The public has a right to know how companies that pay no taxes pull it off
larrysummers.com
larrysummers.com
My intuition is that if I personally came up with a cute "gotcha" like this where I wound up paying zero in taxes because of some loophole, I would go to prison. Why isn't the same standard applied to rich companies?
"You're technically owned by an Irish company you invented to avoid taxes? Cool. The c-suite plus your accountants are going to prison for the next five years and we're seizing the X billion you actually owe plus a punitive fine."
These tax shenanigans would stop if laws were enforced.
When I worked as a tax lawyer, we created structures and defended cases that saved our clients hundreds of millions of dollars. At this scale, paying for our services was a no-brainer.
On top of that, big companies lobby lawmakers to make the tax system favorable to them. This makes sense for the same reason: paying a couple million dollars to create/maintain a provision that saves $100M/yr is a no-brainer.
I'm not saying any of this is right or good (and I am no longer a tax lawyer; I now build tools that help people with disabilities). I'm just saying this is why it makes sense that companies can walk a fine line on taxes, save tons of money, and you and I cannot.
Part of my brain wishes that law would actually mean justice but somehow, if I trust only what I know, I cleary cannot judge, as you do, if finance engineering is good or bad.
I'd like to know what prevents you to choose if it's good or right (as person who have worked inside the business)
thx
Just as I don't have feelings about laws of physics, I don't have any feelings about economies of scale.
Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. But if you try to come up with a definition about what 'lobbying' is, and how you might try to restrict it, you realize that it is very difficult to do so without being underinclusive or overinclusive (or both!). So while I find the idea distasteful, I don't have any answers on how to 'fix' it.
- You clearly differentiate between opinion, observation and fact. - You don't try to find an easy answer.
Thanks. Comments like these make me come back and read on HN.
Physicists can be wrong.
Economists can be wrong.
At some point technical nonsense becomes “imperfect people choosing.”
A fix might simply be change tax laws? Kind of like how the billionaires changed them to be less distributed.
But you don’t have feelings enough about economics being purposely wielded at scale to manipulate; let’s hope you’re still one of the privileged enough to be indifferent and comfortable in the future.
popcorn
Real-time meltdown of Pax Americana is pretty metal.
I mean, sure a physicist can be wrong, but if they are giving facts as are currently accepted by the community or even as they know them, it isn't an emotional statement of whether they agree. It is just that: Facts as we know them, to the best of our ability and not giving the commentary with it.
Economics are defined by humans.
They’re taught to each other by humans.
It’s all wrapped in how we treat each other at scale.
Separating the two is impossible except as a semantics game.
Try getting an admission like that out of an economist!
Here are 3 rules that would stop lobbying overnight.
1- Make house of reps sole body to set tax law at federal lvl 2- tie reps in house to very specific, low pop counts. For ex, 1 rep district = 25,000. This would mean house would become gigantic. 3- randomize election outcomes. Swap winner of city treasurer with senate winner. Swap rep seat with state assemblyman. Every seat should have a high random chance of being swapped. If winner does not like position. We should even do this with presidency.
This solves federal level lobbying by taking (1) power into a (2) decentralized body and also (3) inserting downside for lobbyist.
Are people aware what everyday lobbying is in it's most basic form? It's companies engaging their elected representatives on policy issues relevant to them.
So when the Obamacare bill was being written, the AMA (representing physicians) lobbied Congress to make sure their views were heard. Completely legitimate. Another example might be a crime bill where the ACLU lobbies Congress. Or the EFF lobbies Congress.
And the lobbying dollars that are spent aren't bundles of cash given to Congresspersons, it's dollar spent on lobby firms that have armies of experts who know how Congress works, who to talk to and how to craft an argument that resonates. That doesn't come cheap.
Now up to this point nothing illegal has happened. You could argue it's unfair that businesses (well, more accurately organizations) have better access to Congress than individual voters, but groups will always have more power than individuals (since they represent more voters). There is nothing to stop a group of voters from forming an organization to lobby Congress on a specific issue. Again, that's what the ACLU and EFF do.
It seems like most people see "the AMA spent $10M on lobbying last year" and picture lobbyists passing bags of cash to Congress. No, that's illegal and has been for a very long time.
If you want justice, you have to apply political leverage to steer power in its direction.
Law is also the UI for political self-interest. Unfortunately the same leverage principle applies. Which is why it's almost impossible to get real justice - including tax justice - in a plutocracy. The scales are tilted too heavily in the opposite direction.
The answer is to balance plutocracy with effective political organisation, but that's an incredibly hard problem to solve at all, never mind peacefully.
Further, financial engineering by itself is morally neutral. It can create abuses sure, but it can also reduce unnecessary costs so that a company can employ more people, offer goods and services to customers at lower prices, etc. Tax is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle and it can’t always easily be disentangled from other issues.
I’m reminded of the saying about porn, you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. There are plenty of publicly discussed cases of pretty clear and egregious tax evasion, but not all efforts to limit tax liability are abuses. Some of them are responses to deliberate incentives put into the tax system to encourage specific behaviour.
If you read between the lines, you can see that he understands that people have reservations (and probably he has chosen). He just chooses to explicitly not make a statement about it, and keep this a technical discussion.
In todays highly politicised society, this is (in my opinion) a sensible thing to do.
What? I don't think so. If money is the only thing they care about, sure. But is it? Should it be? And if breaking the spirit of the law is fine, shouldn't breaking the letter of the law be fine as well? As long as the risk is low enough..
</rant>
Also things sure do look different when you are at the helm. If you decide your company should pay more in taxes the board will probably vote you out on your ass.
There's no law against breaking the spirit of the law. Breaking the spirit of the law will only get you tried in the court of public opinion. Breaking the letter will also go to a court of justice.
In some states the judges are quasi-politicians with an implied mandate to rule how they think the people want them to rule. In others the judiciary is a system for evaluating the law and they see they consider it their mandate to enforce the law exactly as written, especially when it gives the legislature and the public the middle finger because that's the incentive for those groups to write and demand good law.
This is why laws need to be crafted to not give companies the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acting in the best interest of society. Less because it is impossible for a company to be moral in a vacuum, but because if being immoral is allowed and advantageous inevitably the immoral company will out compete the moral one. (Of course it can be hard to agree on what moral is. Some say that taxes are immoral after all.)
Nope, these are the reasons that cause the situation. This outcome does /not/ make sense nobody sane without a huge vested interest would design a system to achieve less tax paid when you earn more. It's entirely contrary to the intent and spirit of the tax code. This is not sensible. How to fix it? That's harder. Start with its a problem and morally and ethically wrong. It's really the only place to start from. I would say keep in mind two wrongs is not an improvement and unchecked government power is far worse than tax cheats but that does not change where this discussion should start.
Make a tax code as simple as possible. So simple there is no room for interpretation.
>It is more efficient to let people keep money than it is to take it from them and give it back
Direct subsidies in the form of tax credit don't incur any costs of moving money because no money are moved, but functionally it is almost the same.
Especially because the way a lot of deductions end up working in practice is that you withhold the money from people in the first place and cash it out in the end of the year when you calculate your actual tax burden.
See ~26 minute into this interview for a more in depth proposal that makes a lot of sense. Separate collecting money and spending money. https://www.econtalk.org/john-cochrane-on-economic-growth-an...
This is not a problem, this is a benefit. If you separate tax collection from tax policy you are still able making economic and social policy via other tools.
Basically tax policy is a low bar to entry way to get the laws you want but in a lossy capacity. Instead of making something legal/illegal outright you can just make it "illegal unless you jump through hoops and/or pay money" or you can provide a tax incentive for something you like (easier to sell than a subsidy). This lets you get dumb policy that would otherwise never pass. Big business benefits from this by getting carve-outs that make them more money or by getting policy that lets them use scale to their advantage. The authoritarian upper middle class benefits from this by using tax policy to create a carrot/stick system to kinda sorta make the poors act the way they want. And of course the government and politicians benefits from the current system because it gives them influence and power.
So right now we've got big business, the top ~30% or so of society and politicians/the government benefiting from the status quo. In order to remove politics from taxes big business is going to have to pay more (or everyone else will have to pay less, an equally large pill for a lot of people to swallow), the upper middle class will have to lose a set of carrots/sticks to kick the poors around and the government will have to accept a net decrease in power. The only way to get these groups to accept this is to spend a century boiling the frog. I don't think we'll ever get simple tax policy overnight.
They can suppress their 'profit' whichever way they want, they can't suppress their revenue in a given country.
The digital services tax is imposed at a rate of 3% on the gross revenues derived from digital activities of which French “users” are deemed to play a major role in value creation. The law not only affects digital companies but, more generally, digital business models.
https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2019/07/tnf-france-dig....
That rapidly turns into a disaster of consolidations and monopolies. You don't want that.
Think about the difference between big company $BIG selling you the consumer a million Widgets for 10^9 currency units, versus 26 small companies $a..$z each selling to the next in a long supply chain which results in a million Widgets.
In revenue taxation, big company $BIG pays 10^9∗$TAX_RATE.
Whereas the 26 small companies pay something more like 26∗10^9∗$TAX_RATE because each time a company pays the next company, that's revenue for the next company.
The difference in tax between those two scenarios is so enormous, that it would create enormous pressure for companies $a..$z to consolidate into a single company.
Repeat this across the entire economy, and you have enormous pressure to consolidate everything into as few companies as possible.
Ie, you buy through 1000 transactions, and you sell through 1500 transactions for a net total of +€5k within the country.
Tax that €5k, not the individual transactions.
Unless I'm missing something.
I'm still not seeing how it applies to the proposed example.
For instance, Google France makes 1bn euro in revenue, but purchases Google services from Google Ireland for 999mn, thus almost no profit and thus no tax. Google Ireland make 20bn but pay 19.99bn to Google Bermuda, which is the exclusive licensee of Google IP worldwide (even though the IP is almost exclusively produced in the US).
Taxing revenue means that these shenanigans do not reduce the tax paid in a particular country to zero.
That they would pay French taxes on that €1bn, and the French wouldn't care what they did after that.
That's literally a tax on value added.
With a broad enough definition and inclusion of other, unrelated prices at that negative part, one can claim that in a time-frame of several years, both average to nearly the same. But that doesn't make them equal, and if you go read those tax-codes, you will discover the ones being discussed add to very different figures even on the long term.
I'll just add here another encouragement to go out and get an understanding of tax codes. Odds are they will be relevant for everybody that frequents here at some point on their lives, and odds are that if you don't know them, you'll only discover their relevance after the fact, when they have already caused you some problem.
For example, if you sell something before you have paid for it (this is very common), and then put the money from selling into a bank where it earns interest, and then withdraw that money and pay for the thing you sold:
You will have made sale_price - purchase_price + interest.
In a VAT system, you will pay VAT on sale_price - purchase_price (or your customer will, depending on how you sell things), but not on the extra interest you earned.
So that's already a loophole. You can game the tax system by selling things before you buy them and earning interest.
If you're smart enough, you might even sell things for exactly the same as you pay for them, and still make a profit due to the interest while you hold the money. You could get even smarter, and hold that money on behalf of your upstream supplier to withdraw when they need to spend it. Before you know it, you're paying zero VAT, and all your profit looks like interest.
But you have to pay an accountant to make sense of all these for you. The cost of the accountant isn't a direct cost of making the thing you're selling.
So that gives you the difference between gross profit (sales price minus costs associated with the thing you're selling) and net profit (what you have after paying for everything needed to run the business).
No matter which company in the supply chain pays it!
With VAT, it's raised prices and shown on the receipt.
With other business taxes, it's raised prices and not shown on the receipt.
Customer pays either way.
Of course, competition and other factors also govern prices. It's not a given that changing business taxes always causes a business to change its prices by a related amount.
But that is the same for VAT and other business taxes too.
But it didn't look to me like that's what the GP comment meant. I assumed they meant tax on revenue taken by each company. No need to account for expenses...
I'd hoped that would be obvious from my comment, but if not I hope I've clarified that now.
ps. It looks like other commenters here are confused about this language, and arguing over the semantics of what "tax on revenue" means.
VAT doesn't solve all tax fairness problems unfortunately, which is a shame because it's a fairly well administered system, and good at catching fraud.
There are good reasons why VAT is not the only tax on businesses. One of those reasons is that immediate revenue and expenses are a poor model of many business accounts. Accountants use more sophisticated models (there are professional standards they have to adhere to), and despite their quirks and loopholes, these are generally better, fairer, more representative models of the state and value of a business and the money flowing through it, and as a result, for most "ordinary" businesses (i.e. not international corps gaming the system heavily), that ends up making taxation fairer.
Someone mentioned using a higher rate for higher revenue. That suggests an example where the better models which incorporate time and stored value results in fairer, more appropriate taxation. If you have a higher sustained revenue, year on year, it makes sense to use the higher rate if that's the policy. But if you make zero in year $X and twice your normal in year $X+1, then back to normal in years $X+2..., all just because you had a big customer pay late for the first year, fairness says you ought to end up paying the appropriate tax rate for your steady normal in the long run, not twice as much tax thanks to your late-paying customer!
The accountants' model handles that just fine, as it says you earned the money fair and square in year $X even though you didn't get paid that year. And that's generally better for limiting tax avoidance too, because it reduces the ways in which co-operating companies can game the system by timing their payments to each other to cheat. (VAT doesn't show this problem because it's a fixed percentage, but it occurs with progressive taxes, meaning variable percentage.)
My current biggest gripe with taxation is that it's mostly paid in the countries where the corporation lives, not where the revenue is made. Facebook sells 10 mil worth of ads in France? Facebook should pay (some) taxes for the 10 mil in France.
It seemed like such a simple solution to the often complained about problem of multinationals shifting profits to tax havens, since it’s much easier to determine where revenue is from, but I almost never see it discussed when corporate taxes come up. I wonder if it will ever go anywhere.
GP comment (me) points out that the proposed change is not a good idea.
P comment (riknox) points out we can always address that problem by doing what we currently do already (VAT).
I agree, we can solve the problem of the proposed change by continuing to do what we are already doing :-)
I'm suddenly hit with the image of a child whining that having to do homework AND chores is too hard, and their parent telling them to suck it up.
Besides, tax revenue doesn't just disappear into some govt hole, it gets redistributed as services and grants and the like. The loss in operating revenue is likely made up in increased business. Your low margin goods get fked but people are more willing to purchase the higher margin value-adds.
With this thinking, you can very much say that tax revenue does just disappear into some hole. The effect of taxation in this thinking is that it applies brakes upon the accumulation of wealth and causes existing wealth to be worth more (via deflation). This is counteracted by the inflation from created wealth via govt spending.
A weird alternative to taxation could be to print more and more money without taxing any of it. This would be functionally a flat tax on all existing wealth in that fiat currency via inflation.
It doesn't just disappear into the misty fog of the central bank though. It goes onto some government ledger.
This ledger has some considerable effect. It greatly constrains what the government can spend.
If the ledger meant nothing, you would not see government needing to borrow via issuing bonds when it needs to spend more. The cost to government of borrowing goes up and down according to circumstances, and is outside of government's direct control.
In other words, all the parts are related, partly by design, and this strongly affects the consequences of issuing (or destroying) currency at the central bank to the point where it's not really meaningful to think of taxation as destroying currency.
If the government did issue enough currency to go on a spending spree, before long not only would inflation harm other parts of the economy, it would also find that the prices of its spending spree went up, so it would have to issue more, and...
Ultimately no matter how much currency it issues, there's a strong drag in real terms on how many things the government can obtain from others and cause others to do via commerce.
That limit on its spending power makes the ledger balance something much stronger than a hole into which tax disappears.
In short the market/regulatory environment should support disaggregated business as a first class citizen, mergers and vertical integration as a very second-class construct. To the tune of if you merge, you must maintain 3 sets of accounts. The original accounts separately, and a combined set. You must gain more capability or utility to create value for the public as the combined company than by being separate. The capacity to measure the utility amplification being facilitated through the extra set of books. As more companies are bought and merged, the audit workloads would increase very quickly. Failure to make a good case for why you should continue to run as a merged company kicks in an orderly spin-off of the previous acquisition to get operated by someone else. M&A's should not be one and done. This greatly complicates hostile takeovers, makes the business model by which large entrenched entities buy out and kill up and coming competitors, at best, a stalling tactic, but more often a worthless waste of time to the perpetrating company as much as it is to the public.
If you let M&A's have their cake (the capital assets of another company) while giving them the option to cut fat without insisting that they "compensate" the public for the decrease in competition, only one side will ever benefit, and it won't be the public.
They won't avoid it to get some minor edge.
They will avoid it because every company formation and financial advisor will point out that it's commercial suicide to start your own company in that environment, and that instead you should take your idea to an existing company which specialises in opening "nearly autonomous departments", for an instant 30% or so increases in post-tax income, or 30% edge over competition on prices, or 30% edge on salaries you can pay, for exactly the same kind of business. (30% representative of some countries not others... adjust for your locale).
The few real companies specialising in that would love your M&A and tax regulations, as they could take a few % of every small business' profits, and have some levers of control, effectively government mandated.
After that, the millions of small companies which already existed, who cannot consolidate due to your M&A restrictions, will gradually either go out of business due to competition, or find a way, though contracts, deeds etc, to transfer their activity into these "autonomous department" companies without actually merging. It's not uncommon to transfer some of a company's activity this way already, so that would just be scaling it up.
You can try restricting all of that, but it will be very difficult as you would have to do it restrict what sorts of things people can agree to in contracts in a very significant way, and in doing so, restrict what are currently effective business arrangements for some companies to make them less effective. That would be an enormous change to business culture, and I suspect even if you did restrict what can be agreed in private contract terms, alternative ways to transfer what gets done where would be found very quickly and easily.
All these arguments about which country gets to collect a few percent tax, of a few percent profit, are dwarfed by this much larger slice. Which every country is free to adjust as they wish.
VAT is definitely not a tax on profit, that's usually called "corporate tax" [2] which is a completely different thing.
- Collection can be reduced by deducting VAT on company purchases, meaning the company only pays the difference between the VAT charged to the customer and the VAT they've incurred on purchases.
- It's regressive. It primarily affects poorer consumers since it is effectively a tax on the end user rather than the company.
- Some countries aren't free to set their own rates. For example, in the EU the standard rate cannot be set below 15% without first changing EU law (and convincing a majority of Member States to agree to do that) so it's not very competitive.
There's an argument that VAT is regressive but this isn't it. Who effectively pays (meaning economic incidence) is complicated. But sometimes it works out that poorer people pay a larger proportion of their income in VAT than do richer people. It seems entirely OK to have a mixture of regressive and progressive taxes.
And sure, not completely free within the EU, but the range of acceptable rates is pretty wide, maybe 17-27 exist today? I haven't done the numbers but France could surely raise an order of magnitude more money from VAT than they collect from corporate profits, if they wished.
Better to tax value adds than revenue, which is simply money flowing through the economy.
Most people operate on low margins economically, saving 5% of your paycheck would be an outstanding achievement for many.
https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Mess-Global-Simpler-Efficient/dp...
In contrast, you seem to be arguing a different point--that, to you, it "doesn't make sense" that the system is designed poorly.
The government could simply finance itself by printing money / inflation. Let’s say the government total expenditures were 5% of GDP each year, then you would simply have 5% inflation.
This would solve all the problems we have with income inequality, worthless heirs of the wealthy hoarding riches, and of very complex and expensive IRS and CPA work.
Everyone would need to invest their money rather than stuff it under a mattress so they could keep it growing rather than allowing inflation to shrink it.
Thoughts?
I've said that paying for CoronaVirus will probaby be done by inflation rather than taxes, but I'm not sure that as the only source of revenue it makes any sense
Since you can’t control what other sovereign nations do all you can do is make laws restricting what companies that operate in tax havens can do in local jurisdictions. But they will of course lobby that you’re restricting freedom and hobbling your economy and take their HQs elsewhere.
I hate the derogatory use of "race to the bottom" since it's the reason why we have handheld computers in our pockets and 60 inch flat screen TVs that cost $300. Every company is "racing to the bottom" to provide as much value for the least cost as possible.
The second reason is that I don't believe people view money fractionally - I think they look at it absolutely. For me am million dollars is a lot of money. For Bill Gates though a million dollars is ... a lot of money. It doesn't matter that he's a billionaire he's still not going to throw around a million dollars the same way I'd throw around the same fraction of my wealth that a million is to him. He still recognizes the absolute value of that money and he can still see it's potential to make things happen in the world just as I can see what a hundred dollars (or whatever my fractional equivalent is) can do in the world.
You both need to stop speculating about Bill Gates.
Could you elaborate, from your experience, what happened to these $$$? Do they sit in banks without being used or do they get get invested and recirculated in the economy?
Also, given that just about every function of the US govt has been privatised, what would the US govt spend this money on? Spend it on defence (and channel the money back to private defense entities)? Pay off trade deficit? I'm not aware of US budget break down on expenditure side so any pointer would be great.
IIRC defense is about 20% of the US federal budget. About 40% of that (ie 8% of total federal spending) is paid to staff. In some ways it's the largest redistributive program.
The trade deficit is private, it's an accounting summary between private importers and exporters. Nothing to "pay off".
Would you mind chatting about your expertise here? Do you think there is any feasible way of generalizing these tax avoidance structures so that Joe and Jane can reap some of those sweet sweet loophole benefits as well?
Mind you, most actually poor people have a low tax incidence in the first place due to progressive tax rates.
I feel like if that's the case, then you shouldn't expect the US Government to participate in the enforcement of your patent. You licensed in some tax haven? Then adjudicate it in that same tax haven, we want no part of your disputes over it.
This is hugely impactful because the 'lost profits' method can generate much greater payouts than the 'reasonable royalty' method.
This isn't motivated by the sentiment you express, but it nonetheless illustrates that companies that are aggressive on taxes can end up getting bitten in other arenas.
https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-in...
Unless that income comes from qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. In this case, a married couple can have $24,400 a year in income AND $78,750 in investment income, TAX-FREE"
If you can get 78k$ yearly investment income from index funds, you already have a net worth of several million $, and you're thus already among the people that don't need to work (or you had some incredible luck for smaller investments)
*and have $5M+ in assets
When the money flowing through a corporation actually makes someone rich, it becomes his personal income. It's not clear that corporations paying their own taxes is even a good idea vs. collecting the same revenue through higher marginal tax rates on the beneficial owners.
Even if a plane is already going from City A to City B for business purposes, if the CEO brings a spouse along for personal reasons, there can be reporting consequences. Of course, this only matters if the company is under sufficient scrutiny to actually report such details.
There is no company that would just exist to forever eat money away from the public. Eventually they intend to pay the profits to a real person (either in money, or other benefits). Taxing that dividend or salary transaction might be simple enough to just work. And you have a real person to put to jail when the taxes were avoided.
So while you can get rid of corporate taxation, the tax treatment of natural persons at death means that folks could greatly reduce the amount of income realized during their lifetime.
This would mean that they essentially pay a "wealth tax" (interest on all their borrowed net worth, with probably a decent premium for the risk) to the bank.
> Then when the CEO dies, the loans are repaid out of the estate.
And at this point, income is raised out of the company and would become taxable. At least where I live, the estate of a natural person pays taxes for their income like a living natural person.
> the tax treatment of natural persons at death means that folks could greatly reduce the amount of income realized during their lifetime
But they'd still pay the taxes eventually. I don't see this as a huge issue. If the society can't wait to get their the taxes (IMHO a nation state should plan for timeframes longer than a single lifetime), they can use the same trick to get a loan from the bank with the future tax income as collateral.
Personally I don't think it is fair or likely healthy in the long term for the society to let vast majority of the income/wealth of wealthy and thus powerful people to go untaxed - even[1] if that income/wealth is not consumed.
[1] Actually it should be "especially if it is not consumed". In the old days there was a shortage of capital for investments indicated by relatively high interest rates. Nowadays there is shortage of consumption. But that to my understanding is a bit of a heterodox view, so I am just leaving it there.
But this is already happening even with the current system that attempts to tax company profits, isn't it? My point is that taxing the person instead of the company would enable taxing the wealthy. There are already quite severe restrictions of using company assets for your personal benefit, at least where I live that is taxable as income.
I should amend how I expressed the idea: I never meant that companies pay no tax at all, only that they'd pay no tax on profit (which can be hidden for the yearly checkpoint by creative accounting). That leaves all sorts of tax categories still available for use (land, transactions, resource usage), which are much harder to hide or deny. A company making profit would be involved in some activity that would be taxable through these. Money on a bank account is by itself a bad medium to store wealth, as it's generally subject to 1%~5% yearly inflation.
Whether wealth (aside from income/profit) of individuals or companies should be taxed is a different discussion. Many countries choose to tax wealth only when it's in form of land or constructed property.
One of my pet ideas is to stop taxing income/profits of limited liability companies completely. Instead make the the companies issue a certain percentage of their stock to the tax authorities annually. For public companies, Tax authorities just sell the shares in exchange. For private ones, the shares would be auctioned publicly.
Outcomes: - No negative tax cashflows to companies. Ever. - No need for creative tax accounting. Only ones left to fool with accounting are the owners of the companies. - Strong incentive to simplify corporate structures. Any company owned by a company would add to tax burden of the ultimate owners.
(For private companies, it might be nice to allow them to ask to postpone the auctions for e.g. 5 years if they want to keep the control of the company but are short of cash to buy the stock from the auction)
No company could be held privately in perpetuity. Taking ownership away is very different from taxing ownership.
In my model, either company can afford to buy back the stock from the auction thus keeping the company completely private, or then it does not, thus diluting current ownership.
(I personally would expect a tax rate of around 1% p.a in my model. If your company can't buy back 1% pa of its stock without needing to pay any other tax, I am not sure it is a healthy company)
Last, strongly ideologically, in my opinion limited liability is so massive benefit given to the owners by the society that I am not sure there is any reason to even have perpetual private limited companies. Either you grow up to public scrutiny of a publicly traded company or you do not succeed and die trying.
(But just to note, currently I am forced to pay tens of percentage points of my total salary as taxes.)
As for taxes, yes we all pay more. But we do not have our earning power attenuated each year because the government forces us to put ourselves on some incremental slave block.
Ingvar Kamprad net worth was "only" 3 billion $
That's about 25 billion $ lower than if he had unfettered access to all of IKEA's worth.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/ingvar-kamprad/
If you like how the company you built spends money more than how the state spends money, you're going to want your company to capture more money/worth without relinquishing it to the public. Another rationale could also be when you can give a stake in your company to your family, that way you won't ever have need to pay profits during your lifetime, since the company (which could be a charity) will actually work as a cross-generational fund.
Also, this works well with the ethos of some companies (like Amazon, allegedly) which reinvest a lot of their profits to cut margins/develop new products... And overall just tighten their hold on the market
Should a businesses goal not be to tighten their hold on the market? I’m pretty sure if I don’t, someone else will.
However, the owners of the company are humans that do not need to be constrained by those rules. Indeed, humans can hold other values higher - such as seeing that acting in the benefit of the entire society or even to benefit the entire planet is better than focusing on the best for a single corporation.
Pretend for a while that you are the majority owner of an internet company that preys on attention. You can capture the attention of millions, even billions of humans, and grow your vast empire. You can even become so successful that humans choose your product before the attention of other humans, choosing the dopamin kick from social media before real social interactions.
But...should you? Replacing the social interactions of an entire planet might make you rich today, but the price might be very high. Even your own offspring might suffer and perish in a world where social life has been replaced by hearts, thumbs up and endless scrolling.
That's a 2020 benefit to an entire society that arose from 25 years of effort to grow in a sustainable way.
I know of one "gotcha" that works in my country at least: work for low / no wage but instead have loads of assets like stocks; dividend taxes are much lower than income taxes.
I could be wrong. I'm just reminded of people like the Google founders who humblebragged about only earning $1 / year in salary. They still became multi-billionaires off of stocks.
In my country, assets are taxed by a percentage of a percentage (they tax estimated return on investment, which is ridiculous if you only have a savings account that nowadays has either no interest or even negative interest). I think there should be an additional tax on any money or assets moving out of said investment account.
Because that's how rich people do it; they hardly pay any taxes because they have hardly any taxable income or assets. They put their house into a corporation or foundation, funnel any cash they need through various shell organizations and tax havens, etc.
This is a common trick in the UK, or at least it was before the IR35 crackdown. Programmers, sportsmen, celebrities, even politicians and civil servants would run single-person companies and get their salaries paid to them. Then those companies in turn would pay them in dividends.
Only first 2k of dividends is tax free, then its 7.5% within the basic earnings band, and 32.5% in the higher band.
This is from funds that have already had 19% corporation tax applied to them.
Of course anything paid as dividends doesn't attract either employees or employers National Insurance so there's a saving there, and adding a spouse or partner as a director allows the income and dividends to be split so reducing tax.
Merging National Insurance into Income Tax is one way to start addressing the issue also simplifies administration work (for companies and government) but you'd get the political issue of tax increases on pensioners savings.
Fundamentally we need to start treating earned (salary) and un-earned (interest, dividends) income the same from a tax point of view
For income tax apart from the £2k(divi) and £500 (savings interest) allowances, it is already on the same basis.
It's not just that a corporation owns their house, it's that another corporation owns that corporation, and a holding company in the Cayman Islands with a nominee director who lives in a postbox owns everything, except the IP rights which are in Panama - this year. And personal spending goes through a credit card set up by their own personal offshore bank, which effectively makes it loan. Etc.
If there are enough shell companies you can decide your own tax payments, because you can hide everything you choose to hide. It's not that these networks can't be disassembled, it's that they can't be disassembled efficiently. It can literally take months or years of full-time auditing effort to trace all the relationships.
You then either rent the house from the trust for a minimal amount, or the trust lets you stay there rent-free as a guest. This is also how many of the wealthy get around inheritance tax. When you cash in your chips your will appoints your offspring/significant other as the primary beneficiary and the wheel keeps turning.
As with all things in life knowing the thing is often the hard part. Most of us don't know what questions to ask.
Prosecuting you is cheap and easy. Prosecuting a multinational billion dollar company is expensive and difficult.
One of the reasons it's difficult is that they're not (usually) outright evading tax. They're avoiding tax. The law is what's written, but also how that's interpreted by the courts. Sometimes the courts have not yet decided how to interpret a bit of the written law, and so companies will continue to use those bits in interesting ways.
Finally, some places have a "light touch" approach to regulation and they use courts as a measure of last resort, for the worst offenders. Everyone else will be persuaded to change their tax affairs. One consequence of this is that courts only rule on the obvious stuff, and we don't build up case law for the gray areas that get used in tax avoidance schemes.
I agree it's baffling that we let them get away with it. In the UK we think there are between £30bn and £120bn in tax that's evaded, avoided, or uncollected.
Edit: Just for the record I'm against benefit fraud and tax evasion.
One regulatory ideas I thought of was a salary cap on criminal defence attorneys (lawyers can make as much money as they want in civil law, but letting the wealthy hire a different league of lawyers in criminal cases is a huge distortion of justice). This is all more about actual crimes than violating the spirit of the law, but maybe the same could apply to tax law. (I feel like there must be a flaw with this, would be happy to hear what it is.)
(Wrote more about the book here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3507224023)
If you want to go this way, you have to go for the full-fledged solution: either the defendant choses their attorney (at a capped price) or an attorney shall be selected at random among all attorneys registered with the bar and must take charge of the case, the only exception being if they have a valid conflict of interest in that case.
I think the imbalance is actually much worse in civil cases, which are disputes between people who ought to be peers. the fact that people have to give up their right to see an opponent in court because they can't afford counsel seems much worse than some rich people getting a better defense against the state.
If we want the free market to work, business models need to be clear. We want people to see a successful business and say "hey, I can do that better". Part of that is transparent accounts, and part of that is transparent ownership.
Would also help againt some of the more egregious frauds we've seen in recent years. Some of them would have gotten caught if they'd just had more eyes on them, and you get more eyes if things are transparent.
This is because the tax system actually has 2 conflicting uses: (i) collect revenue for the gov't and (ii) create incentives/disincentives that are meant to push taxpayers in ways that are deemed beneficial, be it to the economy or to certain policy like environment, housing, etc.
If you drop (ii) you can end up with an extremely simple tax code as most of the tax code complexities deal with those incentives/disincentives.
So the question is: to what extent can you do away with (ii), or more generally with tax code complexity?
The original intention of corporations was to make more money for their owners and that is pretty much still the case. Chartering and regulation were introduced later, to curb the worst excesses of human greed. Arguably, this very discussion thread and the push by governments to curtail tax evasion is proof of that ongoing process.
I don't think this is entirely correct. Even if there were no deductions and no other complexities, and the corporate income tax was simply based on "all revenue minus all costs", a company could still reduce or even eliminate its tax burden entirely by simply paying IP licensing costs to a different company located in a tax haven.
The same standards do apply, the loopholes just don’t really exist down at a normal individual income level.
Calling it a “loophole” is a bit of a misnomer as well since it’s just the regular law. Being a subsidiary of another company is extremely common and isolating particular resources into subsidiaries with exclusive licensing/usage agreements for liability/accounting/ownership/management purposes is extremely common.
> These tax shenanigans would stop if laws were enforced.
Again, the laws are enforced. Tax avoidance schemes operate within the bounds of the law. It sounds like you’re confusing with “tax evasion”, which is illegal and is enforced.
At the end of it all, laws are enforced by the judiciary. The judiciary (similarly to politicians) are human people, and each individual's interpretation of what is law will vary.
Probably the biggest example of the difficulty of enforcement is the Irish Apple case[0]. The European Commission carried out a two-year investigation that found Apple avoided paying €13 billion in taxes to the Irish state. The Irish state rejected the Commission's findings and appealed the findings to the European General Court (EGC). And the EGC found in favour of the Irish state (and Apple).
Does this count as laws being enforced?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_agai...
This used to be a typical loophole but is being closed by the OECD, a lot of tax havens are now taxing royalties differently. 10 years ago after reading up on this, I've decided that it was only fair for me to read up and try the same methods. I didn't see why I should pay high taxes when the richest in my country didn't.
It's not overly difficult to do this completely legally (that's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion), it's not an issue of the laws being enforced, it's mostly that there are many countries in the world and some have an incentive to compete on tax law. So, you can do a lot while still being completely legal (it's easier though if you are willing to move and live in different countries and if you're not american but still possible otherwise).
In the last 5 years, the OECD has been fighting against this and forced a lot of tax havens to change their laws. From my read of the texts and has someone who has been impacted by this, it doesn't really make avoiding tax impossible just more expensive, meaning it's increasingly difficult and costly for a single person who is middle class like me to do it but still relatively easy for big corporations with an army of accountants to do it. I'm not sure that's really an improvement.
These tax shenanigans would stop if laws were enforced.
Those who could enforce them have no interest to do so.
The "corruption" is a feature, not a bug. If you truly want go get rid of the assymetry, then the answer is not more regulations and extractions, but less across the board. Fund the services without relying on taxes to income, not only will it be fair for you and mc.corp, it will also create efficient market incentives and eliminate the vectors for corruption when there is nothing to gain.
Concentration of power in congress is a feature, not a bug.
You can remove concentration of power and simply aee corruption/bribe/lobbying dissappear overnight
See my post above for how to do this with 3 simple laws
Seems like this is a bit on the difficult to enforce side. Incidentally, profit is what is taxed, so the easy way to avoid tax is to simply not be profitable. Individuals pay tax on all of our income from interest and employment so this difference always feels somewhat unfair. The very laws that allow companies to avoid paying income tax are usually created as incentives: do this (HQ in Ireland), and in trade, you get to pay less in tax. The C suite and lawyers are usually guilty of meticulously obeying the law, which really makes the whole thing feel even more unfair. Reality is that the system is working as coded, but there are bugs in the code.
These tax discounts should really be subsidies, and open to the public to view.
Proper accounting is where fairness starts.
Long-story short, my bet is:
- Sales tax (VAT)
- Inflation
- UBI
Sales tax is far less gameable as it's linked to concrete economic activity. It also has the benefit of tracking the added value produced by an economy (it has the right properties as a tax). It has a problem though, it's regressive, see last point. Every economic activity should be included (e.g. stocks should have a VAT; you sell stock you collect VAT, you buy stocks, you pay VAT). Some progressiveness may be included by using different VAT rates for different products, to be done judiciously.
Inflation is a fantastic tax, very hard to game as it's quite pervasive and taxes the accumulation of capital so it tends to be distributive, anti-regressive. Cash sitting idle does nothing for the economy so disincentivizing it makes sense. This doesn't mean that inflation has to be high (the usual moderately low and positive that economists aim for may be reasonable), just that inflation should be seen as the taxation mechanism for the accumulation of capital. And we shouldn't reduce it to a single number for the entire economy but understand how inflation is evolving in the different parts of the economy to make sure monetary and fiscal policy are hitting the targets.
UBI, fixes the regressiveness of VAT. UBI is not too different from having a lowest tax-free income bracket or even negative-tax income bracket if you prefer to look at it that way. UBI can also help hit the right inflation rates in consumer products which we have been having great trouble achieving through conventional central bank policies.
I think this mix is far less gameable, tracks better the size of the economy, places the right incentives and disincentives and will survive better the ongoing economic transformations (good luck taxing income when most of the economic output is produced by computers).
UBI by itself is progressive, a simple flat UBI creates a progressive effective rate. You can tweak the numbers to obtain your desired target tax curve; increasing or decreasing UBI, having different VATs for different products. As John Von Neumann said, "with 3 parameters I can draw an elephant and with 4 I can make it wiggle its trunk". There is enough free parameters to make the taxation more or less progressive.
I'm not prescribing those details because I think there should be ample room for fine-tuning. What size government spending should have in an economy and how progressive should a tax system be are questions that different countries have answered differently and you find success and failure all across the spectrum. So I consider it a transversal issue.
My focus is on efficiency, resiliency to abuses/gameability and economic incentives.
My concern under a sales-tax only system is that politicians also like to be seen as aiding employment and a sales-tax only system does not seem as supportive of employment as today's system where employment expenses are offset in part by their tax deductibility. No one goes out and employs someone for $100 to save $20 on taxes (still -$80), but I still employ more people when it costs me $80 than when it costs me $100 to do so. In that regard a VAT is superior to a straight sales-tax.
My point is that the idle capital held in monetary form does nothing, so I want to disincentivize that to some extent. While I have nothing against that capital being available to an enterprise, they inject it back to the economy through their CapEx, R&D, income for employees, etc...
Potentially a company may also sit in vast piles of idle money (e.g. Apple), the value of the company will take into account the DCF and also the existing liquid reserves. In that case the liquid reserves will be progressively diluted by inflation and again, that's a desired outcome (in my view).
_Thomas Picketty has entered the chat_. History has shown that the rich are able to (easily) outpace inflation, while the poor (read: effectively ~95% of the planet) do not.
So I'm not too sure that is a desirable claim to make here.
Some excerpts (it's a great, long piece. Read it all):
"In 2017, researchers estimated that fraud by America’s largest corporations cost Americans up to $360 billion annually between 1996 and 2004. That’s roughly two decades’ worth of street crime every single year."
"Even though auditing millionaires and billionaires is one of the most cost-effective government activities imaginable—an independent report estimated in 2014 that it yielded up to $4,545 in recovered revenue per hour of staff time—the IRS investigated the returns of just 3 percent of American millionaires in 2017."
"It is, as one of those high-priced lawyers might say, improbable that these demographic and economic facts exert no influence whatsoever on judges' rulings. In a 2012 review of sentencing data in Florida, researchers found that “high-status” white collar criminals, such as doctors scamming Medicaid, were 98.7 percent less likely to receive prison terms than welfare fraudsters. A 2015 study found that judges showed increasing mercy as fraud offenders moved up the income scale: Criminals who stole more than $400 million got sentences that were less than half of the minimum recommended by federal guidelines. Criminals who stole $5,000 or less served sentences well over the minimum."
"The only thing that consistently worked was to combine them— warnings from government agencies, surveillance of the worst actors, harsher punishments for repeat offenders and, yes, at the top of the ladder, criminal prosecutions for corporations that refused to shape up.
This is hardly some exotic, untested concept. When it comes to every other form of crime, law enforcement agencies are perfectly comfortable cracking down on offenses at every level. This is the country that invented three-strikes laws and “broken windows” policing. When it comes to street gangs and drug distribution networks, the criminal justice system has no problem simplifying complex criminal liability questions into four simple words: You should have known. "
There is a reason for that - said strict criminal liability is broken it just breaks single lives and horrifyingly can be ignored. But break an entire systems and that leads to instability.
Take a complex economy with byzatine rules - either you have selective enforcement and effectively a dictatorship with extra steps or it is applied mercilessly across the board. Given the added risk to investments unsurprisingly many would choose to get the hell out of there.
Really the answer should be to do away with strict liability bullcrap.
The tax treaty document between the US and this country was over 100 pages long. When it came time to actually take the tax advantages on a return, we decided to figure out what the risks were of being audited and potential penalties. We engaged several tax experts to give their opinion.
What ensued was eye opening. We received wildly different opinions depending on the expert. The entire case hinged upon how one line in that 100+ page document could be interpreted. At the end of the day you are subject to the mercy of the IRS. For a large corporation, you may be able to afford the litigation (or avoid it all together as you could proactively play to the court of public opinion).
For us, we decided to fire the tax consultant and pay the tax. It was - for us - a very large sum, several million dollars.
Ultimately the “laws” are less like a set of rules and more a set of malleable guidelines. People who say, “oh I can just take whatever loopholes I’ve been given” don’t understand the sheer complexity and ambiguity of the tax code.
While I’m disappointed that we “lost” that money (one could argue it wasn’t ours to begin with), and disappointed that others are morally flexible enough or big enough to get away with it, I am left with the feeling that we did the right thing for the country as a whole. I am sad that more companies and individuals don’t consider that in their moral calculation.
I wonder if it's laziness or by design.
> While I’m disappointed that we “lost” that money (one could argue it wasn’t ours to begin with), and disappointed that others are morally flexible enough or big enough to get away with it, I am left with the feeling that we did the right thing for the country as a whole. I am sad that more companies and individuals don’t consider that in their moral calculation.
That's the thing: Moral should never come into play. If it does, that means the law wasn't written properly.
Many larger orgs would just try to go for a causal firing, so they can block the employee from receiving unemployment. It doesn't even matter if they're an otherwise decent employee. We'll save money so lets just lie, basically. It's pretty crushing to the individual, and IMO this practice should be abolished.
This is totally anecdotal and plenty of small to medium businesses act shady, but it's interesting that things tend to get even shadier (lawful evil) as things scale up. Yet there's less at stake for the individual employees and more ability to "not be evil", without closing up shop.
Your intuition is wrong. There are lots of small business people that expense everything and pay negligible tax if any.
Similarly limits on capital travel hampers both foreign investment and international business expansion as it gets "routed around".
IP expense transfers are the third piece and whatever was tried to do away with would result in giving up what the US already wins big on.
It isn't a problem of enforcement. Every last piece is policy of the loophole is policy working by design.
If you are interested in the details of this, Google "OECD BEPS transfer pricing"; it is quite a fascinating topic.
On a side note: The same updated guidelines, when misapplied by an aggressive tax authority, can cause all sorts of headaches for fully-distributed, fully remote companies, and the extent how this can cause trouble is underappreciated by the startup scene.
the laws are generally enforced the problem is various companies and nations working very hard to make sure that loopholes in the tax code are preserved.
Because the tax code is relatively simple for W2 employees. Not so much for corporations.
> "You're technically owned by an Irish company you invented to avoid taxes? Cool. The c-suite plus your accountants are going to prison for the next five years and we're seizing the X billion you actually owe plus a punitive fine."
It gets doubly complicated once you cross borders, because transferring assets like that might be legal under some treaty between country A and B.
Truth is, if society doesn't want these practices to be legal it has to write a tax code that doesn't make them legal.
If corporations are the way for entities to achieve individual profits without individual liabilities, then surely privacy is not the same concern as for individuals' tax returns. Why are corporations (whose structure is granted by law to reap certain benefits with incorporated protections) then further shielded from their tax returns being public to show how they did it?
We can (if our leaders were incentivized to do it) choose to have it be true.
As in, the corporations, through lobbying, quite literally write the legislation, not the people we actually elect to office.
So uprooting corporate tax info transparency rules is something that will never come to pass until other existing systems are demolished, but how do you get the legislators to legislate against their own self-interest?
Also the Big Four are not going to like that, they make a lot of money off this.
So what they did was to ask the Soviet Union's representative office in the United States to sponsor their bridge repair, and they let all the newspapers know about it.
Sooner than you could blink, the state politicians reversed course and ponied up the $ for the bridge.
Maybe sometimes what you need is your enemies to be shown to be exploiting your weaknesses so that someone cares enough to fix it.
Disclaimer: I own no companies. I don't even own stocks at the moment.
The government already tries to reduce double taxation. There is not supposed to be a penalty for incorporating vs. doing business as a sole proprietor or general partnership. That’s why the capital gains tax is lower than the income tax.
This is all about ease of administration and making creative accounting more difficult or impossible. If you’re looking at it through some moral lens, you don’t get it.
We tax corporate profits, not income. That takes out of the dividend stream, so we tax capital gains (the tax the investors pay on dividends/stock appreciation) correspondingly lower.
You could in theory get rid of the corporate tax and just tax capital gains at the same rate as income. It would fix a lot of problems. But you would upset a lot of people who don’t understand finance and taxation, like the people seeing red in this thread, who have some moral gripe with these corporations (who are mostly just doing what the law incentivized them to).
It would have one small effect though. Since the US taxes the worldwide income of its citizens and permanent residents, it would probably overtax them, making them pay the higher capital gains rate for profits made in countries that do retain the corporate tax. The most obvious ways to fix that would just reintroduce the problem of sorting out where the profit was “made”, which is where we are now. Ideally, you’d get all of the western countries to sign up to end this stupid corporate tax at the same time. That’s difficult because a few important countries have used low corporate tax rates as a way to attract business that would otherwise have no reason to be there.
Companies certainly do keep cash balances. That cash balance directly adds to the company’s valuation. They’re not obligated to pay it out or spend it. The owners of the company can sell the company, including cash balance, as an asset.
Suggesting that a company’s cash balance somehow doesn’t count because it’s inside a company structure is disingenuous.
And just what do you think a cash balance does to the sale price of a company? Btw, that sale is a capital gain.
All companies will hoard all cash waiting (perhaps decades) until the tax rates are lower, and then pay it out as salaries/dividends with a lower rate; it’s already happening with overseas profit and “tax holiday” years, but so far only Apple/Google size companies can participate.
Once you enable this for domestic companies, every employee making >$80K will incorporate, keep money in company and draw minimal salary actually needed for everyday life, waiting for favorable tax day or needing the money. The tax base would be reduced by 10-50% if not more (due to progressive taxation) and though it may even out in the end, it would make tax receipts unpredictable and likely somewhat lower overall.
I don’t see the issue with corporate taxation - it’s a liability shield, and it has a cost. Those who don’t like it can do a tax pass-through and risk the liability. Almost no one wants to do that.
It causes companies to seek loopholes, yes. They'll incorporate in Ireland for example, but they'll continue to operate wherever they need to.
But with your model the US government and the government of California would receive no taxes beyond those owed by the employees.
Similar to VAT you could argue that you pay with money that got already taxed.
But if companies have rights, you can argue that they also have burdens.
It is 100% possible for a C corporation to pay no tax because it pays out all profits (income minus deductions) or operates at a loss.
Many large firms are hiring contractors to perform 'capex' work that qualifies for R&D Tax credits: https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/10/30/u-s-research-developme...
Tax laws drive some crazy incentives.
Because that's how we decided to build our societies. Money flows up very easily but doesn't flow down anywhere as fast, that's why we tax companies and people.
The sole purpose of a company is to make as much money as possible. Laws are there to make sure they do it safely (ie. don't send 12 years old kids to the mine, don't make employees work 7 days a week), make sure the system isn't abused (Amazon trucks use public infrastructures to deliver goods, why shouldn't they participate to the maintenance of said infrastructures ? &c.), and make sure the country benefits of having such companies operating within their borders.
Not sure about other countries but in France taxes are used to finance schools, universities, hospitals, justice courts, reduce the cost of doctor visits, train tickets, housing assistance, allowance for disabled people, active solidarity income, public education and a lot of other things.
I could find endless arguments to support why companies _should_ pay taxes but none to support the opposite, besides "I own a company and want to accumulate more money"
There are better explanations, including that a corporation is a beast of the state etc.
All the money the corporation takes in ultimately gets spent on operating expenses, or is profit that is then distributed to shareholders who then owe taxes on that income.
If it’s annoying and counter intuitive that corporations are in some legal senses considered people, it is even more confusing that they pay taxes.
This sets up a crazy situation where employees of the corporations start lobbying and messing with policy and regulations so it favors the organization.
Seems like bad piled on top of bad. Increasing the tax rate on investment income is basically the same thing as taxing corporations, but would remove all these perverse incentives.
On the other hand, is the status quo ok? Are we getting something out of companies having to do these specific activities to deduct?
Not totally true. Interest free loan to the owner or his mother in law. Company buys a house / car / jet owner can use. Company buys consultancy services from the owners other company based in the Bahamas etc
If you were to make the case the healthy, educated employees could be compensated through their wages, then that still leaves infrastructure, externalities and the legal system.
While you could privatise infrastructure, I think it would be a bad idea. It could lead to shady schemes where a corporation "taxes" its employees on the toll road leading up to the building. Considering historical examples like company stores, I'm not sure we could rule that scenario out. Also, where does infrastructure stop and what does it include? The last miles of telecoms, power, water and other utilities or more?
As to the legal system, it seems self-evident we don't want that privatised. Do you disagree?
On the topic of externalities: I suppose it's feasible to create new taxes specifically for what are now considered externalities, so corporations pay for them: pollution, carbon footprint, burnouts/boreouts, etc. Would you be in favour of those?
The human shareholders and human staff benefit (and profit) from those things, and there are already mechanisms in place to tax those human beings, either as shareholders or as staff with ordinary income.
Are you sure about that? Corporations cannot act (they have no hands, and no brains), and thus they cannot break the law. It also is relatively difficult to throw a corporation in jail for a criminal violation.
Even a much more informal association of people, a "criminal conspiracy", cannot be criminally charged as a single abstracted entity: the individuals who performed that conspiracy must be charged.
- There's only a single loophole: People who use their business to pay for personal expenses. They are easy to catch, and the simplicity of the tax scheme allows collectors to focus on this one loophole.
- It's simple to collect: Ask all the banks for everyone's statement, and apply a percentage to their calendar year's income. You could even deduct tax when people deposit money.
- It's simple to forecast and calculate: Everyone knows how much tax they owe, and knows how much tax they will owe.
- It's progressive: The more people make the more they pay. Property tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc. all disproportionately affect people with less money.
Because as economically inefficient as a corporate income tax is, without it you would create an enormous incentive for individuals to incorporate, filter all their income through the corporation, have the corporation pay all their expenses as business expenses, purchase their assets for them as business assets, and compensate them in the form of loans which never get paid back. Yes, you could write the law in such a way as to prohibit this and spend a fortune on enforcement, but ultimately it would fail against such incentives.
Expensing anything is difficult as it must be solely for the business purposes and not personal use.
For example, you cannot generally expense food, clothes, housing, education etc. (You can probably expense an insignificant part of that though under some circumstances.) It’s not possible to take loans for extended periods of time without them actually counting as income for individuals (and being subject to income tax).
[1] http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol-026-freedomai...
How is that part crazy? It isn't ideal certainly but the same thing held for farmers, fishermen, and tradesmen back when it was cottage industry. That is fundamentally a result of representative government and them being able to vote. Everybody has interests of some sort.
When big fraud scandals occur (Enron, Wirecard) the accountants and auditors are rightfully shamed by their industry. When we find out who paid $0 in corporate income tax the lawyers who made it happen and defended it seem to escape scrutiny. The legal industry will protect its own every time, no matter who they enable or defend.
“In every big transaction [...] there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic microsecond, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an inferiority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half the bundle, and still receive the recipient’s blubbering thanks.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
However, if you think that complying with the tax law is stealing (and thus believe that the law is not the basis for what is or is not “stealing”), then it’s also legitimate to call what the tax enforcers do “stealing”, even though it is permitted by law, because it fits the common definition of “taking without consent via threat of force”.
You can’t have it both ways and be consistent. Either the law defines what is “stealing” or it does not.
Yeah, but stealing how much?
Almost everyone I know or read about who runs a small business or is self-employed talks with their accountant about how run things in a "tax efficient" way, to pay the minimum tax within the rules while keeping reasonable about it.
It would be foolish not to. You have to keep competitive.
And the rules are, for the most part, based on fair and sensible principles. Things like if you paid for something to use in your trade, it's fair to subtract that from what someone paid you, so the different is your profit on which tax is based.
Scale that up to large international corporations, and it turns out "minimum tax within the rules" is often $0 in a particular country, often because your profit there is also $0.
Just because you can structure a complex business of many parts in such a way that those initially fair and sensible tax principles work out that way.
The tax rules don't specify a larger, correct amount of tax.
So the lawyers, should they be ashamed for advising their clients how to run a large company tax efficiently?
Assuming yes, because that's the premise being replied to here, what should they be advising their clients to do instead? A voluntary tax overpayment? Structure the business another way? Guess? Copy other companies?
Is "shame" really the right way to control what advice lawyers and accountants give to large companies?
It seems to me that "shaming" by itself quickly leads to a lot of uncertainty and unfairness, because nobody can tell what the correct advice or correct tax payments "ought" to be on shame alone.
You'll end up with different companies who do exactly the same thing paying wildly different amounts based, essentially, on what they voluntary decide to do for PR or emotional reasons. That has the potential to be quite unfair.
It would be highly unprofessional for a lawyer or accountant to give advice based on their personal emotional state, and nebulous targets which nobody has agreed on and different people reach very different views on. So the right thing to do for an ethical professional lawyer or accountant is to resist that pressure, and try to give the most unbiased, knowledgable and reliable advice instead, based on the rules as they are set out, which everyone is supposed to adhere to.
That's why I'm inclined more towards ideas like the "General Anti-Avoidance Rule" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#General_anti-avo... which gives companies and their advisors a framework for deciding the correct amounts to pay, with a stick if they don't.
Public shaming and campaigning is useful, but the end goal of that is ideally to apply political pressure to improve the rules in a "level playing field" way, so that proper application of them results in proper taxation. Many attempts at closing tax loopholes tend to make the tax code more complex, which requires yet more rules to close yet more new loopholes. Those rules are very "gameable".
But general anti-avoidance rules don't have to have this problem, if they are constructed with suitable generality and defer hair-splitting details to fair justice principles rather than ever-finer rules. Getting this right is still difficult, and still a work in progress. It's very contextual too, as the difference between structuring a business to avoid tax and structuring a business because that's how you conduct business is as much about culture and common practice as anything, and these change over time even while the general rule stays the same. But it seems like a better general approach to me.
Hard disagree.
At typical self-employed scale, fiddling around with avoiding taxes is a waste of time (and money) which is a net loser against putting that energy into finding income. Are self-employed people really busy setting up as a business in Estonia or lobbying their national representatives?
If you're taxed on your profits, it's always better to double your profits than to avoid tax on your current profits.
This tax avoidance strategy only becomes important where there are no other efficiencies remaining to find: or, when you don't have other competitors to worry about.
It's a monopolist strategy. A tax reform that benefits you is also going to benefit your competitors - so it's not being done for competitive reasons.
For example, I run a business in Canada, and know that food and drinks are only 50% deductible. Therefore, at a 50% marginal tax rate those items effectively cost business 50% more than, say, buying office supplies. And that informs decision making.
It’s also vital to know how different capital cost classes and depreciation schedules affect things, or to properly set up a home office deduction , and to deduct everything deductible.
Most of these things are set it and forget it. It’s absolutely worth doing correctly even at a self employed scale.
Since the OP was making this direct comparison, and you seem to like fallacies, you can take it that I am calling their argument a slippery slope fallacy.
I was pointing out that it's common for the small business to perform tax efficiency, which is extremely widespread and taught in small business courses. Most people running a small business or self-employed relate to it, and it's indeed a "set and forget" thing, mainly because you just do what the accountant tells you.
In that world, tax efficiency is largely seen as the right thing to do and sensible ("good").
And when you scale that up, the end result looks like international corporate tax avoidance ("bad").
That's not at all the same as saying the small business version is tax avoidance of the "bad" kind.
It's saying that one thing follows from another, not that they are the same thing.
And so we can't solve international corporate tax avoidance by a simple expedient of trying to "ban" or "shame" it, because there isn't any clear boundary at which sensible, approved, "good" tax efficiency turns into shameworthy "bad" avoidance.
And so, to solve it, we need to use a different method, and I advocated such a method.
That's why I called it a slippery slope fallacy.
Following the common tax rules to run a competitive and productive business does not inevitably lead to calculating and exploiting (and lobbying to create) loopholes in international tax law.
> Hard disagree. At typical self-employed scale, fiddling around with avoiding taxes is a waste of time (and money)
To the nearest percentage approximation, 100% of self-employed and small businesses do exactly this at a basic level, and it's low effort. There's an entire support industry to keep it simple.
Tax efficiency, which is the polite name for avoiding taxes, which is perfectly legal and encouraged, is literally taught as one of the first things in small business courses, somewhere after book-keeping and giving the books to your accountant.
It means you ask your accountant what expenses to write down, they tell you, then later they look at your books and say "did you know if you do these other little things like this, altogether you can save another thousand?" and you go, wow, I didn't think of those, I guess you are worth the fee after all.
Roughly 100% of self-employed and small businesses do this, in any place where it's common to use an accountant.
Can we ever reconcile accounting and economics? With its excess cash reserves, if Apple paid tax, absolutely nothing about its business would change.
The more profound perspective is, who is really the tax collector then? Who is playing that economic role? Obviously these giant tax-evading companies. They are accumulating huge stockpiles of cash they cannot spend, a long-running surplus, they can't even effectively give it back to shareholders, and it's not because of tax policy. It's because they are the tax.
That's not controversial, some people call it simply rent seeking, but Summers should be going a few steps further: can we characterize the exact amount of non-tax compulsory payments (NTCPs) we are giving to Apple? Is there a policy process to convert the beneficiary of NTCPs from private ownership to the public, i.e. make it just a plain old tax?
It's only right for US corporations to be taxed the same way. Most of these insane financial contortions are done because they aren't taxed on foreign, non-repatriated earnings - creating an incentive to convert domestic earnings into 'foreign' ones, that get repatriated the next time there's a tax holiday.
I personally would love to earmark my personal income as foreign-sourced, and to not pay any taxes on it until I get a tax discount... But if I were to do that, I would go to jail for tax evasion.
“Some lists of countries that tax citizens and legal residents on their worldwide income include Libya, North Korea, Eritrea and the Philippines.”
Both from the first search result, https://premieroffshore.com/which-countries-tax-worldwide-in....
At least we’re in good company?
You still have to file, and to pay the difference, if any, every year.
they (the corps) can use this asset that they cannot repatriate as collateral for cheap loans.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/09/overhaul-tax-fo...
How would the IRS respond in those instances.
Has that been tried? Is anyone aware of anything like that? Is the cost of such a scheme prohibitive for an individual vs. a large Corp? I'd be curious what the challenges and outcome of such an experiment would be.
Lots of people do it. Self employment comes with some risks, but if you own it, and convert your employment towards it, it can have benefits.
Its how landscapers drive F250s, for example.
You should try it some time.
That might sound reasonable, until you realize that those family members never see that money. The “distribution” is a complete fiction.
I’m usually fairly conservative when it comes to taxes, but I’m astonished this is allowed to continue.
Big companies like Apple instead of bringing the money back they borrow billions of dollars at low interest rates. This lets them keep their money offshore where they invest it to make a bigger return then their interest rate on borrowing in the US.
Apple also has a routine for money in the US. You will find in Nevada Apple has an investment corporation. They will do the same thing, send the ownership of software to Nevada, charge their company in some xyz state (CA) and then they use that money in Nevada to invest it for more money then it costs them to borrow. So apple is covered both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital#:~:text=Braeb....
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-apple-dodges-billions-in...
The money is "brought back" (if it even left) into segregated accounts in the US. Most of that US off-shore money is in New York to avoid currency risks, etc. Then those accounts are used as collateral (if needed. I doubt if anybody says to Apple, "Where's your collateral?") for loans.
Also, the biggest money havens in the world are 2 US states, with special privacy laws. All those guys playing games in Panama, etc. were better off just using US state tax shelters.
There's a couple of states that quietly hide money, nothing to do with any useful purpose to the public.
This is super interesting. stupid question perhaps: does Apple have the reserves to move a small currency if they decide to convert their cash all at one go?
Edit: NVM. I saw your explanation in another comment. Good info :-)
I worked in Japan for a while and had to file but never paid taxes.
The reason that publicly-traded companies are not CFCs is that a CFC must have 50% of the vote or value of the company owned by US Shareholders. "US Shareholder" is defined as a US person that owns at least 10% of the company. So even if a conglomerate is almost entirely owned by US persons, it would not be a CFC unless the US persons that own it also meet the 10% threshold.
The reason for this cutoff is that the CFC rule is meant to prevent small groups of people who can actually exercise control over a foreign company from getting together and colluding to keep profits off-shore. But this is not a risk in the case of companies whose ownership is spread among many small shareholders. As a result, big companies are able to take advantage of complex international structures in ways that small groups of individuals cannot.
Aren't there some public companies where some people have over 50% of the votes? Facebook comes to mind as one. Or are their international subsidiaries designated as CFCs?
1: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/30/18644755/facebook-stock...
These structures often require a very collaborative relationship with the IRS with many things approved, elected or notified of in advance. The IRS only cares about compliance, not a hardline on actual revenue collection. The IRS has many doors for compliance.
Actors, film / tv professionals and lawyers etc are for the large part still treated as "self employed"
The tax code, in all its thousands of pages, is designed (or at least it's supposed to be) to give incentive to certain behaviors that we'd like our businesses (and citizens) to follow. And the more they do this, the less taxes they'll be paying.
Thus, to a first approximation, paying very low taxes ought to be indicative of a payer who's doing all the things that our politicians and bureaucrats think they should be doing.
A few years ago I replaced all the windows in my house, along with a door and a garage door, with new, energy-efficient ones. This entitled me to a tax credit for that year, allowing me to pay a few thousand dollars less in taxes. I don't think that people should accuse me of being a bad citizen because my tax bill that year was unusually low. If anything, I'd think that the same environmental groups who lobbied for such measures in the tax code would all be shaking my hand for taking advantage of that in order to achieve the goal of lowered energy usage.
So yeah, maybe be suspicious of such businesses, but let's not just assume they're evil. That said, the idea that the public has a right to know what corporations are doing this is fully compatible with my claim, so we'd also know who's being a good corporate citizen.
Stripe Atlas is a step in the right direction, but it does only the low hanging fruit. Accounting, handling audits and winding down is where the pros are required.
I would note that the world you describe (where people have tax tricks just like corporations) used to exist. Before the tax reform bill of 1986, doctors/lawyers/dentists/etc. were able to take advantage of tax shelters that greatly reduced their wage income, without actually incurring any real losses. These passive loss tax shelters were heavily marketed by accounting firms because of their general applicability. But in 1986 they were eliminated by a tax reform bill that outlawed perceived abuses and lowered tax rates.
Next up, imagine a machine learning trained entity just roaming the international law landscape, just trying to survive.
The government can compulsorily acquire the domestic domiciled assets of any company for 50? 100? times that company's declared taxable income with some appropriate average over the previous 5 years.
You earn nothing taxable here? Great for your tax bill but now you can worry about the capital loss and loss of control of trademarks & patents domestically. Better to declare the profit and pay the tax like an honest person...
Few workers work without a salary, but plenty of companies run without profit... because they are re-investing and growing, or because they are slowly shrinking and dying. Lots of tax can still be collected (on money going out as salaries, and through VAT on money coming in) and their existence can still be useful (making stuff we need, and employing people) even if the books exactly balance at the end of the year.
Business expenses are tax deductable. Investment is not.
Yes I'm completely aware that this is one of Amazon's stated defences for tax dodging. Tax dodging is their core competency. I hate that.
If investment was tax deductable no company would pay tax ever. Simply invest all profits in an s&p500 index fund and pay no tax.
There is a distinction between business expenses and investment. There is one for tax purposes. It is abused roundly in tax dodges.
This conversations will now go nowhere. If you care about understanding it you've got some research to do to convince yourself, I will be unable to do so.
Land tax + VAT would be ideal and difficult to avoid.
Tax on labour and housing are dis-incentivizing "good behavior".
Tax avoidance, subsidies, bailouts, stimuli, etc.
Want to tax the rich? No. They tax you.
For example, Walmart pays minimum wage and asks employees to use Medicaid while their leadership gets enormously rich.
that's the employee's contribution, not the company's.
I'm not saying the income tax collected is purely coming from the company, but take Amazon for example - their economic activity creates jobs which pay salaries that are taxed.
yes, but the employee would've gotten another job else where, so it's _not_ the company that's creating the taxation benefit! They therefore, should not be given the benefit of attributing that taxation (for PR purposes)!
The company did make some investment which led to the job - but they did said investment for their own benefit, not to create more jobs for which taxation can be levied.
Not just that, they need cheap access to the same infrastructure.
The fact that such a service doesn't exist for the pleb individual means that this can't be done.
Why do you think large companies give stock options as compensation instead of straight cash. It is to avoid taxes.
The average American has one source of income a W2. A simple tax filing. Next time you do your tax filing, look at the questions TurboTax or FreeTaxUSA asks you and then look at the offical government tax doc(this is what gets filled out with your answers).
The challenge here is education the public what assets, tax liability and general liability are for a corporation and what a corporation actually is (basically, almost, kinda a person.)
So it isn't shenanigans, it's the general public inability to learn a specific niche field and people whoa are knowledgeable, exploiting a legal loophole, on purpose whether or not the spirit/letter of the law was for that.
To avoid taxes you mealy have to find a way to appear poor. In the above scenario both the "church" org and the donors are poor if the church uses all its donations on its donors and vice-versa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPeBAYYuhc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Perpetual_Exemptio...
(Too many people contributed their seeds…)
Kills the double taxation issue, and removes the incentives for corporations to avoid taxes.
Double taxation happens constantly in all sorts of contexts, for instance, most of us pay income tax, and then pay sales tax using those already-taxed dollars, and then the seller pays income tax on the money received less sales tax.
The reason we tax in so many ways is mostly some combination of "hysterical raisins" and politics (it can be politically easier at different times to raise revenues in different ways, and restructuring the tax code will create winners and losers so maintaining the patchwork status quo is easier), but it's not necessarily a bad thing to tax with a variety of methods. There is a certain amount of administrative overhead in having a corporate and personal income tax, a payroll tax, a sales tax, a property tax, etc etc etc, but doing so also makes it harder for someone to dodge taxes entirely -- restructuring to avoid personal income taxes can put you in line for corporate income taxes and vice versa, for instance. Holding lots of land subjects you to property taxes instead of corporate taxes on the companies you own stock in. Meanwhile all of these separate taxes create paper trails that can be used in the mutual enforcement of all taxes. If you run a business and your sales tax receipts, corporate taxes, and personal income taxes don't roughly line up, it signals that an audit may be called for. The tax system becomes a checksum for itself.
Now, this may all just be status quo rationalization, but my point is, "double taxation" is just a shibboleth and not itself a reason to radically reform the tax code.
As the philosopher said, taxation is the art of plucking a goose so as to get the most feathers with the least squawking.
The mechanics would be different, of course, as e.g. the whole point of AMT is to disallow some deductions, and many businesses would be bankrupt without (totally reasonable) deductions.
The problem in collecting these taxes is not the ability to do so, it is rather the will to do so.
I suspect this is a far greater issue than companies who pay $0; his proposal would apply to ALL with shareholders, and I (as a layperson) believe most companies have some gap there.
"Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim." - Bertrand Russell
Honestly those are the only nuggets of wisdom I can think about when I look at all the tax havens. The movie The Laundromat was also quite instructive.
The end of the cold war moved the ideological cursor "organized economy versus libertarian economy".
Governments are struggling hard to save their model so they can function properly. I really have a hard time seeing how this won't create problems, this is globalization at work. Not sure if states/borders will disappear.
Edit: I mean, if I own a share I pay taxes when I sell it and make money
"there is no requirement for corporations to make public their taxable profits, or the ways in which they are avoided.... the IRS ... has since 2004 required the annual filing of Schedule M-3 .... this road map is available to the IRS alone, not to the public, who can hold companies accountable, nor to policymakers ...."
forced as in, you can claim a loss and all but you still pay MAT taxes which usually are around 18%.
its like saying to a kid who doesnt want to go to school because his knee is bruised. cry all you want, you will go to school.
This money is best left to the distributed wisdom of thousands of companies in millions of individuals who will look after every dollar and see to it's use rather than waste.
When I see headlines like this I'm not upset by them I'm sort of thankful they are not fueling reckless spending.
https://tunnelingonline.com/why-tunnels-in-the-us-cost-much-...
Would a right for the public to know the specific steps an entity uses to retain property go even further afield from the original premise?
Hopefully this clarifies my intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#:....
Stacking new positive rights upon each other seems like an inferior solution as compared to the original, simple solution of respecting private property.
Where does the expansion of positive rights end?