5 ms·

I find it remarkable that in this sort of case the public sentiment is to hate on the corporation, rather than on the governments who set the (byzantine) tax ru

by rlpb 6y ago

I find it remarkable that in this sort of case the public sentiment is to hate on the corporation, rather than on the governments who set the (byzantine) tax rules that the corporation is following.

Milner08 6y ago
The UK at least tried to impose taxes and the US threatened us with sanctions. I am not aware of the exact details but its clear there is some will to change it but there is a lot of strong opposition to it as well.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  The UK tried to impose taxes on revenue on exclusively American companies, which is exactly equivalent to a tariff. Threatening tariffs in the other direction is a very reasonable response in trade disputes.
oblio 6y ago
Because the byzantine tax rules are set by those same corporations through lobbying (aka corruption).
- fyzics 6y ago
  Don't hate the player. If the problem is corruption, then amazon is the wrong target if you want meaningful change.
  - oblio 6y ago
    You can hate both. And you can definitely hate the player.
    - whitepaint 6y ago
      You can hate all you want, but by just hating you won't change anything. It's truly baffling to me that people don't see very clearly that Amazon is not the problem here.
      - Traster 6y ago
        No one said that all people want to do is hate Amazon, but if you want to get this fixed you have to highlight and build hatred of this system (including both Amazon's role in it and the regulatory capture) because that's how you campaign for change in a democracy.
        whitepaint 6y ago
        You don't need hate to be built up. You just need to provide effective solutions. Or at least some kind of solutions, so it can be discussed. What you're doing now is just saying "Amazon bad". That won't solve anything.
        Traster 6y ago
        There are already tonnes of proposals, none of them get traction because there's no pressure to act. That's where the hate comes in - people need to be outraged in order for politiicans to be motivated to change things.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Yet there is no discussion of the system, only mindless finger pointing at Amazon. It would be more productive to discuss the changes that should be made to tax laws.
        Traster 6y ago
        From the article: >“President Biden has proposed a new, fairer system for taxing large corporations and digital companies but the UK has not come out in support of the reforms. The silence is deafening. The government must act and help to grasp this once-in-a-generation opportunity to banish corporate tax avoidance to a thing of the past.”
FriedrichN 6y ago
One can do both. If theft and murder was to be made legal I wouldn't start doing it, would you? I hate this narrative where corporations are just assumed to be morally obliged to do everything to increase their profits. Corporations should be regulated and be inclined to do the right thing even if no one's watching, just like ordinary citizens.
- whitepaint 6y ago
  > just like ordinary citizens Have you ever paid more than what you were required to?
  - blackbear_ 6y ago
    Many people leave tips
    - Asdrubalini 6y ago
      One thing is directly paying more a person for a service, another thing is being forced to pay a percentage of your income and then wanting to pay even more. You can if you want, but I wouldn't condemn someone for deciding to follow the law and pay as low as he can.
  - FriedrichN 6y ago
    There is a difference between using laws as they were intended to be used and hiring a literal army of accountants and lawyers to find holes in the law.
    - whitepaint 6y ago
      I don't see the difference, can you shine the light?
      - FriedrichN 6y ago
        It's acting in good faith versus acting in bad faith. If I agree to something with a supplier for example, I expect them to act in good faith, not seek out the edges in our agreement. I would not do business with someone like that. Just because you can does not mean you should.
notahacker 6y ago
Do you also find it remarkable that people don't despise the people who get defrauded more than the fraudsters?
- whitepaint 6y ago
  Fraud != Paying the amount of taxes you're required
  - notahacker 6y ago
    You're not "required" to relocate part of your business to a tax haven, invent a royalty that part of your business owes to another part of your business to zero that business's profit or declare that the sales to local businesses your local account managers are paid commission on are actually completed in a different office overseas. Doing so is every bit as much of a conscious choice as pretending your blood testing product actually works or that the funds for Peter's ROI don't come from Paul
    - whitepaint 6y ago
      You have the duty to your shareholders to increase the profits as much as possible within the legal framework. So, yeah, you are required to do so if it means it's profitable.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        A statutory duty to increase profits as much as possible within the legal framework "requires" you to come up with strategies to artificially decrease recorded profits to pay less corporation tax? Rrrrright.... I mean, there are literally millions of companies worldwide that aren't even remotely tax efficient never mind inventing artificial royalties to shell companies in tax havens which they could if their directors wanted to... why are they not being sued by their shareholders? Could it be because actual company law allows management an enormous amount of discretion in how they run the company, except in cases of obvious conflict of interest or failure to care? And not deploying aggressive tax avoidance strategies isn't considered to be conflict of interest or failure in a duty of care anywhere?
pyrale 6y ago
When the corporation also owns news outlets, heavily subsidizes political parties, spends on lobbying, they are very much a political entity, and a major shaper of the system. Treating them as rats in a labyrinth makes no sense when they're the main creators of the labyrinth.

by rlpb 6y ago

I find it remarkable that in this sort of case the public sentiment is to hate on the corporation, rather than on the governments who set the (byzantine) tax rules that the corporation is following.

Milner08 6y ago

The UK at least tried to impose taxes and the US threatened us with sanctions. I am not aware of the exact details but its clear there is some will to change it but there is a lot of strong opposition to it as well.

saddlerustle 6y ago
The UK tried to impose taxes on revenue on exclusively American companies, which is exactly equivalent to a tariff. Threatening tariffs in the other direction is a very reasonable response in trade disputes.

oblio 6y ago

Because the byzantine tax rules are set by those same corporations through lobbying (aka corruption).

fyzics 6y ago
Don't hate the player. If the problem is corruption, then amazon is the wrong target if you want meaningful change.
- oblio 6y ago
  You can hate both. And you can definitely hate the player.
  - whitepaint 6y ago
    You can hate all you want, but by just hating you won't change anything. It's truly baffling to me that people don't see very clearly that Amazon is not the problem here.
    - Traster 6y ago
      No one said that all people want to do is hate Amazon, but if you want to get this fixed you have to highlight and build hatred of this system (including both Amazon's role in it and the regulatory capture) because that's how you campaign for change in a democracy.
      - whitepaint 6y ago
        You don't need hate to be built up. You just need to provide effective solutions. Or at least some kind of solutions, so it can be discussed. What you're doing now is just saying "Amazon bad". That won't solve anything.
        Traster 6y ago
        There are already tonnes of proposals, none of them get traction because there's no pressure to act. That's where the hate comes in - people need to be outraged in order for politiicans to be motivated to change things.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Yet there is no discussion of the system, only mindless finger pointing at Amazon. It would be more productive to discuss the changes that should be made to tax laws.
        Traster 6y ago
        From the article: >“President Biden has proposed a new, fairer system for taxing large corporations and digital companies but the UK has not come out in support of the reforms. The silence is deafening. The government must act and help to grasp this once-in-a-generation opportunity to banish corporate tax avoidance to a thing of the past.”

FriedrichN 6y ago

One can do both. If theft and murder was to be made legal I wouldn't start doing it, would you? I hate this narrative where corporations are just assumed to be morally obliged to do everything to increase their profits. Corporations should be regulated and be inclined to do the right thing even if no one's watching, just like ordinary citizens.

whitepaint 6y ago
> just like ordinary citizens Have you ever paid more than what you were required to?
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  Many people leave tips
  - Asdrubalini 6y ago
    One thing is directly paying more a person for a service, another thing is being forced to pay a percentage of your income and then wanting to pay even more. You can if you want, but I wouldn't condemn someone for deciding to follow the law and pay as low as he can.
- FriedrichN 6y ago
  There is a difference between using laws as they were intended to be used and hiring a literal army of accountants and lawyers to find holes in the law.
  - whitepaint 6y ago
    I don't see the difference, can you shine the light?
    - FriedrichN 6y ago
      It's acting in good faith versus acting in bad faith. If I agree to something with a supplier for example, I expect them to act in good faith, not seek out the edges in our agreement. I would not do business with someone like that. Just because you can does not mean you should.

notahacker 6y ago

Do you also find it remarkable that people don't despise the people who get defrauded more than the fraudsters?

whitepaint 6y ago
Fraud != Paying the amount of taxes you're required
- notahacker 6y ago
  You're not "required" to relocate part of your business to a tax haven, invent a royalty that part of your business owes to another part of your business to zero that business's profit or declare that the sales to local businesses your local account managers are paid commission on are actually completed in a different office overseas. Doing so is every bit as much of a conscious choice as pretending your blood testing product actually works or that the funds for Peter's ROI don't come from Paul
  - whitepaint 6y ago
    You have the duty to your shareholders to increase the profits as much as possible within the legal framework. So, yeah, you are required to do so if it means it's profitable.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      A statutory duty to increase profits as much as possible within the legal framework "requires" you to come up with strategies to artificially decrease recorded profits to pay less corporation tax? Rrrrright.... I mean, there are literally millions of companies worldwide that aren't even remotely tax efficient never mind inventing artificial royalties to shell companies in tax havens which they could if their directors wanted to... why are they not being sued by their shareholders? Could it be because actual company law allows management an enormous amount of discretion in how they run the company, except in cases of obvious conflict of interest or failure to care? And not deploying aggressive tax avoidance strategies isn't considered to be conflict of interest or failure in a duty of care anywhere?

pyrale 6y ago

When the corporation also owns news outlets, heavily subsidizes political parties, spends on lobbying, they are very much a political entity, and a major shaper of the system. Treating them as rats in a labyrinth makes no sense when they're the main creators of the labyrinth.