Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanjshaw | Hacker News Reader

The companies in question are only there because the Irish government effectively legalised a form of tax evasion. These companies are not paying their fair dues, and their employees are also indirectly profiting from it. Can't say I feel sorry for your friends - their free ride is over and they'll have to join the global job market on a more equal footing with the rest of us who pay our fair share of taxes.

View on HN

At a global scale there is no concept of "fair dues" that will ever get global acceptance. "Fair" in this context is an emotionally loaded term designed to create an adversarial reaction in the populace, an "us vs. them." The politicians who use it are manipulating, not informing.

At a global scale, there is only law. If countries want more taxes, they have to change their laws, and be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of those changes.

Do you also feel that nearly all YC and other SV companies, by registering as Delaware S Corps despite really being based in Cali, are not paying their fair share of California state corporate taxes?

Fairness is subjective. As such, it is not very meaningful to discuss "our fair share of taxes." Ideal communists will substitute "100% of profit" while ideal anarchists will substitute "0% of anything".

Most businesses prioritize their own market value, and subordinate all other motives, including apparent political posture, towards maximizing that one metric. Therefore, they only pay taxes to avoid the negative effects of not paying taxes, rather than out of any perceived moral obligations.

The companies are there because the optimization process that involves jurisdiction shopping determined that establishing a business presence in Ireland provided greater benefits than the other options. There can be only one "best" jurisdiction for any given business entity. Complaining that someone else's seems to be better for more entities than yours is just sour grapes.

If you can't compete on a tax cost basis, there are other ways to attract business: a zero-corruption bureaucracy, privacy or secrecy for principals, reduced reporting requirements, reduced time from initial filing to practice, ironclad and proactive intellectual property protections, strong infrastructure, rock-solid stable units of accounting, or any of dozens of other points that may provide business value that more than compensates for the tax burden.

So fairness is a red herring. It is the objective value that is provided in proportion to the taxes taken that determines whether taxes are "too high" for a business to bear.

The is no such thing as _legalized_ tax evasion, nor fair share. There is compliance with tax laws or noncompliance.

There's the grey area where companies are exploiting tax schemes in unusual ways and the tax authorities have not yet declared whether those complex schemes are legal or not.

Immensely wealthy multinational corporations have a lot of money to spend on lawyers and accountants, so while these companies are probably not evading tax the avoidance schemes they come up with are sometimes not legal requiring them to repay.

Don't forget that tax is part of law and so there is what's written and how that's interpreted by the courts. Until you've had case law there are areas of uncertainty.

Of course there's such a thing as a fair share - what society thinks you and others in y9ur situation should pay to take part.

It's not a hard number but perceptions of fairness are certainly important in how democratic countries formulate tax law.

Certainly in the UK there's a big difference in public perception between different levels of tax avoidance. Someone who reduces their tax burden to about 30% - fair enough. The same person who reduces their tax burden to 1%? They're taking the piss.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss (first sentence: unreasonable).

There is no such thing as society. There are individuals who have views which may or may not be properly or partially informed. So whose view shall we take on fairness? Whatever let's stop talking about 'what society thinks'.

OK, let's redefine 'society thinks' as - "The prevailing opinion of the voting public in a democratic nation, whom the nation is allegedly run by and for."

Perhaps you'd prefer to use the term 'electorate'.

Regardless, the meaning was clear and your objection rather ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com