Comment by Fnoord | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fnoord | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's downright ridiculous to complain about companies taking perfectly legal steps to reduce their tax burden.

How ironic that you had to post (as of now) 24 times in this very thread defending this condescending viewpoint. You're not at all addressing what the article mentions.

I'll address what the article mentions. The article (quite clearly, in bold) mentions, at the top:

> The company is currently under investigation by tax authorities in the UK, Sweden and France over alleged transfer pricing irregularities and is is facing a potential bill of over $1.1bn in back taxes and penalties.

> In the United States, Activision Blizzard has recently settled a transfer pricing dispute with tax authorities for $345m

It appears these steps may very well be not legal.

If you deal with your tax in countries such as:

> The multinational company has a complex structure with subsidiaries in a number of tax havens including Malta, the Netherlands, Barbados and Bermuda.

(Yes, I'm including my own country here.)

Then you're appearing to do something shady with regards to tax. You can expect something shady in return. And of course, since they're also using Delaware, it could very well be that they do pay fair (or "fair") tax over their US part. If so, would you argue Americans have no say in this, given that they're not losing out on tax from Activision-Blizzard?

There appears to be a lack of political willpower here in The Netherlands to combat this issue. No surprise, given how far right the current leading party (VVD) is. As a result, The Netherlands wins a little bit, but the EU as a whole loses out. Its stupid egoism like this which makes the EU lose on an international scale, akin to Germany allowing the NSA to tap data as long as it wasn't about Germans.

This effect is not limited to the EU. US suffers a similar problem with the GOP actively trying to shrink the IRS budget, even though it has an incredible ROI (estimated at >$4 for every dollar spent) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/business/economy/irs-tax-... discusses in further detail

>how ironic

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>You're not at all addressing what the article mentions

Weird, I think I've addressed pretty much everything your comment brings up.

However, I'd like to point out that there's nothing shady about structuring to minimize your tax burden. If the lawmakers didn't want you doing this, they'd simply write laws that don't allow it.

I dont think you understand very much TP rules.

These rules themselves were created by the very people that now attack them. The logic is that any government doesnt get to tax what is not locally sourced.

So ok, a game is not created in the UK, and it does not benefit from the HRMC jurisdiction in terms of labor etx. But it generates oodles of cash in sales in the UK.

So now they are coming back and saying that, the cost of generating the sales in the UK is higher, not because of some actual physical activity, but simply because their sales are too high.

This ia basically a mafia don saying you are doing too good and therefore we must have a larger piece of the pie. Yet the dons themselves are the one that made the rules and made them necessarily obtuse and subjective in order to charge for things (a) that do not create value and (b) keep them employed

Some of us believe digital shouldn’t tax at all. Despite us using electricity. Invalidating all your points.

What is the argument against taxes on digital goods? How does it differ from a broader argument against taxes?

Why tax something that provides only positive value without using local ressources.

Only positive value? That's quite naive.

Why not apply that to teachers and doctors etc?

Electricity (energy) is a resource.

As is overwhelmingly the telco that delivers those bits to screens/devices. Whether wireless or wired. Very expensive infrastructure in fact, as with electricity (generation, delivery, reliability).

For one, because we don't tax to "punish" (e.g. use of local resources) or to encourage, but to create a pool of money our governments can use for country-wide works, defense funding, and so on.

To be fair, our sales, income, and wealth tax policies also reflect our societal values. Some jurisdictions tax sugary drinks partly as an attempt to "punish" or reduce consumption.

The correct word is discourage, not punish.

Depends who you ask though, who is paying the taxes.

But true, the real punishment comes if you decide not to pay your taxes...

Those who claim they're being punished whilst paying taxes are being dishonest and inaccurate. Unless they got punished after they decided to not pay their taxes (that is, as we agree, a punishment). However, such is a punishment by law, and therefore we should assume the punishment is fair (until proven otherwise).

The -in this example- sales tax gets in a big chest. Some of that chest goes to healthcare. Same for smokers.

You may disagree how your government spends their income (part of which comes from taxation). I don't agree with a lot of things my government does either; still I pay tax.

In our democratic societies there are various ways to take action. For example, you're free to vote for a different leader. We (in "the West"), at least, have these liberties.

Where did you read me writing this?

Not even slightly. You don't get to "believe" that laws do not apply to you. They still do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com