> Always the answer is: they didn't make profit because they reinvested or otherwise spent the money.
This is the desired outcome and we should not touch this.
This is the desired outcome and we should not touch this.
Say I run a company out of the US called 'Paraná' (Seeing as the other big river is already taken), turning $1B/year profit.
I promptly spend the profit buying consulting services from 'Paraná Consulting and Tax Shenanigans LLC' based out of a Panama mailbox for $1.05B, for instance - then I even run my US business at a loss.
(I don't know anything about US or international tax codes, but the above basically sums up the methods described in X stories I've read about tax planning over the years.)
UK, Netherlands and others countries have their own tax havens like Cayman Island, Curacao Island. Are you really going to ban trade with such big financial powerhouses?
Pay the damn wages and dividends, I'd say. The former will go into consumption, the latter will go probably into other companies, especially if we discourage less productive uses of capital (like real estate). And also getting taxes from these is more straightforward. Maybe they don't even have to be that high percentage-wise, if there is less possibility of avoidance.
If the goal is to increase wages, then government should lower the supply of labor and increase the demand for labor. Provide minimum x weeks of vacation, parental leave, maximum 8 hours per day until overtime rates kick in, free higher education, etc.
As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds. If the government wants control of the funds, they should raise the tax rates.
> As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds
I don't want to digress too much, but limited liability corporation and more complex structures with shareholders are creations of the government. You used to have to obtain a specific charter from the sovereign for each one of them. So unless you're an individual doing business with unlimited liability, it's debatable whether government (or the lawgiver, to be more specific) shouldn't get to make the rules for you.
Of course, the idea that states are created for the benefit of humans is bullshit, but it's nice to dream of something better...
I agree with this. Which is why I wrote the state can choose to increase taxes. I have yet to be shown how requiring a company to pay dividends accomplishes the goal of improving the lives of humans.
Of course, that's too tame. We'd be better off eliminating the most common forms of incorporation, or severely curtailing them e.g. maximum revenue limits. All the things that corporations can do, individuals, partnerships, mutual-benefit firms, etc. can also do, except often more carefully.
> doesn't let you entirely evade taxes
"Entirely"?
It's not about evading taxes to 100%, but maybe 90% (not sure about the numbers).
Also, the taxes get paid in a different country, doesn't benefit the people in, say, the US.
https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/australian-soft...
In that example they found that the 'licensing fee' was a royalty meaning there is a 30% withholding depending on double tax treaties and rates between the two locations. Which for a zero tax foreign licensor would mean a 30% local tax on however much you send overseas.
I wonder how much the company saved on avoiding taxes in that way, until it didn't work any more. (Didn't see any numbers, having had a look at the linked page)
I wonder if there's any table of all different methods companies use, to avoid taxes, and how much they typically save, and what could be ways to stop it
Maybe could be helpful for lawmakers
> required to pay 30% withholding tax
That's quite a lot is it? Compared to company taxes. Seems like a strong incentive to stop cheating
Agreed. To add perspective, I don't believe corporations will give a crap about the people (extreme example, Amazon) like we believe our respective governments should. I'd rather have bad spending on keeping people alive than no spending at all.
Instead of actually promoting innovation, they tend to become a subsidy for the tech industry.
R&D would get us fastest nice things like space colonization, longevity, megastructures, the next step on the Kardashev scale.
NASA doled out public money to prime contractors for various pieces of the program (North American, Grumman, Rocketdyne, Douglas, IBM...) and the primes subcontracted various pieces as they always do.
This is not to understate the tremendous engineering effort of organizing such a huge program, but it’s not like this achievement was done by a bunch of government workers alone.
Meanwhile Joe Schmoe bought yet another iPad (which wouldn't exist without the government inventing much of computer tech) to go in a landfill in two years. But at least he funded Apple's ability to make a brand new, basically identical model, next year.
How do we measure who has a "good" track record on spending money?
To avoid pure anecdotes, the Government Accountability Office actually studies this every year: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-440sp ...
That's not to say I don't believe in government spending. I don't know that there is a much better solution, and any conglomeration of humans is going to have roughly equal capacity for doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, hopefully weighted more towards the "right" thing with solid leadership...
Thank you, loopholes!