3 ms·

The reclaiming thing is terrible, but let's not get the populist (election year) comments on dividend tax into the same discussion. By all objective means the N

The reclaiming thing is terrible, but let's not get the populist (election year) comments on dividend tax into the same discussion. By all objective means the Netherlands is one of the top tax havens of Europe, and it's bringing in lots and lots of money. Charging 1% effective tax on Apple, Starbucks etc is really great for the Netherlands and reduces the amount of tax paid by citizens. Somehow half the general public cheers for the left opposition parties that want to remove these tax breaks because "it's not fair Apple is paying so little". But anyone with any economical sense understands that removing these tax breaks means Apple (and the rest) will leave Amsterdam. They have no significant operations there, just a postbox for the low taxes. The end result is that Dutch citizens will have to pay more tax. The government knows this very well, but they can't publicly be very vocal about it because being a tax haven isn't very friendly to other countries that are missing out on taxes because of it. So long story short: If you're Dutch stop complaining, you're saving tax. If you're any other European: you have every right to point out the Netherlands as a tax haven.

cgio 6y ago
I think you give a very good overview, especially by counterpointing the relevance to other Europeans. Nevertheless, even within Netherlands, there is a question of whether 1% is the maximum you could get from these corporations and still leave them with a profit. Could it be 2% or 3% etc. instead? If yes, who pockets part of the difference that is not pursued?
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  > Could it be 2% or 3% etc. instead? Why should forcibly taking money from other people have earned be a good thing ? A perhaps better idea would be just to ban Starbucks from the country and let government run a monopolized coffee shop. That might be a great achievement no ? From what I can see the government must strive to achieve as much as possible while taking as little as possible from anyone else. Taxation is theft but has no real alternative but being cognizant of that underlying philosophy would help people find a moral compass.
  - t0mas88 6y ago
    Governments provide services and infrastructure for public use, some countries choose to make those pay-per-use (e.g. toll roads in France, privatized firefighting in some US cities) and many services are available to anyone. But somehow somebody needs to pay for those services, which comes down to tax on individuals and corporations that reside or register in a country. What is strange about the Dutch tax haven situation is that Apple (as just one example) isn't really using any local services, they only have a PO box. So they're not paying to get something, they're only paying because everywhere else they would have to pay more. In effect they're robbing the US because they are using public services there, while not paying the tax that is normal for it. But as a Dutch taxpayer: Thanks Apple!
    - KorematsuFred 6y ago
      > But somehow somebody needs to pay for those services, which comes down to tax on individuals and corporations that reside or register in a country. In most of those cases, tax need not be the only way to pay for those services. Government in many cases uses coercion to monopolize some of the markets (roads, NHS etc.) which makes it necessary to tax people. But even if I agree with your basic premise then what % of tax revenue actually goes into funding something that is public good, at least in USA around 40% of it is pure waste. > So they're not paying to get something, they're only paying because everywhere else they would have to pay more. In effect they're robbing the US because they are using public services there, while not paying the tax that is normal for it. > they're robbing the US Not true. Apple is keeping its own money to itself using perfectly legal mechanism. This is not very different from claiming spouse or child as an exemption for an individual. > because they are using public services there Paying taxes have absolutely nothing to with which services you use. US is happy to tax American citizens who do not even live in USA nor have anything to do with USA. NY state taxes folks who specifically refuse to stay or work in NY and yet work for NY based employers. Tax is a classic redistribution mechanism, government collects whatever it can, spends (or supposed to spend on) whoever needs it. It has nothing absolutely nothing to do with what services one uses. > But as a Dutch taxpayer: Thanks Apple! That is something we can agree on and Thanks Denmark for making it happen. More money in the hands of US government is nothing but trouble for Americans and thrid world countris where they drop bombs.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
If the real rate is 1%, absolutely no large corporation is going to leave if the rate goes up to 2%. Or even 5%. Especially if the location is attractive. (Good English, good facilities, central location, stable country, etc.) The costs of setting up new offices would dwarf any nominal tax saving. This isn't 'populist' it's pragmatic. Countries cost a lot to run, and if someone is renting space from you they should be paying their way - not getting an incredibly cheap ride because you happen to have some rooms (spaces) you want to fill.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Surely a 500% tax hike would have no effect.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  So much miss information here.. Where are all these employees you’re talking about? And what facilities? You’re talking about very different things The tax routes don’t take anything from any country. Corporate tax is 25% here. But they use other routes to pay less than that.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I keep pointing out: this system of no taxes for the mega corps is a huge offence against free markets, you are creating monopolies because start-ups and local business actually have to pay taxes and can't compete. And okay, Apple offers something unique, by why the fuck should I be subsidising a coffee company? They do nothing a random mom-and-pop business can't do, they add nothing to the local economy whatsoever.

cgio 6y ago

I think you give a very good overview, especially by counterpointing the relevance to other Europeans. Nevertheless, even within Netherlands, there is a question of whether 1% is the maximum you could get from these corporations and still leave them with a profit. Could it be 2% or 3% etc. instead? If yes, who pockets part of the difference that is not pursued?

KorematsuFred 6y ago
> Could it be 2% or 3% etc. instead? Why should forcibly taking money from other people have earned be a good thing ? A perhaps better idea would be just to ban Starbucks from the country and let government run a monopolized coffee shop. That might be a great achievement no ? From what I can see the government must strive to achieve as much as possible while taking as little as possible from anyone else. Taxation is theft but has no real alternative but being cognizant of that underlying philosophy would help people find a moral compass.
- t0mas88 6y ago
  Governments provide services and infrastructure for public use, some countries choose to make those pay-per-use (e.g. toll roads in France, privatized firefighting in some US cities) and many services are available to anyone. But somehow somebody needs to pay for those services, which comes down to tax on individuals and corporations that reside or register in a country. What is strange about the Dutch tax haven situation is that Apple (as just one example) isn't really using any local services, they only have a PO box. So they're not paying to get something, they're only paying because everywhere else they would have to pay more. In effect they're robbing the US because they are using public services there, while not paying the tax that is normal for it. But as a Dutch taxpayer: Thanks Apple!
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    > But somehow somebody needs to pay for those services, which comes down to tax on individuals and corporations that reside or register in a country. In most of those cases, tax need not be the only way to pay for those services. Government in many cases uses coercion to monopolize some of the markets (roads, NHS etc.) which makes it necessary to tax people. But even if I agree with your basic premise then what % of tax revenue actually goes into funding something that is public good, at least in USA around 40% of it is pure waste. > So they're not paying to get something, they're only paying because everywhere else they would have to pay more. In effect they're robbing the US because they are using public services there, while not paying the tax that is normal for it. > they're robbing the US Not true. Apple is keeping its own money to itself using perfectly legal mechanism. This is not very different from claiming spouse or child as an exemption for an individual. > because they are using public services there Paying taxes have absolutely nothing to with which services you use. US is happy to tax American citizens who do not even live in USA nor have anything to do with USA. NY state taxes folks who specifically refuse to stay or work in NY and yet work for NY based employers. Tax is a classic redistribution mechanism, government collects whatever it can, spends (or supposed to spend on) whoever needs it. It has nothing absolutely nothing to do with what services one uses. > But as a Dutch taxpayer: Thanks Apple! That is something we can agree on and Thanks Denmark for making it happen. More money in the hands of US government is nothing but trouble for Americans and thrid world countris where they drop bombs.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

If the real rate is 1%, absolutely no large corporation is going to leave if the rate goes up to 2%. Or even 5%. Especially if the location is attractive. (Good English, good facilities, central location, stable country, etc.) The costs of setting up new offices would dwarf any nominal tax saving. This isn't 'populist' it's pragmatic. Countries cost a lot to run, and if someone is renting space from you they should be paying their way - not getting an incredibly cheap ride because you happen to have some rooms (spaces) you want to fill.

jiofih 6y ago
Surely a 500% tax hike would have no effect.
jbverschoor 6y ago
So much miss information here.. Where are all these employees you’re talking about? And what facilities? You’re talking about very different things The tax routes don’t take anything from any country. Corporate tax is 25% here. But they use other routes to pay less than that.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

I keep pointing out: this system of no taxes for the mega corps is a huge offence against free markets, you are creating monopolies because start-ups and local business actually have to pay taxes and can't compete. And okay, Apple offers something unique, by why the fuck should I be subsidising a coffee company? They do nothing a random mom-and-pop business can't do, they add nothing to the local economy whatsoever.