3 ms·

Your "fair share" of tax is what is detailed in the tax code. It is not a number picked out at random to punish companies for doing well or something. Granted t

Your "fair share" of tax is what is detailed in the tax code. It is not a number picked out at random to punish companies for doing well or something. Granted the tax code is unwieldy and complex, but the intent is pretty clearly spelt out. I speak from 3 years experience working and training fulltime in the UK towards accreditation as an accountant. If you munchkin a string of infinite wishes don't act all surprised when your DM just says no (or if they're a particularly good DM, "yes, but").

icebraining 13y ago
But if you're avoiding it legally, like pvnick said, what you pay is by your definition the fair share.
- Nursie 13y ago
  That's some pretty bizarre logic there. If there was a law that said "icebraining gets an effective tax rate of 0%" and you paid no tax, it would be legal but not necessarily fair by a lot of folks definition. I know this is an absurd example, but I just wanted to point out that "fair share" and "in line with the law" do not necessarily mean the same thing.
  - talmand 13y ago
    That's just because "fair share" is just an abstract concept that means next to nothing. If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. When society thinks someone is not paying what they should then they have the means to resolve the matter. Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. Well yes, and it turns out that the societal expectation of 'fair share' and the side-effects of the current tax laws are out of whack here. >>If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. Well no, they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code and international trade agreements as written, not necessarily paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up. Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. >> Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing. I agree, and the politicians ought to be doing something about this in order to make the current concept of 'fair share' and the implementation more in line. Particularly when it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith. However in the case of Google here there has been some suggestion that they may not have worked within the law in their sales practices, so an investigation may be needed.
      - timrichard 13y ago
        It always strikes me that the societal expectation of 'fair share' tends to exclude booze cruises to France, or getting discounts from workmen in exchange for "cash in hand". Even savings in an ISA and duty free shopping are technically tax avoidance.
        Nursie 13y ago
        Sure, individuals like to avoid tax too, but there are differences in order of magnitude here somewhere.
      - talmand 13y ago
        >> societal expectation of 'fair share' Societal expectations have little bearing on a badly written law. Society can expect anything it wants, but if the laws don't reflect those expectations then society will forever be disappointed. I stipulate that current tax laws do not meet societal expectations and blaming the companies for it is misguided and wasteful. The blame should be aimed at the people who write the tax laws that do not meet societal expectations. >> they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code Another way to look at that is they're paying the maximum they are required to pay under the tax code. >> paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up If they are paying the legally required amount then they are indeed paying what is required. If the intention was for them to pay more then that indicates an issue with the tax law, not the practices of the company. If said company finds a way to reduce their tax liability within the law then they are doing nothing wrong. Your language implies they are doing something wrong; be it unethical or illegal. They are not, they are doing what is required by law. If people feel that's not enough then the tax laws need to be reviewed. It is not a company's responsibility to fund society more than what the law says it is required to do. You are implying that companies do have that responsibility based upon the whims of society despite the law. >> Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. Again, you are implying they are doing something wrong. If they are breaking the law then that's one thing; if they follow the tax laws then they are not "seeing what they can get away with", they are paying what is required of them. If a tax law is written with a certain intention with an expected "spirit" but the tax law doesn't actually reflect that, then the fault is on the people who wrote the law not the one's who follow it. >> politicians ought to be doing something about this ... it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith You start out fine, but yet again, if the company is following the tax law so that they are not breaking the law, then they are acting in good faith. I fail to see how following the law, despite how complicated and stupid it is, is acting in bad faith.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You have to take that argument to polymatter, not me; it was him/her who said "Your fair share of tax is what is detailed in the tax code."
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Kinda. By playing all sorts of cross-border tricks, one gets the feeling that these companies are doing their best to avoid playing by the regular tax code.
davorak 13y ago
The equivalent of the DM saying "yes, but" or "no" would be the government changing the law which both companies would more then likely comply with happily. However if the loop holes exist they have a strong motivation to take advantage of them and not be at a competitive disadvantage to the companies that already take advantage of them.

icebraining 13y ago

But if you're avoiding it legally, like pvnick said, what you pay is by your definition the fair share.

Nursie 13y ago
That's some pretty bizarre logic there. If there was a law that said "icebraining gets an effective tax rate of 0%" and you paid no tax, it would be legal but not necessarily fair by a lot of folks definition. I know this is an absurd example, but I just wanted to point out that "fair share" and "in line with the law" do not necessarily mean the same thing.
- talmand 13y ago
  That's just because "fair share" is just an abstract concept that means next to nothing. If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. When society thinks someone is not paying what they should then they have the means to resolve the matter. Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> If society wants to determine what "fair share" means they can do so through the tax laws. Well yes, and it turns out that the societal expectation of 'fair share' and the side-effects of the current tax laws are out of whack here. >>If a company follows the law then they are in effect paying their "fair share" as defined by society. Well no, they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code and international trade agreements as written, not necessarily paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up. Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. >> Whining about it is just grandstanding and accomplishes nothing. I agree, and the politicians ought to be doing something about this in order to make the current concept of 'fair share' and the implementation more in line. Particularly when it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith. However in the case of Google here there has been some suggestion that they may not have worked within the law in their sales practices, so an investigation may be needed.
    - timrichard 13y ago
      It always strikes me that the societal expectation of 'fair share' tends to exclude booze cruises to France, or getting discounts from workmen in exchange for "cash in hand". Even savings in an ISA and duty free shopping are technically tax avoidance.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        Sure, individuals like to avoid tax too, but there are differences in order of magnitude here somewhere.
    - talmand 13y ago
      >> societal expectation of 'fair share' Societal expectations have little bearing on a badly written law. Society can expect anything it wants, but if the laws don't reflect those expectations then society will forever be disappointed. I stipulate that current tax laws do not meet societal expectations and blaming the companies for it is misguided and wasteful. The blame should be aimed at the people who write the tax laws that do not meet societal expectations. >> they're paying the legal minimum they can get away with under the tax code Another way to look at that is they're paying the maximum they are required to pay under the tax code. >> paying what the society they operate within intended when the laws were drawn up If they are paying the legally required amount then they are indeed paying what is required. If the intention was for them to pay more then that indicates an issue with the tax law, not the practices of the company. If said company finds a way to reduce their tax liability within the law then they are doing nothing wrong. Your language implies they are doing something wrong; be it unethical or illegal. They are not, they are doing what is required by law. If people feel that's not enough then the tax laws need to be reviewed. It is not a company's responsibility to fund society more than what the law says it is required to do. You are implying that companies do have that responsibility based upon the whims of society despite the law. >> Paying your 'fair share' would mean playing by the intended rules and the spirit of the laws, not seeing what you can get away with. Again, you are implying they are doing something wrong. If they are breaking the law then that's one thing; if they follow the tax laws then they are not "seeing what they can get away with", they are paying what is required of them. If a tax law is written with a certain intention with an expected "spirit" but the tax law doesn't actually reflect that, then the fault is on the people who wrote the law not the one's who follow it. >> politicians ought to be doing something about this ... it's clear that many actors in society are not really acting in good faith You start out fine, but yet again, if the company is following the tax law so that they are not breaking the law, then they are acting in good faith. I fail to see how following the law, despite how complicated and stupid it is, is acting in bad faith.
- icebraining 13y ago
  You have to take that argument to polymatter, not me; it was him/her who said "Your fair share of tax is what is detailed in the tax code."
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Kinda. By playing all sorts of cross-border tricks, one gets the feeling that these companies are doing their best to avoid playing by the regular tax code.

davorak 13y ago

The equivalent of the DM saying "yes, but" or "no" would be the government changing the law which both companies would more then likely comply with happily. However if the loop holes exist they have a strong motivation to take advantage of them and not be at a competitive disadvantage to the companies that already take advantage of them.