5 ms·
There would be no race to the bottom if there was a real, tangible benefit to being established in a high tax country - ie, better public services, a more educa
by sbacic 8y ago
There would be no race to the bottom if there was a real, tangible benefit to being established in a high tax country - ie, better public services, a more educated workforce, more business friendly environment, etc. As it is right now, very few countries justify their tax rates and that prompts people and businesses to do the rational thing and go where they pay less for the same thing.
I think it's very concerning that European countries are so focused on taxing access to their market rather than asking themselves the question of what they can offer to businesses and individual to make them more interesting as places to settle down or establish a company.
- anoncake 8y agoA country does not have to justify its tax rates before Facebook. A country should focus on serving its citizens, not multinationals.
- barry-cotter 8y agoA company does not have to justify its business practices to anyone but its shareholders. A company should focus on serving its shareholders, not politicians.
- sbacic 8y agoIt most certainly does - both to its citizens and the companies that do business there. Otherwise, the implicit idea that your taxes pay for public services is chucked out of the window and we're left with taxation as just another expense to be avoided if possible.
- anoncake 8y agoOnly to its citizens. Not to companies. The idea behind taxes is not to pay for public services, but for whatever the citizens want to use them for (which happens to include public services of course). Companies aren't allowed to vote for a reason.
- sbacic 8y agoKeep in mind that companies are not just large multinationals but also small mom and pop stores, freelancers and everything in between. I hope you understand how deeply hypocritical it is to tout paying taxes as a moral obligation while at the same time refusing to be held accountable for how that money is being spent or denying companies a voice.
- anoncake 8y agoAnd many companies are owned by citizens whose opinions actually matter just as much as those who don't own a company. > I hope you understand how deeply hypocritical it is to tout paying taxes as a moral obligation while at the same time refusing to be held accountable for how that money is being spent or denying companies a voice. There's nothing hypocritical about not wanting corporations to have even more power than they already have.
- growlist 8y agoYou seem to be labouring under the delusion that voting actually changes anything.
- anoncake 8y agoNot enough. In part, that's because companies have to much of a voice.
- BartBoch 8y agoI think you are completely missing what's going on... Google generates revenue in Poland. They have operations in Poland and all (so they use all the public goods like employees, infrastructure, safety etc.). They should pay taxes in tens of millions of Euros for this. But instead, they generate fake expense in Ireland, send an invoice to the Polish office, call it "branding" or something else, the invoice is big enough to generate a loss. They do not need to pay taxes in Poland since they are at "loss". That's the issue. Not that Ireland has a different tax system. The issue is that companies are allowed to avoid taxes by generating fake expenses and the EU prohibits other countries from doing anything with it really. IMO 1,5% fixed tax is very attractive rate.
- sbacic 8y agoI'm genuinely curious - what operations does Google have in Poland? I was under the impression that all the "valuable" stuff was being made in the US and that their subsidiaries just handle localization, support and local sales. Is that incorrect? If that is correct, then it makes perfect sense to shift profits - after all, it's not like Google Poland just came up with their new foobuz algorithm that is providing value. They're just selling it there.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago> local sales > They're just selling it there. This is literally the money generating part, the rest are cost centers.
- NicoJuicy 8y agoYou are pretty wrong. Taxes aren't about limiting market access, tariffs are. Taxes are ways to keep the money in the country, reinvest it so it ripples back to the civilians. Tech companies are avoiding this.
- sbacic 8y agoWhat is the difference between a tax, a tariff and a fine?
- NicoJuicy 8y agoA fine = following the rules & earning money. Ps. I hope your being sarcastic
- sbacic 8y agoI was not being sarcastic - the question was purely rhetorical. From the company's perspective - there is no difference because they all result in the same thing - transfer of money from the company to the government.
- NicoJuicy 8y agoThey are not the same thing. You break the rules = fine A political protection against something from other countries ( eg. Dumping and killing the internal market) = tariff Taxes = helping the country/nation, based in money you earned from civilians/local businesses there These are very different things.
- rlanday 8y agoThat’s not really true. Tariffs are clearly a form of tax. Both taxes and fines are used to discourage undesirable behavior. One difference is businesses typically assess on their own how much they owe in taxes, whereas the government tells them how much they owe in fines.