5 ms·

There have been a lot of articles recently about how this or that corporation pays their taxes. They are always shallow analyses, just info-tainment. There is

There have been a lot of articles recently about how this or that corporation pays their taxes. They are always shallow analyses, just info-tainment. There is a broader question of how the US should structure corporate taxes, but demonizing individual corporations for how they follow the crazy rules is a silly thing. Perhaps useful to further the conversation, but not really a reflection on ethics.

_delirium 15y ago
I don't much like narrative-centric journalism either, but that's basically how journalism works, mostly because that's what audiences repeatedly show they want. Imo, fundamentally most of the issues worth writing about have to do with systems more than individual actors. But the only way to analyze a system in a way that people will read is to weave a narrative through it. I personally prefer more systems-centric journalism myself, which focuses on how economics/law/etc. interacts rather than tracing some particular person/company/story, but it rarely appears outside of specialist journals. Even in the Valley, journalists trace how the startup/technology ecosystem works by weaving tales of specific founders and startups that they hope illustrate broader principles, instead of describing those broader principles directly.
joelhaasnoot 15y ago
If a company didn't do all these tricks, they'd be paying 5x more and would never be creating all these jobs due to the enormous tax burden.
- eropple 15y ago
  If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, what do farcical claims require?
  - joelhaasnoot 15y ago
    So my comment isn't very specific, but don't you agree that at some point in time for a business, bureaucracy, tax rules and governments can really get in the way of things? Rather than being critical about companies not paying taxes, we need to either look at closing loopholes, or make paying taxes easier/less restrictive/cheaper.
    - eropple 15y ago
      I will not allow you to move the goalposts. You claimed that Apple would pay five times more were they not undergoing their accounting shenanigans (which would, for those keeping track at home, be 49% of net as tax) and would not be able to hire due to it. That is what I mean by fucking farcical--because you decided it would be totally groovy to make shit up out of whole cloth and blithely assert it to be true. Coupled with the "closing loopholes" dog-whistle--to reasonable people who have not ceded their thinking to Ayn Rand, this should not be in the same statement as anything related to "lower taxes"--and I have a great deal of trouble finding a good-faith reason to think better of you than "disingenuous."
- bohrsatom 15y ago
  It's highly unlikely Apple tries to offset any guilt it may have over tax avoidance by hiring a few extra people. Ignoring a few inefficiencies, companies try to minimise (in cost and number) their workforce in order to maximise profits. If they can get away with their current tax structure then they're only losing money by hiring more staff.
mattstreet 15y ago
I would agree, except that the crazy rules that favor the large companies are pretty much written by the large companies aren't they? Its cool that they're just following the rules in a way that makes the most sense for them, but not that they corrupt the political process.
- maratd 15y ago
  I expect all actors, including corporations, to act in their own self-interest. The problem isn't that they corrupt the political process. I expect them to try to shift the rules into their favor. The problem is that the political process is corruptible in the first place. That's what we should be working on ... and the only way to fix it is to instill an expectation of identical treatment for everybody. All citizens, all parties, play under the same set of rules. If you start playing favorites with the poor or some depressed economic sector, it simply opens the door for everybody else to play the game and game the system.
palsbury 15y ago
You thought that times article was entertainment? It seemed to touch the major tax issues to me. Bottom line, individuals don't get these kind of tax relief options
- klapinat0r 15y ago
  In my opinion, individuals aren't supposed to. Businesses have lower base tax rates and deductions in order to encourage money making, and thus job creating, environments.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. More to the point, right now most of the fortune 500 companies are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring, so I question your "money making -> job creating" quote. At the end of the day, we've got bills to pay, and any deviation from "everyone pays a fair share" should have the burden of proving it's worth it.
    - aiscott 15y ago
      Money doesn't sit still unless it is truly hard cash and stuffed under a mattress. When companies sit on huge piles of cash, what that really means is they have invested huge piles of cash. That means they gave that money to someone else, and perhaps they are hiring, or perhaps they in turn invested it again.
      - jbooth 15y ago
        Maybe it's invested in China. Maybe it's run through 10 mutual funds on the way to becoming 10 cents on the dollar in terms of salary. "The cash probably goes somewhere" isn't that convincing. I'm not saying that companies should hire with extra cash if they don't need the employees. That would be a bad business decision. I'm just saying that "cash sitting on the sidelines = probably employment somewhere" isn't a great justification for them paying less taxes than I do. I work too, you know.
robomartin 15y ago
There's a much deeper question on the whole concept of taxation in general. What is it for and where should the limits be? If you really look around you'll quickly learned that everything is taxed. Everything. Politicians have gotten very good at finding all sorts of areas where they can insert a probe and extract "blood". From gasoline to telephones, communications, dogs, cars, food, air travel, tobacco, etc. Here's one attempt at a list: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/taxed-enough-already http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/taxed-enough-alr... Here in California it is not uncommon to hear of more hair-brained schemes to levy taxes on more things. A little-bit here and a little-bit there and politicians have collect billions to keep their gravy train going. Regardless of whether we are talking about personal or corporate taxes, or taxes in general, it is important to always keep in mind what the "mission statement" might be for taxes. Lately the lines on this have blurred. In general terms taxes should be used to run the government, military and reasonable social services (the last one being debatable). Lately, at least in California and other similarly-afflicted states, a huge percentage of taxes are being dedicated to supporting a ridiculous pension infrastructure and a bloated government and public employee sector. Tax increases are being proposed with the sole purpose of finding funding for union pensions. We, then, exist to ensure that the union "class" gets to live happily every-after with their wonderful lifetime pensions and healthcare. This is beyond wrong. This is criminal. I don't have a problem with the idea of questioning if large companies are paying what they are legally supposed to. At the same time, the system should also demand that government be responsible and not exist to create and maintain their own ecosystem through the abuse of taxation. Name one government entity that, over the last few years, has put forth cuts and savings measures on par with families and businesses across this nation. Exactly. Watch closely what is happening with the post office. Here's a clear case of a government entity that should start to see massive cuts and reorganization. What do you want to bet that we carry these people on our taxes for the rest of our lives? So, rather than being able to devote our money to the furthering of our own kids and culture we are obligated, through taxation, to support useless hordes of government employees. This isn't going to end well.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I don't want to get in the way of some nice comfortable randian ideology, but you could at least read a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_California_budget_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_California_budg... The Cali budget crisis was caused by a decrease in revenue. Let me repeat that. Decrease. Similarly, federal spending on domestic discretionary (what you're complaining about) has been flat or almost-flat for a decade, while spending on defense/security has been skyrocketing. Lastly, if you want to reduce government spending on employee benefits, the first, second and third things you should think about are healthcare reform, not pensions. Healthcare costs are and have been inflating a lot faster than any other cost-of-living cost. Compound 15% over 10 years and see where that gets you.

_delirium 15y ago

I don't much like narrative-centric journalism either, but that's basically how journalism works, mostly because that's what audiences repeatedly show they want. Imo, fundamentally most of the issues worth writing about have to do with systems more than individual actors. But the only way to analyze a system in a way that people will read is to weave a narrative through it. I personally prefer more systems-centric journalism myself, which focuses on how economics/law/etc. interacts rather than tracing some particular person/company/story, but it rarely appears outside of specialist journals. Even in the Valley, journalists trace how the startup/technology ecosystem works by weaving tales of specific founders and startups that they hope illustrate broader principles, instead of describing those broader principles directly.

joelhaasnoot 15y ago

If a company didn't do all these tricks, they'd be paying 5x more and would never be creating all these jobs due to the enormous tax burden.

eropple 15y ago
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, what do farcical claims require?
- joelhaasnoot 15y ago
  So my comment isn't very specific, but don't you agree that at some point in time for a business, bureaucracy, tax rules and governments can really get in the way of things? Rather than being critical about companies not paying taxes, we need to either look at closing loopholes, or make paying taxes easier/less restrictive/cheaper.
  - eropple 15y ago
    I will not allow you to move the goalposts. You claimed that Apple would pay five times more were they not undergoing their accounting shenanigans (which would, for those keeping track at home, be 49% of net as tax) and would not be able to hire due to it. That is what I mean by fucking farcical--because you decided it would be totally groovy to make shit up out of whole cloth and blithely assert it to be true. Coupled with the "closing loopholes" dog-whistle--to reasonable people who have not ceded their thinking to Ayn Rand, this should not be in the same statement as anything related to "lower taxes"--and I have a great deal of trouble finding a good-faith reason to think better of you than "disingenuous."
bohrsatom 15y ago
It's highly unlikely Apple tries to offset any guilt it may have over tax avoidance by hiring a few extra people. Ignoring a few inefficiencies, companies try to minimise (in cost and number) their workforce in order to maximise profits. If they can get away with their current tax structure then they're only losing money by hiring more staff.

mattstreet 15y ago

I would agree, except that the crazy rules that favor the large companies are pretty much written by the large companies aren't they? Its cool that they're just following the rules in a way that makes the most sense for them, but not that they corrupt the political process.

maratd 15y ago
I expect all actors, including corporations, to act in their own self-interest. The problem isn't that they corrupt the political process. I expect them to try to shift the rules into their favor. The problem is that the political process is corruptible in the first place. That's what we should be working on ... and the only way to fix it is to instill an expectation of identical treatment for everybody. All citizens, all parties, play under the same set of rules. If you start playing favorites with the poor or some depressed economic sector, it simply opens the door for everybody else to play the game and game the system.

palsbury 15y ago

You thought that times article was entertainment? It seemed to touch the major tax issues to me. Bottom line, individuals don't get these kind of tax relief options

klapinat0r 15y ago
In my opinion, individuals aren't supposed to. Businesses have lower base tax rates and deductions in order to encourage money making, and thus job creating, environments.
- jbooth 15y ago
  You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. More to the point, right now most of the fortune 500 companies are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring, so I question your "money making -> job creating" quote. At the end of the day, we've got bills to pay, and any deviation from "everyone pays a fair share" should have the burden of proving it's worth it.
  - aiscott 15y ago
    Money doesn't sit still unless it is truly hard cash and stuffed under a mattress. When companies sit on huge piles of cash, what that really means is they have invested huge piles of cash. That means they gave that money to someone else, and perhaps they are hiring, or perhaps they in turn invested it again.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Maybe it's invested in China. Maybe it's run through 10 mutual funds on the way to becoming 10 cents on the dollar in terms of salary. "The cash probably goes somewhere" isn't that convincing. I'm not saying that companies should hire with extra cash if they don't need the employees. That would be a bad business decision. I'm just saying that "cash sitting on the sidelines = probably employment somewhere" isn't a great justification for them paying less taxes than I do. I work too, you know.

robomartin 15y ago

There's a much deeper question on the whole concept of taxation in general. What is it for and where should the limits be? If you really look around you'll quickly learned that everything is taxed. Everything. Politicians have gotten very good at finding all sorts of areas where they can insert a probe and extract "blood". From gasoline to telephones, communications, dogs, cars, food, air travel, tobacco, etc. Here's one attempt at a list: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/taxed-enough-already http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/taxed-enough-alr... Here in California it is not uncommon to hear of more hair-brained schemes to levy taxes on more things. A little-bit here and a little-bit there and politicians have collect billions to keep their gravy train going. Regardless of whether we are talking about personal or corporate taxes, or taxes in general, it is important to always keep in mind what the "mission statement" might be for taxes. Lately the lines on this have blurred. In general terms taxes should be used to run the government, military and reasonable social services (the last one being debatable). Lately, at least in California and other similarly-afflicted states, a huge percentage of taxes are being dedicated to supporting a ridiculous pension infrastructure and a bloated government and public employee sector. Tax increases are being proposed with the sole purpose of finding funding for union pensions. We, then, exist to ensure that the union "class" gets to live happily every-after with their wonderful lifetime pensions and healthcare. This is beyond wrong. This is criminal. I don't have a problem with the idea of questioning if large companies are paying what they are legally supposed to. At the same time, the system should also demand that government be responsible and not exist to create and maintain their own ecosystem through the abuse of taxation. Name one government entity that, over the last few years, has put forth cuts and savings measures on par with families and businesses across this nation. Exactly. Watch closely what is happening with the post office. Here's a clear case of a government entity that should start to see massive cuts and reorganization. What do you want to bet that we carry these people on our taxes for the rest of our lives? So, rather than being able to devote our money to the furthering of our own kids and culture we are obligated, through taxation, to support useless hordes of government employees. This isn't going to end well.

jbooth 15y ago
I don't want to get in the way of some nice comfortable randian ideology, but you could at least read a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_California_budget_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_California_budg... The Cali budget crisis was caused by a decrease in revenue. Let me repeat that. Decrease. Similarly, federal spending on domestic discretionary (what you're complaining about) has been flat or almost-flat for a decade, while spending on defense/security has been skyrocketing. Lastly, if you want to reduce government spending on employee benefits, the first, second and third things you should think about are healthcare reform, not pensions. Healthcare costs are and have been inflating a lot faster than any other cost-of-living cost. Compound 15% over 10 years and see where that gets you.