5 ms·

I was scared for a minute. I thought this was about taxing consumer for accessing internet. It's fine. It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading tax

I was scared for a minute. I thought this was about taxing consumer for accessing internet. It's fine. It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes.

infinitone 8y ago
It'll likely trickle down to the consumer... the consumer will end up paying somehow.
- njarboe 8y ago
  This only happens in highly competitive markets like say, cotton t-shirts, gasoline, or wheat. It is not like Facebook is now going to have charge more for a social media account to stay afloat among a sea of other social media companies. No, Facebook (and Google, etc) will have to pay their corporate tax like they should. Although I think the new US corporate tax code is already going to prevent the current evasion schemes until, of course, new ones are invented.
- GunlogAlm 8y ago
  That's a line pushed by large corporations to convince people that money saved through tax avoision is somehow benefiting the consumer. Companies should pay their fair share of tax. Moreover, the argument makes little sense when dealing with companies like Google and Facebook. The average consumer isn't paying for access to Google Search, Gmail, or Facebook...
Rjevski 8y ago
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  Pointing out this distinction makes it sound like it's fine as long as it's legal. It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true, but largely besides the point.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true Except that it's not; usual definitions of terrorism don't exclude state action, and indeed state action is of particular concern with regard to terrorism, to the point of being frequently cited as justification for state-on-state warfare in recent decades.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    There's a difference between killing people and (legally) avoiding tax. I care about innocent people dying, but I couldn't care less that greedy governments get less money (they don't deserve any money to be fair, considering how bad of a job they're doing).
    - user5994461 8y ago
      Are you American because it sounds like you're an American and you hate your government? There are countries where taxes actually pay things like healthcare, unemployment benefits or retirement and not financing wars in the middle east.
      - drstewart 8y ago
        Are you European and send in additional money to your revenue collection agency? No? You're avoiding taxes (or evading taxes) by choosing to pay the lowest legal amount you're obligated to. Therefore, you must be American. What a paradox!
- moate 8y ago
chrisseaton 8y ago
They aren’t evading taxes. If they were evading they’d be prosecuted rather than a new tax being introduced. They’re avoiding. Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions. If you misuse the terms it makes it harder for everyone to talk precisely about the issue.
- eertami 8y ago
  >Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest it's like that, because the average person is not worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Sorry but you cannot in good faith compare the impact of tax avoidance by Amazon to an individual's pension. The problem really is that the loopholes are inaccessible to regular small businesses. A lot of small companies _do_ pay a fair level of tax which makes it difficult to compete with a company that doew not.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    It’s fine to debate morals. But it’s important to make a distinction between legal and illegal. You’re accusing them of having a different opinion on a moral isssue to you. That’s one thing. Accusing them of doing something illegal - that’s something else. And it’s now super clear that it’s legal, since we’ve decided we have to introduce a new tax to tax them. My issue isn’t with the debate - it’s about being precise. If you say everyone’s evading then you ruin the power of really saying someone’s evading. You’re crying wolf.
    - Joe-Z 8y ago
      I don't get it. On the one hand you say you just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two terms, on the other you claim when facebook and Amazon are avoiding taxes that's the same as when ordinary people try to save for retirement. If you didn't want to be quoted on that you shouldn't have put that comparison in.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        I don’t mind being quoted on anything. It’s either legal or it isn’t. For one you can prosecute, the other you can only criticise. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single person or a massive company. Either we have made the solemn decision as a country that it is prohibited with the force of the state punishing you, or we haven’t. It’s a huge difference. Think about it like this. The next time someone is really evading tax and you call them out on it people will think ‘oh well nothing we can do about that without new laws’ because you’ve conflated it with avoidance this time.

I was scared for a minute. I thought this was about taxing consumer for accessing internet. It's fine. It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes.

infinitone 8y ago

It'll likely trickle down to the consumer... the consumer will end up paying somehow.

njarboe 8y ago
This only happens in highly competitive markets like say, cotton t-shirts, gasoline, or wheat. It is not like Facebook is now going to have charge more for a social media account to stay afloat among a sea of other social media companies. No, Facebook (and Google, etc) will have to pay their corporate tax like they should. Although I think the new US corporate tax code is already going to prevent the current evasion schemes until, of course, new ones are invented.
GunlogAlm 8y ago
That's a line pushed by large corporations to convince people that money saved through tax avoision is somehow benefiting the consumer. Companies should pay their fair share of tax. Moreover, the argument makes little sense when dealing with companies like Google and Facebook. The average consumer isn't paying for access to Google Search, Gmail, or Facebook...

Rjevski 8y ago

> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.

nicoburns 8y ago
Pointing out this distinction makes it sound like it's fine as long as it's legal. It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true, but largely besides the point.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true Except that it's not; usual definitions of terrorism don't exclude state action, and indeed state action is of particular concern with regard to terrorism, to the point of being frequently cited as justification for state-on-state warfare in recent decades.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  There's a difference between killing people and (legally) avoiding tax. I care about innocent people dying, but I couldn't care less that greedy governments get less money (they don't deserve any money to be fair, considering how bad of a job they're doing).
  - user5994461 8y ago
    Are you American because it sounds like you're an American and you hate your government? There are countries where taxes actually pay things like healthcare, unemployment benefits or retirement and not financing wars in the middle east.
    - drstewart 8y ago
      Are you European and send in additional money to your revenue collection agency? No? You're avoiding taxes (or evading taxes) by choosing to pay the lowest legal amount you're obligated to. Therefore, you must be American. What a paradox!
moate 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago

They aren’t evading taxes. If they were evading they’d be prosecuted rather than a new tax being introduced. They’re avoiding. Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions. If you misuse the terms it makes it harder for everyone to talk precisely about the issue.

eertami 8y ago
>Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest it's like that, because the average person is not worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Sorry but you cannot in good faith compare the impact of tax avoidance by Amazon to an individual's pension. The problem really is that the loopholes are inaccessible to regular small businesses. A lot of small companies _do_ pay a fair level of tax which makes it difficult to compete with a company that doew not.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  It’s fine to debate morals. But it’s important to make a distinction between legal and illegal. You’re accusing them of having a different opinion on a moral isssue to you. That’s one thing. Accusing them of doing something illegal - that’s something else. And it’s now super clear that it’s legal, since we’ve decided we have to introduce a new tax to tax them. My issue isn’t with the debate - it’s about being precise. If you say everyone’s evading then you ruin the power of really saying someone’s evading. You’re crying wolf.
  - Joe-Z 8y ago
    I don't get it. On the one hand you say you just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two terms, on the other you claim when facebook and Amazon are avoiding taxes that's the same as when ordinary people try to save for retirement. If you didn't want to be quoted on that you shouldn't have put that comparison in.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      I don’t mind being quoted on anything. It’s either legal or it isn’t. For one you can prosecute, the other you can only criticise. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single person or a massive company. Either we have made the solemn decision as a country that it is prohibited with the force of the state punishing you, or we haven’t. It’s a huge difference. Think about it like this. The next time someone is really evading tax and you call them out on it people will think ‘oh well nothing we can do about that without new laws’ because you’ve conflated it with avoidance this time.