上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]socokid 3732 ポイント3733 ポイント  (265子コメント)

Apple is moving it's international iTunes business to Ireland from Luxembourg... not the US.

[–]JPro08[🍰] 1668 ポイント1669 ポイント  (195子コメント)

I wasn't sure where they were based previously, but considering the title says, "from one tax haven to another," I assumed they were not referring to the US.

[–]Artyloo 296 ポイント297 ポイント  (144子コメント)

Isn't Delaware some kind of corporate tax haven?

[–]F22Rapture 528 ポイント529 ポイント  (109子コメント)

Not exactly. The reason for registering a business in Delaware has more to do with less regulation and extremely established and well-understood case law.

[–]Amator 151 ポイント152 ポイント  (67子コメント)

Also Delaware has no state sales tax, so you create an eCommerce business there and not have to deal with sales taxes unless you use FBA or another service that creates sales tax nexus in other states.

[–]YeahMax 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (61子コメント)

I might be misunderstanding but that shouldn't have an effect, the consumer pays the sales tax and it's based on their location. So, I live in Oregon which has no sales tax and when I purchase things online I never pay a sales tax.

[–]TheBaronOfTheNorth 71 ポイント72 ポイント  (49子コメント)

Generally, you pay sales taxes on items if the business you're buying from has a physical presence in the state which is probably why you won't pay taxes for Amazon purchases but pay sales taxes for online purchases from Walmart.

[–]SycoJack 60 ポイント61 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Not quite. Oregon doesn't have a sales tax so they won't pay any no matter the online store.

Texas does have sales tax. I'm from Texas. Wal-Mart and Amazon both have locations in Texas. So if I buy from them online, I have to pay tax.

Newegg however has no locations in Texas, so I don't have to pay sales tax on purchases from Newegg.

[–]Shiningtoast 65 ポイント66 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Newegg won't charge you sales tax since they don't have nexus in TX, but you're still obligated to self-report and remit the use tax back to the state.

It's not that you don't have to pay sales tax on a Newegg purchase, it's that Newegg is under no obligation to collect sales tax for TX since it doesn't have nexus there. In cases where sales tax is not charged, use tax is due unless the purchase is specifically tax exempt.

[–]pclabhardware 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, you don't have to pay sales tax to Newegg... Theoretically you should be filing that and paying sales tax to Texas directly.

[–]WindWalkerWhoosh 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You do have to pay it, it's called "use tax", they just aren't required to collect it.

[–]Ecanonmics 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's how it works in practice but is not legal. You're suppose to tabulate your own taxes and remit them at the end of the year if the business is not charging you sales tax like they should.

[–]bodysnatcherz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oregon residents can show their ID to retailers outside of the state and have the tax removed at the time of purchase.

Source: Had Oregon ID, did this.

[–]bchevy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe only Washington does this. Source: also Oregonian.

[–]Eckish 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Technically true. The consumer does pay sales tax. However, who collects it can be different with online retailers. Online retailers are supposed to collect the tax if they have a physical presence in the same state. Otherwise, they don't have to collect it and the consumer is supposed to report and pay it during tax filing.

[–]EltNoobl 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

the consumer is supposed to report and pay it during tax filing

HAHA no, the Government fucks me enough thanks. But on a more serious note, what would happen if they find out you dont do this?

[–]ConLawHero 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They send you a tax bill for unpaid use taxes.

It'd be almost impossible for them to find out. But technically you're supposed to fill out a form when you do your taxes that says how many out of state purchases you made and what taxes you paid on them.

Practically, there's absolutely no way they can find out that information without you self-reporting, unless they subpoena Amazon's sales records (which, unless you're under investigation, they're not doing).

Source: Tax attorney

[–]Amator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The consumer pays the sales tax, but the business has to collect, file, and remit the sales tax if the purchaser is in a state where that seller has sales tax nexus.

If you create a product and sell it out of your home state, you'll only have to collect sales taxes from purchasers in your home state unless you have some other activity that establishes nexus in another state (offices, employees, warehouses stocking your products). If your home base in one of the five states with no sales tax and you don't have nexus in any other states, you won't have to worry about sales tax compliance.

The trouble is when you're a seller who is used to collecting, filing, and remitting sales taxes in your home state who signs up for the Fulfilled By Amazon service and overnight can have sales tax nexus in several extra states. Now you have to:

  • spend time registering for sales tax permits in each of those states
  • set up your shopping cart platforms to collect in all of those states. (Now you have to collect sales taxes from customers from eBay/Shopify/WooCommerce/etc now that your FBA activities have established nexus in those state)
  • file sales tax returns monthly/quarterly/annually depending on which state has which filing frequency
  • remit sales taxes to the Department of Revenue.

If you have nexus in several states, it can be a huge headache, especially since most states make you break down your sales by city/county/municipality when filing.

[–]poopinmysoup 79 ポイント80 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I learned that thanks to lil dicky.

[–]Sun-Anvil 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]segalu31 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That line in Lil Dicky's song Save Dat Money makes so much more sense now.

[–]stkennedy 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, though not to the extent that, say, the Cayman Islands is. You're still governed by US federal law.

[–]Reagan409 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (11子コメント)

No, Delaware just has very established business case law so doing business is very straight forward there. Lost of companies list their residency there so they know exactly what is legal and illegal for them

[–]Kiyasu 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Two words. Intangible Investments. That's why.

But someone who is a lot more informed than I has covered it well I think.

Long story short, this is a time-honored sham (oops, I mean “tax planning strategy”) perpetrated by the legislature of the state of Delaware on the treasuries of its sister states.

How does it work? A corporation physically located and doing business in another state (say, Pennsylvania) creates a Delaware investment holding company as a subsidiary to hold its intangible assets (e.g., intellectual property such as patents, trademarks, trade names, etc.). The intangible assets become the property of the Delaware subsidiary. The Pennsylvania parent then shifts profits to its exempt Delaware subsidiary by paying licensing fees for the right to use the intangible property.

It is a bit more complicated than that, but there is no shortage of attorneys and accountants in Wilmington willing to explain the subtleties and set it up – for a fee, of course. The objective? The earnings derived from the intangible assets escape Pennsylvania corporate income tax (which peaks at an onerous rate of 9.99 percent), while Delaware graciously forgoes taxing the same income under its corporate income tax.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/12/delaware-tax-haven-maybe/12551227/

[–]lokitoth 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's a bit of both. For bigger companies, yes, this is definitely the case. For a startup, it is significantly easier to set up a C Corp in Delaware. Of course, for VC, seeing a Delaware-corp is also good, because it reduces top-line/bottom-line spread in the future.

[–]Kiyasu 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For sure, I was mostly talking about large businesses.

Small businesses have a million things to worry about.

[–]Tom2Die 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would be surprised if the ease of setting up a corp in Delaware is not a direct effect of the tax laws/loopholes/shenanigans discussed here (and therefore companies wanting to move headquarters to Delaware on paper, but not wanting high one-time costs associated with that move).

[–]lokitoth 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very likely that this is a contributor. Having more corps wanting to go there is what is likely making the case law much deeper, for obvious reasons, and tax is definitely a strong motivator.

[–]MasterFubar 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

TL, DR: If you raise your taxes too much you'll find it harder to get a job because investments will move away from your state.

[–]Russ3ll 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Conversely, if you lower your corporate taxes, you can pit the workforce of your neighboring states against each other.

I'm gonna see if my state can lower it's 9.99% corporate tax rate to 0.01% so that they can compete with Delaware.

[–]TheBaronOfTheNorth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. For many countries around the world the US is one of the biggest tax havens.

[–]cqm 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

but not for companies within the US unfortunately

[–]mikerz85 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The US is actually a top tax haven, because there are a lot of regulations enforced by the US internationally, and the US ignores international law domestically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_as_a_tax_haven

[–]eternal_septuagint 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Svenborgia always get confused in my mind.

[–]QuinZ33 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Why would anybody think it was headquartered in the US? That appears nowhere in the headline or the article.

[–]cokeiscool 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It says in the title of the thread from one tax haven to another.

We know the US isn't a tax haven, the headline isn't even click baity, you just assumed...

[–]drdeadringer 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"From one tax haven to another". Where is there a tax haven in the US?

[–]cliffrowley 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Let's hope people at least read your comment if they're not going to bother reading the article..

..oops, too late.

[–]MakeGreatGreatAgain 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trump won't get it either way. He'll threaten them all the same when he sees this on The Today Show.

[–]Lord_Noble 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But it appears to be apple being anti US, so it'll be upvoted immediately. Reddit loves the apple=the actual devil narrative.

[–]Ihateualll 1492 ポイント1493 ポイント  (346子コメント)

A 0.005% tax rate should be criminal for a business of this size....

[–]pzerr 415 ポイント416 ポイント  (163子コメント)

That is just at the corporate level. No one has personal access to that money and can only be used to grow the business if used right. Or at least legitimate access. The moment any of that money is paid as wages or bonus in any form, then full taxes are paid on it.

[–]Autoflower 807 ポイント808 ポイント  (93子コメント)

Yeah so the company doesnt pay the taxes the worker does <3 yay me!

[–]guy_guyerson 170 ポイント171 ポイント  (60子コメント)

This is the difference between sales tax being added to your bill or being included in your bill; there's no substantive difference at all.

Either way, a portion of the money moving from the employer to the employee is given to the government.

Edit: guys, I'm not comparing sales tax to income tax. I'm using two ways of calculating the same sales tax as a metaphor for two ways of calculating a labor tax.

[–]Gentlescholar_AMA 61 ポイント62 ポイント  (46子コメント)

Sales tax added to your bill is more effective at comminicating to you your tax burden. So it is more effective at limiting consumption. Small difference but critical from an economists perspective

[–]MyWork_Reddit 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (22子コメント)

comminicating to you your tax burden

That's the problem.... it isn't my tax burden. The tax is levied against the company making the sale. The way taxes are included in the sticker price in Europe is how it should be done. In the US, they remove the tax from the price and stick it to you at the end for exactly this misunderstanding, and for the shock value.

If the taxes were being levied against me, then I would need to keep track of everything I've bought and paid for, to verify my tax burden at the end of every year. but it is the corporations that need to keep track of all their sales and revenue to verify their tax burden at the end of every year.

E: This is why companies can do "save the tax" events.... they just don't put it on you and pay it themselves.... the way it's meant to be. If the tax was levied on me as the purchaser, this would be illegal for me.

People think they are being taxed for buying this stuff when in reality it is the corporations being taxed for selling it. It's like income tax for business. But they pass the burden onto the shopper and get them to petition the governments for cheaper taxes to save a few bucks at the corner store, while the board members continue to stuff their pockets with their reduced tax burden.

Trickle up economics.

[–]Neex 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think you understand how a business deals with business expenses and profits. Whether the tax is built into the price or added up at the cash register it's still an expense, and business always pass expenses on to the consumer. If they didn't, they wouldn't make a profit and cease to exist. Very few businesses function like a large corporation with multiple revenue streams where they can lose profits on one stream and make up for it with another.

There is no situation where a business eats a cost. Customers pay for a business's expenses, no matter what the expenses are. That's how a business works!

[–]MyWork_Reddit 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You seemed to have missed the point entirely.... not once did I ague that the customer doesn't pay the tax... Try again.

The way taxes are included in the sticker price in Europe is how it should be done. In the US, they remove the tax from the price and stick it to you at the end for exactly this misunderstanding, and for the shock value.

People think they are being taxed for buying this stuff when in reality it is the corporations being taxed for selling it. But they pass the burden onto the shopper and get them to petition the governments for cheaper taxes to save a few bucks at the corner store, while the board members continue to stuff their pockets with their reduced tax burden.

The difference is whether or not the customer sees how much tax is being paid, and the feeling that they are the ones being taxed for buying things. This is done on purpose in order to get the public upset about the taxes rather than paying lobbyists to fight the politicians.

[–]ddawggin 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The difference is whether or not the customer sees how much tax is being paid, and the feeling that they are the ones being taxed for buying things. This is done on purpose in order to get the public upset about the taxes rather than paying lobbyists to fight the politicians.

Are you arguing that less transparency as to the impact taxes have on the final price is the superior method?

[–]Wertsir 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Either the business charges you 3.30 for the product and pays the taxes without mentioning it to you.

or they charge you 3.00, then charge you .30 cents in tax which they pay to the government.

Either way they are earning the same amount, and paying the same amount, the customer will always have to pay for taxes one way or another (as they are the businesses only source of income) it is just a matter of transparency. (IE: In America the price is the price they set (including the cost of production and their profit margin) and the taxes are the amount the government charges them).

There are zero economic systems that don't require the consumer to pay for the companies taxes, because there are zero systems where the company has any other way to pay them.

[–]ShooterMagoo 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Sales tax puts an unequal burden on the poor for common purchases. If we purchases the same list of goods from the same store, 8.5% tax is going to impact a $20,000 budget considerably more than a 100k earner. From a poor realists perspective.

[–]kettal 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Most countries have a list of zero rated items, like basic food, which is sales tax exempt.

The outlier is New Zealand, where the only zero rated sale is residential rental.

[–]ivebeenhereallsummer 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (6子コメント)

You pay corporate taxes as well really. Corporations account for tax in the retail price so while it isn't itemized on your receipt you are paying more every time taxes go up.

This isn't even something the board meets about to discuss. When the taxes go up the price of the product goes up. Can you even envision a time and place where the corporation would voluntarily keep their prices the same when corporate taxes go up?

[–]kettal 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Can you even envision a time and place where the corporation would voluntarily keep their prices the same when corporate taxes go up?

Any industry where competition is strong, and buyers are price sensitive

[–]ivebeenhereallsummer 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Possibly, but keep in mind the competition will be getting the same corporate tax increase, unless they are based in a tax haven country. When business collude in fixing prices it is illegal but then they all raise their prices at the same rate due to tax increases it is perfectly legal.

[–]Ribbys 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you even envision a time and place where the corporation would voluntarily keep their prices the same when corporate taxes go up?

Well, prices are not directly linked to costs in this way. Demand works to set prices, the entire industry is affected by taxes so overall the input costs will rise if taxes go up. This doesnt mean prices to consumers will go up, taxes are just one part of the costs involved.

[–]acken3 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

u irish? cause the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world

[–]rambouhh 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ya but you can get paid more. Your taxes will remain the same, but apple can now afford to pay you more because they paid less taxes.

[–]mcr55 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It just makes sense to not tax business tax as long as it is reinvested. You want to incentiveise business creation.

If it is taken out to buy a yacht, it should be taxed.

[–]badamant 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I happen to own a business in the USA. In general, the money must be reinvested in the business in order for it not to be taxed as corporate profits. It is very unclear they are doing this. In fact given how profitable they clearly are, I very much doubt it.

[–]MyNipplesAreSmall 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And this is exactly why the current tax system screws over small businesses, including mine. It's an exercise every year in trying to "break even" because if you keep too much cash on hand they'll tax you into oblivion.

I can't keep my own capital to hire two people. Instead, I get the crap taxed out of me. And if I want to grow my business, I have to borrow money to do it...which means I'm taking on more risk and also paying interest on the borrowed monies to banks, which borrow the money from the fed at zero. It's a racket. "Here, let us take your money. Then we're going to lend it to the banks at zero, and they'll in turn lend it to you at 6%. Sound like a good deal?"

[–]Tall_dark_and_lying 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You sweet summer child, I can tell you as fact that the people getting paid that kind of payout are without a doubt paying a smaller tax % than you are rather than 'full taxes'.

[–]qrck13 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (50子コメント)

We have low Corp tax in Ireland but quite high personal income tax. E.g. companies aren't paying much, but workers are. But if this systems brings a lot of jobs into Ireland - we are happy about paying that much in taxes.

[–]rubygeek 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

but quite high personal income tax.

No, you don't.

In terms of purely income tax you're about middle of the tree amongst OECD countries; in terms income tax + employees social security contributions you're near the bottom of the OECD. In terms of total tax wedge (includes employers social security payments/payroll taxes), you're near the bottom of the OECD

[–]Strawberry_Chores 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

A lot of people in Ireland complain about how bad our public services are despite our "quite high personal income tax." No no, we get exactly what we pay for...

I'd love to know why the idea that we have a high income tax is so prevalent in Ireland. Where does it come from?

[–]GregorSamsa67 84 ポイント85 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Let's just call Ireland what it is: a tax haven and a parasite. I am from the Netherlands, which is just as bad. Countries like ours offer businesses an opportunity to pay no corporate tax in exchange for a measly number of jobs (which they would have to fill anyway so even they are not costing the companies anything extra). Companies save billions in world-wide tax just so our countries can gain a few jobs and a few millions in income tax. I am deeply ashamed of my country's tax policies, and so should you be of yours.

[–]raymondsexton 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

As an Irish person, I agree. There is a lot of what we call 'cute hoorism' in Ireland about this. But we're actually getting done and we're facilitating people everywhere getting done. There will be little change in the short term about it. There's overwhelming support for these arrangements. I think it comes from a national inferiority complex. We feel that we can't compete unless we're cooking the books. That said, it's no reason to feel ashamed, same as there's no reason for a German to feel proud of his/her countries' CT policies. Best regards.

[–]Ruddose 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Few cared in Ireland about the corporate tax breaks until the EU started asking for handouts.

[–]Comeflywithme90 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why would this be a bad thing?

[–]JohnApples1988 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not. It promotes economic growth and tax reserves. But this is Reddit so the prevailing attitude is corporations = Satan.

[–]LobsterLobotomy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It can be damaging in the context of a bigger shared market (such as the EU). Inner-European tax havens undercut the cost of entry to that market, which means losses in other countries; who understandably aren't too keen on that happening.

The hate goes to corporations because they are the ones with the resources to actually navigate the bureaucracy involved and profit from it.

[–]brocopter 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is competition between countries. Take Ireland for example: it is great place to setup your shop, pay some small tax on your profits while bringing very little jobs yourself since an international business needs to compete with their competitors and thus can't afford to pay high income (& social) tax. If you want these companies to create shit amount of jobs and just import work immigrants like a mother fucker then lower social tax & income taxes too and you have achieved that objective. Clearly Ireland's government idea is to simply tap in to a profits that would end up in some other tax haven without this so it is just their way to tap into a free money.

If you want to stop a practice like this then you need to make every country equal and force them not to compete among each other. This is the only way. If you only force some BS laws locally while no-one else around your country won't do the same then you are simply committing suicide and you are the one who is going to lose in the long run.

[–]danhakimi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Theoretically, that should make your wages' sticker values much higher than other nations'. Are they?

[–]ifuckmothers 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (5子コメント)

why, Karl? i really don't understand why companies wanting to keep the most money possible is criminal.

[–]Rath1on 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, "should be criminal" may be a bit of a stretch but it doesn't make much sense for multi million/billion $ businesses to pay literally pennies on the penny when everyone else is forking over large % of their salary. I mean, this is what trickle down is all about, problem is companies do everything in their power to exactly not trickle down.

[–]danhakimi 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

His implication is that governments allowing them to keep it all is the problem. Massive corporations should pay their share.

[–]munificent 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everyone wants to keep all their money. Why do giant corporations get a better deal than actual hard-working people?

[–]vagina_fang 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (9子コメント)

If you could do it with personal income you would.

[–]DarthRainbows 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Whether or not you would do something if you were in that situation is a terrible basis for determining whether said behaviour should be condoned or not.

[–]amalagg 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (65子コメント)

I am intrigued by reducing corporate tax and taxing individuals instead.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/8/25/1324505/-Eliminate-corporate-tax-seriously

[–]ApostleO 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (40子コメント)

It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices.

That is an interesting argument.

[–]spotta 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The issue with this is that it incentivizes saving by the corporation rather than paying the money out to employees or stockholders.

It should also incentivize investment into the company, but if you can get a pretty good return by throwing it in the stock market it is easier to do that than invest it into the company.

[–]PedanticPaladin 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (15子コメント)

One of the reasons we've seen so much wealth end up in the pockets of the already wealthy is the Bush tax cuts, a major part of which was dropping the capital gains tax rate. At that point you pay a lower tax on investments than you do actually working. As long as you held those investments for the correct length of time someone could pay the same tax rate on $10,000,000 as a laborer would pay on $30,000.

[–]Madock345 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (14子コメント)

That's the intended purpose, to incentivise investment. They want everyone who can to be investing, because more investors is good for the national economy.

[–]QuinZ33 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (12子コメント)

because more investors is good for the national economy.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that is not immediately obvious at all. We had a TON of investors in real estate in the mid 2000s, for example, and that didn't turn out so well.

[–]pinktapoutshirt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm assuming you're referring to the crash in 2008 and I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding of why it all happened. It didn't happen because too much money in real estate. It happened because the loans people were taking out to invest were faulty and could never reasonable be paid back. This was due to a federal policy which basically allowed people with bad credit scores to take out mortgages they couldn't afford otherwise and the government would help them out with it. Banks took advantage of this and basically spewed them out past the point of good sense.

More investment is a good thing as long as the money invested is actually money. In 2008 a lot of the money invested didn't actually exist. It was a promise to pay with no real way of actually doing so.

[–]honestFeedback 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Capital gains should be taxed more heavily than earned income IMO. It seems morally wrong that people who actually getting out of bed to do a job of work see less of that money than people who invest it. But moreso because invested money being taxed at a lower rate pools money to those that already have money making soceity less equal as we progress.

[–]Kowalski_Options 52 ポイント53 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Without looking, I assume it ignores how business leaders give themselves benefits through their business, like driving a car leased by the company, etc.

[–]amalagg 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Happens even with corporate tax. That is a separate issue that would become more prominent if more money stayed in a corporation.

How corporates spend money is always a big topic.

[–]DronePirate 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (9子コメント)

And a private jet, and a leased Manhattan condo, and a country club membership.

[–]Kowalski_Options 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

My boss/company isn't that rich, but he can at least take a free vacation anywhere in the world there's a convention or place he can flash a business card.

[–]Dr_Ghamorra 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Worked for two companies that paid their employees shit but while using the company to finance whatever the fuck they want. They had no problems paying sysadmins $15/hr but don't worry. She's having a grand time at that Orlando two day conference that turned into a 2 week Disney trip all on the companies tab, cause networking.

[–]Ray192 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Corporate taxes are on profits. They simply need to file the car as a business expense to get around that.

So no, that's not a valid concern.

[–]Dugen 686 ポイント687 ポイント  (159子コメント)

The fact that physical location has anything to do with taxes paid on an internet business shows how badly we've failed at creating reasonable tax policy.

Apple is the epitome of a corporation that should have a heavy tax burden. They create massive income for the rich by extracting money from economies around the world based on anti-competitive lock-in, patents, and copyright.

They have done great things, and they deserve the success they have achieved, but to do so essentially tax free is destructive to the economies they interact with, and it should not be allowed.

[–]cyanletters 269 ポイント270 ポイント  (118子コメント)

failed at creating reasonable tax policy.

This is exactly what Tim Cook stated at the senate hearing. He has openly said that Apple would bring that money back to the states if it was taxed reasonably.

People are quick to get on Apple's case about this, but when push comes to shove, they would do exactly the same thing. If you earned $100,000 salary overseas and would lose $40,000+ of it when it's transferred to a US account, I'm confident that you would keep that money overseas until a more reasonable tax policy was in place.

[–]tsk05 120 ポイント121 ポイント  (21子コメント)

bring that money back to the states if it was taxed reasonably.

Recommend people read this article on what "taxed reasonably" is. My tldr at the bottom.

Long and short of it is that these companies earn their wealth inside US but use loopholes to claim this is foreign earned invomce. Then they stash them overseas, because if they bring it back to US they have to pay our tax (same as you do).

The wealth then accumulates for a decade, until they have trillions of dollars stashed overseas. At some point, the overseas countries want a shot at those trillions and start thinking about taxing it. At this point the companies want to bring that wealth back to the US. And a bipartisan consensus forms that instead of taxing it at a corporate tax rate of 35%, we should lower that rate for these corporations that stashed these trillions of dollars overseas that were actually earned in US to a one time special deal to 5 or 10%. They bring that money back in, at a rate far lower than you have to pay. Then the one time tax decrease is over, and the wealth accumulates overseas for another decade until they want to bring that wealth back in. At this point there is another "one time" tax holiday.

This telling story, originating from Bill Clinton on how George Bush reacted when he learned what companies did with that money they brought back into the US,

Indeed, that’s exactly what happened the last time the U.S. had a corporate tax holiday in 2004, cutting the rate on repatriated profits to 5 percent. Companies lobbying for the so-called “Homeland Investment Act” claimed it would help them hire Americans and invest in research and development. Instead they used the money for stock buybacks and increased executive compensation, while the prime beneficiaries actually cut their U.S. payroll. (According to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush was “so mad that he signed the 5.75 percent repatriation bill [and] none of it was reinvested.”)

We are in exactly this period where a lot of wealth earned in US has accumulated overseas, and those overseas countries are starting to think about taxing it. Trump, as well as the current leaders of both Democrats and Republicans, have said they will cut the corporate tax rate exactly as described above to 5% or 10% so that these corporations that hid their income for a decade don't have to pay the actual tax rate on it. This will happen this year, because both parties support it and companies are heavily pushing for it.

tldr: And that's what "taxed reasonably" means. Hide income for a decade. Lobby leaders to let you bring it back in at a special one-time tax rate of 5% (700% smaller than what it would be without this special tax rate). Repeat every decade. Have a 5% effective corporate tax rate.

[–]Hypnos317 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (15子コメント)

this shit drives me crazy.

in a perfect world what would someone like Trump do right now to combat this? sounds like this will go on as long as their are nations. is there anything?

[–]gustaveIebon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ultimately he'd have to use his wide powers to crack down on companies which are exploiting the people, in the way that Jackson cracked down and ultimately killed the bank during the early 1800s.

He'd be Kennedy'd if he tried this as a certain group of people are currently making trillions from what they are doing.

[–]tsk05 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

in a perfect world what would someone like Trump do right now to combat this?

Not support another "one-time" tax rate of 5-10% for the corporations that hid all this money overseas and now want to bring it back. But he does support it, as do Democratic and Republican leaders. Trump also wants to lower the corporate tax rate [which would be the rate they'd have to pay without this "one-time" tax holiday] entirely to 15%, from the current 35%.

Donald Trump's policy website:

The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. This rate is available to all businesses, both small and large, that want to retain the profits within the business.

It will provide a deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10 percent.

[–]Dugen 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem is that taxing it when it comes back is too late. We shouldn't be worrying about creating a new tax holiday, but ending the permanent one in place now that lets them earn money from the US without paying tax on it.

[–]Derigiberble 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The "loophole" part can't be overstated enough. Nobody intended for these "Double Irish" and similar type arrangements to work, they just happened into existence.

If the world were a video game this would be the equivalent of someone multi-accounting using exploits to farm valuable items.

[–]feenbean 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (14子コメント)

If you earned $100,000 salary overseas and would lose $40,000+ of it when it's transferred to a US account, I'm confident that you would keep that money overseas until a more reasonable tax policy was in place.

Losing some of that when bringing it over to the US isn't great, but it is also the social contract that taxes are based on. The people designing Apple products are American citizens educated in America, and driving to work on American roads. American citizens protect Apple in the form of police, fire, and ambulances, again driving on American roads by people educated in America. The money in Ireland is only Apples if you discount the fact that the USA invest millions times that in educating their workers, building the infrastructure that allowed the company to grow, and in protecting the business from crime. Not to mention that losing $40,000 on $100,000 is different on a completely different scale then losing half a billion on 14 billion.

[–]Geehodjimmy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

see, an argument that has merit. i can agree on that.

[–]Madless 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except for the thousands of international employees. On top of that, they already pay taxes on wages. Lastly, usually it's mostly their international profits going through Ireland. Profit made abroad (mostly Europe and Asia). It would be better though if they invested that money in European research and engineering divisions, as well as European acquisitions instead of focusing too hard on mostly developing in USA.

[–]Alberta-canada 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (38子コメント)

Race to the bottom?

You can't just keep lowering taxes for competition. How can any country compete with another country that has, let's say, 2% tax.

[–]thatsmyaibo 81 ポイント82 ポイント  (13子コメント)

The problem is the US isn't even competitive in corporate tax policies.

[–]Daktush 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This, Gibraltar has more companies registered than actual people within it.

[–]Etherius 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well we're getting nothing on the money right now.

So 40% of nothing is less than 15% of $100 billion

[–]Xpress_interest 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is the sort of thinking that leads to non-living wages with no benefits. It isn't sustainable, and it's a race to the bottom where the only winners are those already at the top.

We need a mixture of reasonable tax rates, DISPROPORTIONATELY strong penalties for tax evasion, powerful means to enforce tax policy, and international cooperation to establish fair rates. Without a comprehensive approach, all we're going to see are multinationals flocking to whichever country gives them the best haven.

[–]moofishies 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nothing from this one company, but how do you know literally no companies are paying this tax? It's possible that we make more taxing our current companies with a high tax than if we lowered it on the chance that some companies will come back.

[–]kettal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the core, the only things government can provide that nobody else can, is land and protection of the people and property in that land. This is done through military, police, courts.

Internet based business doesn't really require that kind of services in the way business did 60 years ago.

So the case for these businesses to locate and pay for these things is pretty much altruistic.

Who benefits from government services today are people more than businesses. People aren't going to pick up and move to Sealand to avoid tax. They like having safety and services of government. In the end, that's who will be paying. People.

[–]combatrex 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Yep. I have no idea why people are mad at a corporation taking advantage of actual laws. Blame the lawmakers.

[–]tsk05 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The actual laws do not allow you to bring this wealth back into US at 5% tax rate, rather requiring the normal corporate tax rate. Until every decade they claim they'll reinvest it in US if you just let them bring it back this one time, and then fire more people and use this money to raise executive compensation and dividends (as Bush raved about when he learned that's exactly what happened when he did it).

So I blame both, the corporations that buy our leaders to create an effective 5% corporate tax rate instead of the required 35%, and the leaders that pass these special "one-time" deals every decade.

[–]jonmitz 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (17子コメント)

I have no idea why people are mad at a corporation taking advantage of actual laws

It's because most people are able to see that it's morally wrong to avoid paying taxes into the country that provides the infrastructure for you to make your money. In this case, Apple's headquarters is only a few miles away from where I work, and the highways and roads around here are falling apart (as one example of something they are avoiding paying for). It's ridiculous.

If Apple actually wanted to fix the laws they would, they have the power and money to do so. They want to keep as much money as possible for themselves, plain and simple. You can call this some kind of "business as usual", but for those of us who care about morals and ethics it's wrong.

[–]Immortaliss 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I live very near Cupertino, the roads are really nice, and well kept. Apple having its headquarters here actually brings in more tax revenue for the county any almost all other sources combined, helping pay for things like road improvements. Sure there is crazy silicon valley traffic, but don't pretend like the roads are in shambles... they aren't.

[–]rohbotics 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

85 North, arguably one of the worse highways is still quite well maintained, with construction almost every night.

[–]Etherius 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

How many of those people are waiters and waitresses who don't pay taxes on their tips?

Everyone takes advantage of every tax break they can.

[–]sir_richard_head 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly.

If you think it's immoral to dodge taxes where you can, then don't claim any deductions when you file your taxes this year if you want to take a stand.

[–]THEGRENAAAAADE 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (11子コメント)

But geography does matter. The world has independent countries that are separated by geographically drawn lines.

[–]Jack_Sophmore 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Right the tax collector is ultimately a government that represents a geographic location. What's the alternative? A global cyber taxing entity that's taxes you wherever you reside and used the funds "for the betterment of the world"?

[–]MasterFubar 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

anti-competitive lock-in, patents, and copyright.

That's a problem caused by too much government regulation, not too little taxes.

If the US government hadn't led the world in effectively making copyrights eternal, in allowing software patents, and allowing copyrights on binary code, neither Apple nor Microsoft would have so much power and influence.

[–]mina_knallenfalls 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

There's an idea I caught in an interview with a very successful German business man, Götz Werner, who's all for sustainable management and UBI:

Our tax system is wrong. It is 300, 400 years old and taxes labor - which is a momentous fallacy. We must not tax the contribution to the economy but the withdrawal. It is necessary to build on consumption. Cut the old tax, focus on consumption tax. It's all connected already, it's just complicated and activity-inhibiting. Every tax that we pay, and every salary, ends up in the prices.

So basically: Don't tax the people when they're contributing to the economy/society, but tax them when they enjoy the fruits of their labor. Start with low taxes on food and set very high taxes on luxury items.

I think this would work great with globalized corporations, because the tax would apply and be collected at the location where the sale is being made, and it considers the economic situation of the consumer's country.

[–]InWhichWitch 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

the rich do not consume even a fraction ofa % of their income

consumption taxes are inherently regressive, and any system focusing on them is inherently flawed

[–]domuseid 195 ポイント196 ポイント  (46子コメント)

ITT: 94% people outraged by the word Ireland, 5% that know it's being moved from Lux and not the US, and 1% that could accurately explain what BEPS, transfer pricing, Subpart F, or a hybrid entity are.

This title is absolute garbage from an international tax perspective.

[–]ivebeenhereallsummer 60 ポイント61 ポイント  (15子コメント)

ITT: People who pay for their music.

[–]Geehodjimmy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

waste of money

[–]openmindedskeptic 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's a reason why artists put their songs on Apple Music and Spotify. They need to eat too.

[–]DJToastyBuns 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Clearly you don't hang out with many working musicians

[–]deadlybydsgn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or artists of any kind.

Somehow, the axiom of "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life." turned into "Those people don't need to eat."

[–]DJToastyBuns 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Person starves in a communist country and it's the government's fault. Person starves in a capitalist country and somehow, it's his own damn fault.

[–]InfernoZeus 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

1% is generous.

[–]kilroy123 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. I would say more like 0.01%

[–]mchappee 80 ポイント81 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Apple hate = karma.

[–]QuantumDischarge 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Google and Tesla would pay more than their fair share of taxes!! - Reddit

[–]xitax 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is the internet and Reddit in a nutshell. If you have a field of expertise you will always see some garbage article getting attention that people don't understand and who's comments are mostly cancer because there is no interest in learning.

[–]Paracortex 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

who's whose

Mr. SmartyPants

But, no, no, your commment isn't part of the cancer at all.

[–]xitax 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm going to upvote you because you are a hilarious example of just this!

[–]Paracortex 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Upvoting you for same! :)

[–]ADirtySock 119 ポイント120 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Apple employs 5,000 people in Ireland. I'm pretty sick of "just because it's a tax haven". It's also a country with a highly educated workforce, access to EU markets and soon to be the English speaking capital of the EU. Ireland has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and it's fast becoming one of the Tech hubs of the world too.

Microsoft, Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Intel, IBM, VmWare, EMC, Slack and many, many more tech companies employ large amounts of people around the country.

[–]Dave1711 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (2子コメント)

As an Irish person I fully agree but a huge reason of why all these companies come here is due to the corporation tax that doesn't make us a haven as we aren't, but it's a pretty big reason to do business here.

But yes they clearly see a lot of potential in the workforce also to continue to invest heavily.

[–]ADirtySock 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well yes it is a factor, but we're not a tax haven. The OECD classes us as a semi-tax haven, same as the US...

[–]Bosco_is_a_prick 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

They are increasing the workforce to 6000

[–]donsterkay 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

5 Billion in a tax shelter distributed among 5k Irish?

[–]masterchifchaf 82 ポイント83 ポイント  (67子コメント)

The only good think I can see for this is that it creates hundreds of jobs here in Ireland, the Apple IE Jobs portal shows over 600 current availablities.

Maybe they'll move from Ireland to the UK after Brexit due to the talk of super cheap corporation tax in the UK to attract businesses.

[–]doobey179 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Sure 600 jobs sounds nice. Wanna know what sounds better? 13 billion euro.

[–]randomdrunky 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's being appealed though so surely Ireland could get their €13 billion plus 600 jobs - win-win?

[–]doobey179 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sure, Ireland might receive the settlement. But the fact of the matter remains, current representatives of the country have, and currently are, working towards Apple not having to pay the settlement. And Apple aren't exactly rushing to stop them.

[–]vintermann 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know, never mind the job, I'll do fine with my share of 21.5 million euro instead.

[–]RaptorXP 80 ポイント81 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Ireland is not a tax haven.

[–]Dave1711 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not sure why your getting downvoted, we have an attractive corporation tax rate that doesn't make us a haven.

[–]thatsmyaibo 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's more "stir the pot" titles that try to get a rouse out of people. I wish the US would look to be more business friendly tbh.

[–]Spartacus_FPV 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nah, better to chase companies away then bitch about it and try to pass laws to punish them for leaving the awful conditions we created.

[–]Zillionair1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is a tax haven?

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses a minimal tax liability

[–]novus_nl 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can you really blame [companyX] ? For example; you have a big company. Do you think your accountant will try to pay more or less taxes. Your shareholders want to make more or less money?

That's what I don't understand, you can't blame the company for not wanting to pay taxes, blame and punish the countries enforcing those bs tax laws instead.

like every enforcement, punish the provider not the consumer.

[–]EraseMyHistoryIfIGo 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

That makes them "smart" , they are thinking like our president would, true patriots!

[–]ppbur 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Except that companies are not in the business of being patriotic.

[–]Neuro5 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is the U.S Virgin islands considered a tax haven?

[–]Ivan_a_rom 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ireland is a gold mine for tech jobs because of the favorable tax rates. I should move there.

[–]DYMAXIONman 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (55子コメント)

Why does the EU not punish tax havens?

[–]RaptorXP 110 ポイント111 ポイント  (23子コメント)

Ireland has low corporate tax, but it's not a tax heaven.

[–]Dean-16 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (17子コメント)

12.5% corporation tax in Ireland compared to 20-25% in most other European countries.

[–]Seamy18 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Shouldn't sovereign countries be allowed to set their own tax rates? I'm pro EU and all but I don't want to see them take control of the tax systems in their various member states.

[–]TrumpOnEarth 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

The problem here is that Ireland is not taxing apple at their corporate rate, but giving them a special deal where they pay almost no tax.

[–]TheNeapolitan 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't blame Ireland for the rest of Europe's stupidity.

[–]moop1290 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As is their fiduciary duty.

[–]ThomPerrin 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus this comment section is a shit show.

[–]Fennels 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (18子コメント)

The US' audacity thinking they're entitled to any of this money is staggering. If I open a McDonald's in the US I'm going to pay taxes to the US, as does Apple. If I open a McDonald's in China, I am going to pay taxes to China. I am not paying double tax to the US after I pay China for this Chinese brick and mortar, Chinese employees, Chinese beef and Chinese patrons that have fuck all to do with the US. The US can suck a fucking dick from afar if they think they're getting a dime of that.

[–]Dead_Clowns 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This assuming that all revenues are generated locally. I believe in this case the business is generating revenue from around the globe. If this is the case, then they are two very different scenarios.

[–]jonezy50 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where did you read any of that?

[–]TeutorixAleria 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The issue is a little more nuanced than this. Different jurisdictions have different rules on taxing income from other countries. There is a large amount of money that is falling down holes where the HQ is in a country where income is only taxed if it comes from in country and there is money coming from other places who don't tax income if the corporation isn't based there. It's not that there's double taxing although it can happen but there is also a lot of no taxing going on and nobody can agree on who should be taxing what.

[–]stabbytastical 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The US isn't even involved in this. It's moving from Luxembourg to Ireland.

[–]RollTide09 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol wtf are you even talking about?

[–]eggboy156 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People are quick to get that 13 billion plus 600 jobs - win-win?

[–]Broskeep 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think vat tax might be good to counter this.

[–]openmindedskeptic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Last time I checked Ireland is in the International market, so why not go there? America isn't entitled to this money. They have a US headquarters for a reason like many other companies.

[–]BookEight 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Who's more foolish? The fool? Or the fool who follows him?"

Perhaps reddit can turn its ire toward the governments who provide the havens, rather than the Big Bad Companies who predictably take the bait.

And perhaps not.

[–]helpme_understand 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

rabblerabblerabble

[–]Jman91067 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This has nothing to do with the US, but probably has fooled some people who didn't look at the article.

[–]DatJazz 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

not only is this not moving from the US but why would they have their international HQ in the US anyway?

[–]Ahcow 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To pay more tax because patriotic or some shit. People are stupid.

[–]ExcerptMusic 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"That makes me smart"

-Apple