5 ms·

The press likes to single out tech companies lately... but it's well-known every industry is doing the same. Walmart, Exxon and Pfizer are just a few companies

The press likes to single out tech companies lately... but it's well-known every industry is doing the same. Walmart, Exxon and Pfizer are just a few companies that tax-dodge just as much as Google. It's estimated $700 billion in taxes are dodged yearly[1] so singling out "Silicon Valley" seems strange. [1] https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook-how-corporations-rig-the-rules-to-dodge-the-taxes-they-owe/ https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook-...

reaperducer 7y ago
The press points this out because it's a new phenomenon. It's the new in "news." Just because Walmart, Exxon and others are bad doesn't mean SV isn't bad. It just means tech companies also get to be called out when they misbehave.
Analemma_ 7y ago
Technology companies are able to dodge much larger amounts of taxes because their IP-heavy nature allows them to use constructions like the "Double Irish", which Walmart and Exxon can't do. It's worth mentioning that tax dodging is widespread, but also worth pointing out that tech companies can engage in the same behavior to a greater degree.
kelnos 7y ago
> ... singling out "Silicon Valley" seems strange. Not to mention that two of the companies in their subtitle (Amazon and Microsoft) are not Silicon Valley companies.
shadow-banned 7y ago
Other industries employ a significantly larger amount of people. Ford has 85,000 employees. Facebook has 35,000. It's a wealth concentration issue.
malandrew 7y ago
The SCOTUS decision in Gregory v. Helvering supports tax minimization. There is zero obligation for any individual or company to pay any more tax than they owe. These companies all pay the taxes they owe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
- basch 7y ago
  Make money. Buy law favoring yourself. Make more money. Buy more laws. Just because its legal, doesnt mean its ideal.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    So the problem you've raised is with the government here, not businesses. Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it? As I see it, the founders did a good job with checks and balances relative to other countries, but if anything, they didn't go far enough. There should have been a check on allowing anyone to favor any tax changes that they are not equally hurt by or that don't equally help everyone but themselves. One of the largest corrupting forces is that congresspeople and individuals can support taxes that others pay but not themselves. If you think something is worth being paid for, they you should also be among those that are paying for it. Anything less than that invites corruption.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      > Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it? Seems dubious. Wealth, left to its own devices, is not known for trending towards equality. And disempowering the government, while removing incentive for corruption, also remove one of the only checks on capital.
MuffinFlavored 7y ago
> tax-dodge just as much as Google It isn't dodge. It's "cleverly follow the tax laws that are allowed". What are top 3 tax loopholes that could get closed? One on hand, it sounds like robbery for companies to not pay taxes. However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  >However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win? Yes because it would reduce the economic power of corporations vs people. The point of a tax system is only tangentially to provide goods and services. The main point is for it to stop the infinite accumulation of wealth at the hands of fewer and fewer people. Capital tends to a gini coefficient of 1 when left to its own devices. Without the visible hand of government to stop that from happening the invisible hand of providence [0] reaches in and does it for us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
- bsanr2 7y ago
  >However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... This isn't a given, and most companies would rather pay the taxes and see less profit, than sabotage their labor and fold even quicker. If it's a blanket policy, I imagine you'll see an initial market shock, and then things will go back to normal. And that's all the people in charge really care about. Pay won't change because it's a supply/demand issue, or so I'm told.
r00fus 7y ago
Agreed. We could have single-payer and all the infrastructure could be well maintained if the big corporations paid the same rates the small ones did. Instead we have kleptocracy.

reaperducer 7y ago

The press points this out because it's a new phenomenon. It's the new in "news." Just because Walmart, Exxon and others are bad doesn't mean SV isn't bad. It just means tech companies also get to be called out when they misbehave.

Analemma_ 7y ago

Technology companies are able to dodge much larger amounts of taxes because their IP-heavy nature allows them to use constructions like the "Double Irish", which Walmart and Exxon can't do. It's worth mentioning that tax dodging is widespread, but also worth pointing out that tech companies can engage in the same behavior to a greater degree.

kelnos 7y ago

> ... singling out "Silicon Valley" seems strange. Not to mention that two of the companies in their subtitle (Amazon and Microsoft) are not Silicon Valley companies.

shadow-banned 7y ago

Other industries employ a significantly larger amount of people. Ford has 85,000 employees. Facebook has 35,000. It's a wealth concentration issue.

malandrew 7y ago

The SCOTUS decision in Gregory v. Helvering supports tax minimization. There is zero obligation for any individual or company to pay any more tax than they owe. These companies all pay the taxes they owe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering

basch 7y ago
Make money. Buy law favoring yourself. Make more money. Buy more laws. Just because its legal, doesnt mean its ideal.
- malandrew 7y ago
  So the problem you've raised is with the government here, not businesses. Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it? As I see it, the founders did a good job with checks and balances relative to other countries, but if anything, they didn't go far enough. There should have been a check on allowing anyone to favor any tax changes that they are not equally hurt by or that don't equally help everyone but themselves. One of the largest corrupting forces is that congresspeople and individuals can support taxes that others pay but not themselves. If you think something is worth being paid for, they you should also be among those that are paying for it. Anything less than that invites corruption.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    > Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it? Seems dubious. Wealth, left to its own devices, is not known for trending towards equality. And disempowering the government, while removing incentive for corruption, also remove one of the only checks on capital.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

> tax-dodge just as much as Google It isn't dodge. It's "cleverly follow the tax laws that are allowed". What are top 3 tax loopholes that could get closed? One on hand, it sounds like robbery for companies to not pay taxes. However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?

buzzkillington 7y ago
>However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win? Yes because it would reduce the economic power of corporations vs people. The point of a tax system is only tangentially to provide goods and services. The main point is for it to stop the infinite accumulation of wealth at the hands of fewer and fewer people. Capital tends to a gini coefficient of 1 when left to its own devices. Without the visible hand of government to stop that from happening the invisible hand of providence [0] reaches in and does it for us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
bsanr2 7y ago
>However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... This isn't a given, and most companies would rather pay the taxes and see less profit, than sabotage their labor and fold even quicker. If it's a blanket policy, I imagine you'll see an initial market shock, and then things will go back to normal. And that's all the people in charge really care about. Pay won't change because it's a supply/demand issue, or so I'm told.

r00fus 7y ago

Agreed. We could have single-payer and all the infrastructure could be well maintained if the big corporations paid the same rates the small ones did. Instead we have kleptocracy.