, and to raise this money, the state charges people tax. All states raise money via taxes, and it's the predominant way they do raise money. So there's the question, who do you tax, and how much? Do you tax everyone the same (a poll tax), or do you tax people who have less money less? Or people who have more money less? The power to decide who pays is one of the key roles of Government, and one of the main expressions of Government power. I would be interested to hear how you would see a limitation of the powers of Government, by which I assume you mean limiting their ability to set tax law would work.
- hammock 9y ago
  Thanks for "taking me through that." Never thought about that before now. Let me take you through your scenario.. you give government increasing power to censure corporations it doesn't like, effectively making it kingmaker of the economy. You end up with something like China where every company is state-sanctioned, and there is widespread graft and corruption.
  - 9y ago

smaddox 9y ago

> The only way to prevent this is to impose fines, tariffs and penalties on businesses undertaking this behaviour (effectively disincentivising it financially), since it fundamentally unbalances the power dynamic between Government and business. That is neither the only way, nor a particularly effective way. I think we should go back to having representatives who represent a reasonable number of people (~100-500), and who are not full time politicians. Then regulatory capture would be much more expensive and difficult.