5 ms·

One could argue that they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to minimize their tax burden. I can't even imagine a moral obligation to pay excess tax

by FDSGSG 7y ago

One could argue that they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to minimize their tax burden. I can't even imagine a moral obligation to pay excess taxes, that's simply not how taxes work.

bredren 7y ago
That would be a business or contractual obligation. There is nothing personal about that relationship.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  There's nothing personal about my relationship with the tax authorities.
jayd16 7y ago
By phrasing it as excess taxes you've already begged the question. You could also phrase it as paying your share or pulling your weight.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  Excess taxes, i.e. taxes not required by the law.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You've already linked the concept of excess to legality, definitionally. This is why you lack the ability to understand what a moral amount could be.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      That's fair. Do you know what a moral amount would be? I don't know, but I also doubt that anyone else really knows.
      - jayd16 7y ago
        I assure you I don't know the exact number but I can imagine that non-zero moral amount exists.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        FDSGSG 7y ago
        That's fair, but the amount taxes Activision Blizzard are paying is non-zero. Are they doing wrong? If yes, how much should the pay?
Scoundreller 7y ago
It's a problem for shareholders too: When the money is "stuck" ex-US and can't be brought back to the US to pay its shareholders. If your money is in a shell that you cannot reach/touch, do you really have it? And if you can't, why is it on the balance sheet as if it were cash that you could reach?
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  This is about money that was already outside the US. I'm not convinced that shuffling euro money around hurt the shareholders.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    I can't admit I understand exactly what's going on in this case, but usually the story is that companies claim they have no US tax liability on revenue kept in a non-US subsidiary. And the same companies stuff all the non-US revenue into a low-tax subsidiary, even when it's effectively earned in high-tax ex-US jurisdictions to avoid their taxes too.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      > I can't admit I understand exactly what's going on in this case That's exactly the problem! These are extremely complex situations where there usually doesn't exist any clear answer. If there did, large corporations almost certainly would not take these steps. If there were clear laws, then taking these steps could be criminal tax fraud. Blame the regulators. There's nothing stopping nations from writing clearer tax laws.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by FDSGSG 7y ago

One could argue that they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to minimize their tax burden. I can't even imagine a moral obligation to pay excess taxes, that's simply not how taxes work.

bredren 7y ago

That would be a business or contractual obligation. There is nothing personal about that relationship.

FDSGSG 7y ago
There's nothing personal about my relationship with the tax authorities.

jayd16 7y ago

By phrasing it as excess taxes you've already begged the question. You could also phrase it as paying your share or pulling your weight.

FDSGSG 7y ago
Excess taxes, i.e. taxes not required by the law.
- jayd16 7y ago
  You've already linked the concept of excess to legality, definitionally. This is why you lack the ability to understand what a moral amount could be.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    That's fair. Do you know what a moral amount would be? I don't know, but I also doubt that anyone else really knows.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      I assure you I don't know the exact number but I can imagine that non-zero moral amount exists.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - FDSGSG 7y ago
        That's fair, but the amount taxes Activision Blizzard are paying is non-zero. Are they doing wrong? If yes, how much should the pay?

Scoundreller 7y ago

It's a problem for shareholders too: When the money is "stuck" ex-US and can't be brought back to the US to pay its shareholders. If your money is in a shell that you cannot reach/touch, do you really have it? And if you can't, why is it on the balance sheet as if it were cash that you could reach?

FDSGSG 7y ago
This is about money that was already outside the US. I'm not convinced that shuffling euro money around hurt the shareholders.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  I can't admit I understand exactly what's going on in this case, but usually the story is that companies claim they have no US tax liability on revenue kept in a non-US subsidiary. And the same companies stuff all the non-US revenue into a low-tax subsidiary, even when it's effectively earned in high-tax ex-US jurisdictions to avoid their taxes too.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    > I can't admit I understand exactly what's going on in this case That's exactly the problem! These are extremely complex situations where there usually doesn't exist any clear answer. If there did, large corporations almost certainly would not take these steps. If there were clear laws, then taking these steps could be criminal tax fraud. Blame the regulators. There's nothing stopping nations from writing clearer tax laws.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]