Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What the Top US Companies Pay In Taxes

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the or-don't dept.

Businesses 658

theodp writes "If you've ever wondered how it's possible that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric, Forbes has an explanation. You, my friend, do not have the tax benefit of overseas operations. Microsoft, for example, has its overseas subsidiaries license software to its US parent company in return for handsome royalties that get taxed at lower overseas rates. Exxon limits its tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands that shelter cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan, and Abu Dhabi. As a result, of the $15B it paid in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84B in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the US. Now quit your carping and get back to filling out that 1040!"

cancel ×

658 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If I could do it, I would! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719730)

Good for them. They're maximising what they do with their profits. Giving it to the government means it gets given to banks and incompetent businesses, or the military industrial complex to spend on a war on *insert something here*.

This is one more reason why countries are better than a single global government. If you screw the businesses in one country they can move to another.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (5, Insightful)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719772)

Yeah, because Exxon would never benefit from an American war against Iraq.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719916)

They would be part of the complex.... They also have the ability to get the laws made as they would like them.

No one cares about your (or my) opinion. You're 1 vote. It's the people with the money and the power who matter to politicians and businesses. They look after each other at your expense.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719774)

If you screw the businesses in one country they can move to another.

This is also why I support abolishing the corporate income tax. To me, it makes no sense to tax the artificial economic entity, and then tax every employee and owner of said entity. Let's keep our taxes limited to actual, real people.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (3, Funny)

graft (556969) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719798)

Shit, yeah. As TFA says, corporations have already got it so tough, man.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720176)

It has nothing to do with my empathy for corporations. It has everything to do with what I feel is best for the US. Abolishing corporate taxes would eliminate tax havens and send many foreign companies our way. The tax revenue can be made up by jacking up taxes on the people who own and work for corporations (us). The tax would be more direct and more efficient. Corporate taxes are about 1/4 that of individual income taxes, and only about 1/6 if you include social security payments... so it's not like I'm talking about huge increases in tax burden. Jack up capital gains a bit, maybe hike the top tax brackets a bit. And I guarantee that tax revenue would go up simply because of the extra business done in country.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719940)

If the artificial economic entity has rights, it should pay taxes too.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720000)

No. Taxes should -only- be used to pay for government services someone (or something) uses and should be paid as such. Many taxes do not make sense. For example, property taxes. It takes the US government no more manpower (in this day and age) to protect someone with 1,000 acres as it does the hobo living on the street. In fact, one could say the hobo has more drain on government funds than the rich landowner who rarely uses government services. But why is it that the rich landowner is taxed more?

I say, tax for what people use. The government should be a service provider. Nothing more. Drive on roads? Pay for the roads. Don't drive? Don't pay. Simple as that.

Corporations as a whole should be taxed based on what they use. If their business required a new road to be put in, have them pay for that road. If the store needs extra police protection have them pay for that.

Anything else is unjust.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720108)

They use the government to ensure they actually own the 1,000 acres in the first place. Is a recognition of the exclusive use of land not a service that should be paid for?

Re:If I could do it, I would! (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720150)

No, because such things aren't actively challenged. When you own a piece of land, people generally don't claim it to be theirs except in odd circumstances, in which case the losing party would pay the costs.

If everyone claimed that someone else's land was theirs, you might have a point. But we, as civilisation, tend to realise that a fence means that someone (not you) owns the property.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720114)

Anything else is unjust.
Oh, shut the fuck up, corporo-shill.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720172)

Taxes should -only- be used to pay for government services someone (or something) uses and should be paid as such.

Good thing corporations don't take up the time of our representatives and senators with lobbyists.

It takes the US government no more manpower (in this day and age) to protect someone with 1,000 acres as it does the hobo living on the street.

It also allows the government to tax the lower-income people less than the higher earners, providing better schools for the lower earners, and over time giving the higher earners more qualified workers to hire, which overall promotes better wages and a higher standard of living.

Drive on roads? Pay for the roads. Don't drive? Don't pay.

It's also too bad that the people who use roads don't do so directly. By living in our country, where you get deliveries of pizza, packages of books and people coming out to service your heater so you don't free to death, you qualify to pay the road tax, whether you directly use a car or not.

People like you need to get over this idea that we're not in it together, because we are, despite what your belief tells you about "true independence". The idea of the United States isn't to be completely independent of one another. The point was to not be dependent on a single person, like, oh, the King of England. Beyond that, the economic principles of the United States are designed to promote competition by providing an economic arena where anyone can compete. It's also about providing a system where everyone gets some sort of say in the rules of the arena, whether it's via a direct vote on every issue (California) or by representatives (everywhere else). This is the ideal; it doesn't always work this way, but the entire concept is a work in progress, if you haven't noticed.

If you want a car analogy, it's akin to having a demolition derby where the drivers vote on the rules.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719966)

Let's keep our taxes limited to actual, real people.

I'm sorry, but hat's just idiotic. How about instead we:

(1) limit our granting of civil rights to actual, real people, and

(2) limit lobbying to actual, real people.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720080)

How about instead we:

Why are these things exclusive of one another. A corporation is not a person, period.

I agree with what you propose (1 & 2), but unfortunately it looks like a constitutional amendment is required.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720106)

I think it is idiotic to think that it is not the real people (shareholders, employees, customers) who pay corporate taxes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8 [youtube.com]

Re:If I could do it, I would! (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720066)

I hate it when this comes up. That "artificial entity" exists to provide the "limited liability" bit. An incredibly valuable perk. Even if we are the opinion that handing that out is worth it at all(since it is pretty much what allows people to treat shares in corporations as abstract economic widgets, to be bought and sold with limited risk), the idea that taxing the resultant artificial entity is "double taxation" is nonsense.

If an artificial legal construct can have income and profit, there seems to be no reason why it ought not to be taxed, the same way as natural constructs who have income and profits are. If taxation of corporations were more costly than limited liability is valuable, people whouldn't incorporate, they'd operate businesses as themselves. The fact that virtually nobody does so, other than the smallest, most ill or un-advised people, should tell you something about whether or not that is the case.

If you don't want your synthetic entity taxed, you don't have to set one up, you can just do business as you. However, if you fuck up, you are on the hook. Corporate taxes are a small price to pay for being able to cap your liability by assigning responsibility to a legal fiction from which you get to extract the wins but not the losses.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (4, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720116)

Abolishing the corporate income tax sounds great in theory. ... especially if your a conservative economist.

However, Ireland which is Europe's version of India due to its low 12% corporate income tax (lowest in world) is about to join Greece in going bankrupt. We are already under suffocating debt. Cutting spending wont get the income needed to pay for a basic government.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720122)

This is also why I support abolishing the corporate income tax. To me, it makes no sense to tax the artificial economic entity, and then tax every employee and owner of said entity. Let's keep our taxes limited to actual, real people.

I agree. Let's tax the living shit out of the shareholders.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (5, Insightful)

graft (556969) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719782)

Yes, it IS good for them. And bad for you. You're talking about one of the most powerful entities in the world - Exxon Mobil is larger than most countries - with no accountability to anyone. The government that you hate so much is being steadily dismantled BECAUSE private tyrannies (i.e. corporations) are using their vast coffers to break and twist it into the form they desire. Why, exactly, do you think the government gives money to banks or the MIC?

The more power corporations have, the more they can resist the controlling influence of democracy, the worse off we are. Observe Exxon's use of their power to confuse the debate on global warming for years, assuring that nothing gets done to compromise their profits and that the planet continues to choke on the waste gases their products emit.

As someone who's been an anarchist most of my adult life, I find it bizarre when so-called libertarians cheer the destruction of democratic government and the increasing devolution of power into the hands of the people who have, for the better part of this past century, been largely in control of our society. If you're REALLY in the favor of liberty, why are you such a fan of enabling so much power going into such few hands?

Re:If I could do it, I would! (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719824)

This deserves to be modded "insightful". Nations have constitutions, laws, and face insurrection, mutiny, and revolt if/when they trample people's rights to much. Corporations? Damned thieves can tramply anyone, and everyone, with no repercussions.

Go ahead, people, cheer for the corporations. None of them are doing anything for you. Your government supplies your drinking water, builds your roads, responds in the event of disaster, and much, much more. You have a voice in government in most countries - you have zero voice in any corporation, no matter whether you work for it or not.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (-1, Flamebait)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720178)

This definitely does NOT deserve to be modded "insightful".

Corporations? Damned thieves can tramply anyone, and everyone, with no repercussions.

Really? If people don't like the actions of a corporation they have the right not to fucking buy that corporations products, and you'll see how quickly the things change.

Go ahead, people, cheer for the corporations. None of them are doing anything for you.

Except for everything you see around you. Was PC made by a government decree? Can you remind me which government invented, and made economically profitable electricity, car, airplane, TV, cell phone, etc etc?

Your government supplies your drinking water, builds your roads, responds in the event of disaster, and much, much more.

I'm glad you saved the most idiotic comment for last. The government DOES NOT do any of those things. It is the taxpayer money that pays for all of those things, the government simply manages it (usually in a notoriously inefficient, wasteful and corrupt way). Yes in some cases it is a necessary evil to put all our money together and pay for some things that way though it should be avoided wherever possible. In any case, there is nothing to be thankful to the government for! It is simply taking our money and paying for things on our behalf. Please try to remember that simple concept.

Re:If I could do it, I would! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719846)

so much power going into such few hands

435 Congressmen, 100 Senators?

Re:If I could do it, I would! (1, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720048)

How do corporations get the power that you speak of? Under a free market system (which we do NOT have) a corporation can only get rich and powerful by selling its products, which it can only do if it provides better products and lower prices than their competitors so that their customers will voluntarily pay for them. A corporation cannot take money from you by force, which is the crucial difference between them and the government.

The corruption that you mention is the corruption of the government not the corruption of the corporations. Corporate CEOs are no friends of the free market nor is that their job. They will do whatever benefits their company, including seeking special protectionist laws, laws that increase the burden on their competitors and the price of entry, and finally as we saw recently free money directly from taxpayers pockets. This is the inevitable result of the large and intrusive government which has the power to decide the winners and losers in business as well as a $3.5 trillion annual budget (in case of the federal government alone) to be spent according to the wishes of the bureaucrats. Is it not inevitable then that the corporation see it as more profitable to spend more money on lobbying and bribing politicians for favorable laws and a cut of the taxpayers money than they spend on innovating and improving their products? In short, the answer is not more government but less.

LOL, corporations rule America. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719732)

LOL.

Is this news? (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719738)

I thought this was generally common knowledge.

Not the details, perhaps, but the tone of the summary and the bits of the article I read appear to imply this is some new discovery - that companies use tax havens as tax havens.

Or maybe it's just that British business is more tax-averse than those over the pond...

So, what now? (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719744)

If you tax them, they move to India. Shareholders don't care.

Maybe the goverment should try spending less for a change.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719764)

You find it to be a good thing that companies which expound solid AMERICAN values and how the gubbermints are hurting them don't even pay any money to the country they live in?

Remarkable. You're perfectly right, of course. If the eeevil Governments just cut taxes to 0%, companies...still wouldn't work in America due to cheaper labor overseas. Let's get rid of minimum wage and crush all labor unions too. That should bring more business to America.

Re:So, what now? (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719792)

If you tax them, they move to India. Shareholders don't care.

Maybe the goverment should try spending less for a change.

They should, but lets get back to the tax rates issue. I'd be happy to ban these overseas shenanigans if we would simply lower US corporate rates. Our rates are nearly the highest in the world, second only to Japan [alhambrainvestments.com] .

Fine, eliminate the loopholes, but cut the rates. Think about where corporate profits are going; if they're not being sank right back into the company, then they're being payed out in dividends to shareholders.... where they're taxed again as personal income.

While there's no real excuse for these kind of slight of hand tax dodges, neither is there a justification for a tax rate near 40 percent on companies.

Re:So, what now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719838)

Works the same way as insurance I'm betting.

Government wants amount A per year so they tax B dollars per company.

C number of companies don't want to pay it so they create tax shelters. The remaining D companies still need to pay amount A total, so each has to pay more.

And then we have 40% tax rates. As the pool shrinks, they need to leech off more from the smaller amount of people until finally everybody's gone and tax rates are at some ridiculous ungodly amount.

Re:So, what now? (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719952)


Our rates are nearly the highest in the world, second only to Japan.

If you only consider income tax, I'll bet you're right. There's more to taxing business than income tax however. Ever heard of the value added tax [wikipedia.org] ? The US doesn't have one, but most EU countries do. Picking the income tax and ignoring VAT when comparing how we tax corporations is extraordinarily misleading.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719986)

The loopholes are there to reduce the effective tax rate to nearly zero. Most companies will build-in the tax rate in their prices, knowing well in advance that they will only be taxed on profits. We should all know that the definition of profit is quite flexible. So don't be naive in thinking the the "highest" tax rate means much of anything.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720046)

Fine, eliminate the loopholes, but cut the rates. Think about where corporate profits are going; if they're not being sank right back into the company, then they're being payed out in dividends to shareholders.... where they're taxed again as personal income.

You think that just because rates would be lowered that these companies would start paying out of some sense of duty? Come on, get real.

The people who can afford to own stocks (pension funds not withstanding), are not the ones that need the social services that many of these taxes pay for.

Now of course huge swaths (in the US at least) are being spent on the military and bailouts for the version "evil" corporations that got the economy into a mess, but there are other services out there as well. Wealth is quite concentrated already, and lower rates isn't going to help things:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

If you want to make changes, eliminate the loop holes, don't tax the first (say) $30K people make, and raise the rate on any income more than $250,000 to something like 60% or higher. In the last century, the period of greatest economic growth was when the top tax rate was over 90%.

Warren Buffet pays taxes at a lower rate (17.7%) than his secretary under the current system:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

Re:So, what now? (4, Interesting)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720058)

Aside from my reluctance to take financial wisdom seriously from someone who uses "payed" instead of "paid", (sank / sunk notwithstanding) you seem to be forgetting the huge number of corporations who _aren't_ listed on the stock exchange, and who don't pay dividends. Lowering corporate tax rates would take a huge chunk of income away from the US, and do little to encourage companies to move back from... say.. Ireland, with its 12.5% rate.

Oh, and the way most companies avoid paying taxes? They expand. Got 10 million in profit you don't want to pay taxes on? Open some new locations. Do R&D. Hire some more people. Basically incur expenses. That 40% tax rate you disparage so offhandedly is responsible for influencing decisions that generally lead to more jobs.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720104)

If they want to do business in the US, they should pay taxes to the US government.

Re:So, what now? (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720160)

Think about where corporate profits are going; if they're not being sank right back into the company, then they're being payed out in dividends to shareholders.... where they're taxed again as personal income.

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but most tax systems go to a lot of trouble to ensure that dividends aren't taxed twice. Here in Australia, we have dividend imputation [wikipedia.org] . Other countries have other mechanisms.

While there's no real excuse for these kind of slight of hand tax dodges, neither is there a justification for a tax rate near 40 percent on companies.

Aye, there's the rub. The dodges exist because of the high tax rate, and the high tax rate exists because of the dodges.

Re:So, what now? (2, Insightful)

kqc7011 (525426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719892)

Corporations do not pay taxes. The customers of the corporations pay the tax.

Re:So, what now? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719948)

No, a mixture of the customers, employees, and shareholders do. Your statement is only true if all other factors (like rate of profit, and size of bonuses) are fixed, which there is no particular reason for them to be. If you take money out of a corporation, where it comes from depends on the elasticity of all the other factors. Some corporations can easily cut salaries; other corporations can easily cut dividends; other corporations can easily raise prices; most end up doing some mixture of things, depending on market conditions.

Re:So, what now? (0)

peas_n_carrots (1025360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720094)

But corps have the legal rights of a citizen here in the states. It's like they get the best of both worlds, and the average worker gets screwed at both ends.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719998)

What about collecting bargaining for nations? (The US is already giving handouts to poor countries ...)

Re:So, what now? (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720038)


If you tax them, they move to India.

Uhh.. do you realize you can't just "move everything to India" for certain businesses? You think Microsoft can just easily pack up and movie to India without an enormous risk of going under? Do you think Walmart can just move all its stores to India?

Not all business is manufacturing where it's cheaper to operate elsewhere. Not even all manufacturing is cheaper to do elsewhere. Your argument fails because business isn't generic.

Re:So, what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720064)

If you tax them, they move to India.

Well, not really. In this case at least, they were taxed, then they found loopholes to avoid paying the taxes. They remained in the US.

I say close the loopholes and see what happens. If the board of GE, Exxon and the rest want to move their HQ to India, let them. I see no reason to mollify such wholly unpatriotic and self-interested people & organizations.

But my bet is most if not all large corporations would stay in the US. Partly because of the benefits of being based in the US (already low taxes, strong legal system, strong government to represent you on the international stage). Partly because of the PR of the matter. And partly because nationality still matters, and they are American.

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719752)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Re:Jews for Nerds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719818)

Is Obama one of them there black Jews? Discuss and rely...

Re:Jews for Nerds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720036)

That's one of the funniest bigoted troll posts I've read for a while. Thanks for the laughs

Close the loop holes (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719770)

These types of tricks should be unacceptable. Close the loops that allow this to happen, and let it be known that if you are going to do business in the US and benefit from our educated labor pool, infrastructure, markets, and resources you are going to pay taxes like everyone else. These shenanigans should demonstrate exactly why a corporation should not be treated as a legal person. They are immortal, and can skirt current law and tax codes by existing simultaneously in multiple places and jurisdictions at the same time.

Re:Close the loop holes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719786)

Or lower tax rates and collect something rather than nothing.

In capitalism, competition lowers prices, and consumers follow the low prices.

Why shouldn't the tax system work under the same set of rules?

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719870)

So, if I live and work in a country where I get government subsidies in the form of free education, healthcare, access to roads etc, I could get to pay taxes in another country with lower tax? If I and everyone else did that, free education, healthcare, roads etc would simply collapse. Not to mention that it is against the laws of most countries. And if it is wrong for me to do so, it should also be wrong for corperations. What is needed is that governments put an ultimatum onto the corperations: If you want to make money here, you have to pay taxes here. One option could be to tax the turnover of the corperation instead of the surpluss. This is actually similar to how people are taxed: We are taxed on our income, not the amount of money we have left after paying for food, home and other necessities.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720014)

Or go to a sales tax where everyone can see exactly how much they are paying and everyone pays (with very limited loopholes, perhaps for necessities like food). I live in a state that is allergic to sales taxes, and while I'd only support it instead of a income tax, most people around here wouldn't support one at all it seems.

Re:Close the loop holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719912)

Or lower tax rates and collect something rather than nothing.

In capitalism, competition lowers prices, and consumers follow the low prices.

Why pay something, when you can pay nothing at all?

Re:Close the loop holes (4, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719918)

In capitalism, competition lowers prices, and consumers follow the low prices.

Why shouldn't the tax system work under the same set of rules?

Because in capitalism, the government is not a "player", but rather the ultimate "enabler". Who pays for capitalism when there is a crash? Taxpayers via the government.

The tax system has to be kept separate from market rules, because it is used to reboot the system when necessary. That is why, if you live in America and use American capitalist facilities, you should pay your fair share of American taxes (s/America/$COUNTRY/g).

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

Banichi (1255242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719844)

They are immortal, and can skirt current law and tax codes by existing simultaneously in multiple places and jurisdictions at the same time.

There can be only one? Sounds like a great pitch for a sitcom.

Re:Close the loop holes (1, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719874)

But if you tax them here, they'll be forced to stop buying and selling stuff here. All these large multinational corporations will just simply choose to not do business in the US, because they'll only earn 19.5% profit, instead of 20% [or whatever it is].

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719968)

I realize you're being sarcastic, but a lot of people actually do think that way.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

kothmac (1609535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719878)

These types of tricks should be unacceptable. Close the loops that allow this to happen, and let it be known that if you are going to do business in the US and benefit from our educated labor pool, infrastructure, markets, and resources you are going to pay taxes like everyone else. These shenanigans should demonstrate exactly why a corporation should not be treated as a legal person. They are immortal, and can skirt current law and tax codes by existing simultaneously in multiple places and jurisdictions at the same time.

Yes comrade, we must not allow the bourgeois to exploit the proletariat! How dear they attempt to avoid our 54,846 page tax code! They must pay for the .. Oh god, I can't continue. I need to wash my mouth/fingers for this.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719906)

The vast majority of the "dodged" income is foreign earned and merely just doesn't enter the US, otherwise it would be taxed. It's merely a response to incentives. Honestly, do you expect these companies to just go "oh, lets move the money into the united states where a lot more of it will be taken away than if we move it to Bermuda; especially since we already often paid taxes where it was originally earned"? Do you take advantage of mortgage interest deductibility? Retirement tax shelters? It's the same thing. The problem is that taxes in the United States are higher than elsewhere so the money doesn't come here. Pity, as America could really use the investment right now.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

jasmusic (786052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719922)

You talk too much like a commie. If you can tax a corporation and sue a corporation and kill a corporation, then by God that corporation better have a right to say something about it. The problem in this country is not "not enough taxes" but "too much spending". This isn't a free market when there is so much command and control and confiscation at the federal level that it literally chases the manufacturing base out of the country.

Re:Close the loop holes (0, Troll)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720024)

I am closest to being described as a democratic socialist, not a communist.

I agree that we spend too much...on the military. Our other spending is mostly things I would agree with except it doesn't go far enough. The top marginal income tax in the US used to be 90%. It's now less than half of that. Sorry that I have little sympathy for the billionaire who wants to keep 500M dollars. He's still not poor if he only has 10 million in spending cash at the end of the year. Meanwhile there are people starving and dying from lack of health care.

Combine our ever more regressive tax structure with rampant deregulation and corporate consolidation of power buying votes in our government and it's no wonder we're in such a mess.

Re:Close the loop holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719950)

If the entire country would switch from income tax to sales tax people as well as corporations would be taxed proportional to the amount they consume. If the tax is inherit in everything consumed there would be no way to get around it. Then, any operations in the U.S. by corporations would be inherently taxed to the extent of what they consume on operations. It might not be perfect, but it could be a good starting point.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719988)

Sales tax is one of the worst types of regressive taxes there is. I'd be in favor of removing it entirely. You're right in that it does tax consumption equally, but poor people spend a lot more of their income on things that have sales tax. Sales tax punishes poor people. Rich people can easily afford it. So unless you have some sort of sliding scale sales tax based on income, and I don't know how you would accomplish that, then it's not the right way to go.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720004)

As much as I wish it was that simple, a lot of these huge corporations just threaten to move overseas [crunchgear.com] (more than they are already) rather than pay taxes.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720020)

Make it too costly for them to do business here, they wont.

Re:Close the loop holes (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720096)

They will always, if given the choice, choose to make SOME money, rather than NO money.

Didn't I see this in "Deus Ex"? (5, Insightful)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719780)

Leo Gold: "Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people."
JC Denton: "Do you have a single fact to back that up?"
Leo Gold: "Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent."
JC Denton: "So?"
Leo Gold: "It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time."

Fictional conspiracies aside - WTF?

Re:Didn't I see this in "Deus Ex"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719876)

I just love DE. :mush:

Actually, you're retarded. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720022)

Corporations are taxed lower than individuals. This is no secret. The reasoning is that organizations are essential to maintaining productivity, and therefore jobs and individuals' quality of life. Corporations are much harder to reestablish after collapse than the wealth of individuals, and the large projects of today are not feasible without armies of employees. Designing a safe, fuel-efficient car, or running a chain of inexpensive fast food restaurants, or having a store like Wal-Mart exist, can't be done with a mom-and-pop operation. These venues provide our convenient quality of life. In other words, supply-side economics is the name of the game in today's economy.

Banks were bailed out, instead of individuals, because without banks there wouldn't be enough liquidity (credit) to sustain many large companies. Large companies rely on large credit lines to pay employees and sustain operations. If liquidity dried up, mass layoffs would ensue. Unemployed people can't buy as much, pushing spending down further, leading to a vicious cycle of lower spending and lower profits for companies, causing more layoffs This happened during the Great Depression, or so the conventional reasoning goes. Today, others suggest that the market could have absorbed the loss in liquidity, because markets today are much more efficient and a global village exists to sustain credit to one another. The US being the backbone of the world economy places it in a special situation though. It should be noted that the UK, China, India and Australia all bailed out banks during the recession.

What about bailing out individuals, not corporations? Main Street, instead of Wall Street? The equivalent would be a massive tax credit to people while taxing corporations no differently, and a hike in unemployment benefits. Higher unemployment benefits makes unemployment more comfy, and does less to restore worker productivity, leading to higher inflation. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - one could argue that the goal of a society should be to promote happiness, not progress, and that less driven economies make for happier people. I'd still believe that distributing mass benefits to individuals, while helpful in the short term, would lead to a massive socialist turn. If everyone's getting money from the government, who cares about working? This would include the loss of innovation, and dampen the importance of individual effort, and lower standards of living across the board. Yes, I sound like a capitalist shill, and like most capitalists I have an economics background. Bailing out the banks was unpleasant as Ben Bernanke said it to be (and he did say that), but it was the only pragmatic solution.

Re:Didn't I see this in "Deus Ex"? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720156)

Deus Ex was mentioned. Someone will reinstall it now.

(Not me... it's already installed here.)

nice to know there are drunken CEOs and CFOs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719790)

...possibly at this moment arm in arm singing "Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama, Angola, Grand Cayman, that's where I'll be dreamin..."

Transaction Tax would fix this (4, Interesting)

ForexCoder (1208982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719794)

We need to switch to a transaction tax like http://www.apttax.com/ [apttax.com] This would make sure that corporations like those paid their fair share of the taxs.

Re:Transaction Tax would fix this (0)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719868)

Yea...not so much. What you're talking about is "sales tax", and even if you removed all exceptions under "sales tax", you're still stuck with the clear problem that (1) it unfairly punishes sellers that focus on many small sales, (2) it unfairly punished buyers that need to make any small purchases, and (3) it does nothing to stop people from just bulk purchasing things so they only every make one "transaction" per month or year (which will only further encourage conglomeration and other creative tax dodging).

In short, there's a reason there's a focus on income and not transactions when it comes to taxation.

Re:Transaction Tax would fix this (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720060)

I don't know how is it in the US but in Hungary "sales tax" can be reclaimed by companies. (And I believe it's so in other EU countries as well.)

Re:Transaction Tax would fix this (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720124)

Uh, no. You clearly have ZERO understanding of the proposed transaction tax.

Re:Transaction Tax would fix this (5, Insightful)

kothmac (1609535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719910)

Wow, the APT tax is one of the worse ideas since FairTax. No thanks.

Re:Transaction Tax would fix this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720018)

Don't you mean "This would make sure that corporations raised their fees by a little more than the taxes took from them"?

The article was unreadable ... too many ads. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719808)

I gave up after 5 or six slides - I have *never* seen that many ads on a non-game site.

Support your economy!...right (2, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719826)

These are the same companies that want you to buy "local" products. Patriotic crap. They pay where its cheap, I buy where its cheap.

And that is the western economy in a nutshell (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720040)

And that is the western economy in a nutshell... well actually, that is the western economy up shit creek without a paddle.

I wonder what the romans thought just before their empire crumbled around them.

And don't worry, it ain't just the US. Holland was labelled a while ago as a tax-haven, while local companies dodge our taxes, how creepy can it get? If you drive across an industrial park, you quickly notice that almost nothing is being produced anymore. Everything is warehouses where boxes from China are shuffled around.

But don't worry, the knowledge and service industry will keep us all employed. The service industry like the banks. That need billions in government handouts to function (and this one wasn't the first) paid from taxes they don't pay themselves. Oh yeah, that is a long term plan.

But I have a very simple solution. No taxes without representation. Bill Gates and his tax dodging company no longer get police protection. Go ahead, do whatever you want with him. The tax payed systems of law enforcement are clearly not something he is willing to pay for.

Time to make it clear that being part of a country is an all or nothing deal. Don't like the tax rules, then piss off. Lets see how the likes of Microsoft and IBM really enjoy living in a tax shelter, with their families.

Halliburton HQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719842)

Halliburton is headquartered in "duty-free" Dubai.

Well....there IS a solution (1)

Kickstart70 (531316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719850)

*cough*end-scene-of-fight-club*cough*

Re:Well....there IS a solution (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719954)

Why are you coughing and being oblique?

Stop being a pussy and just say "We can solve this by destroying those companies."

You'd be wrong, of course. But sheesh, say what you mean.

Re:Well....there IS a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720028)

I thought maybe his solution was playing "Where is My Mind?" by the Pixies.

'twas ever thus (5, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719856)

The rich get richer, the poor, well, stay poor.
Nothing has changed since the times of Pareto...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto
(Take a look - the original '80/20' was 80% of the land was owned by 20% of the people)
These days, it's more like 90% of the world's wealth belongs to 10% of its population.

If you've got the money to have to worry about these things, then you can pay smart people to avoid tax.
Note I said avoid, (legal), not evade, which is not.

It is the duty of corporate officers to (legally) minimise tax burden.

It is the duty of governments to ensure equitable distribution of wealth, without discouraging wealth creation.

Guess who's doing a better job...

Re:'twas ever thus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719964)

"It is the duty of governments to ensure equitable distribution of wealth"

I don't think I've seen this in any constitution, but I think I know what manifesto this comes from.

Besides, the 10-20% are employing 80-90% (ok 70-80% right now), whether its directly on the payroll (like the aforementioned corporate officers) or indirectly through taxes (paid by said corporate officers and those all the way down to the proverbial mailroom) funding heavily staffed government institutions. If you don't pay a lot in taxes because you don't earn much but get lots of services from the Gov (roads, FDA, TSA, Police, Military, ...) guess who's footing the bill for that? Largely the 10-20%

Re:'twas ever thus (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719990)

FWIW, the constitution of India includes a promise that the government will endeavor to make the distribution of wealth more equal (though it doesn't guarantee an actually equal distribution).

Re:'twas ever thus (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720054)

Indeed. Note that I said above 'equitable' !='equal' which is utopian.
A point that AC seems to have missed.

Re:'twas ever thus (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720006)

"It is the duty of governments to ensure equitable distribution of wealth"

I don't think I've seen this in any constitution, but I think I know what manifesto this comes from.

Please don't misquote me, AC, by partially quoting me. You left out "without discouraging wealth creation".

I'm far from being a Marxist. Liberal, yeah, I can live with that.

If they want US Companies to pay US Taxes .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719862)

If people want US Companies to pay US Taxes, they should lower the corporate tax rate. As a small business owner, I put literally everything I have into my business and what little is left over, is eaten up by taxes. (It is a new business so it isn't "profitable" yet though that doesn't mean we don't pay heavy taxes on equipment which counts as "profit". Of course, it can be later depreciated but since most new businesses don't last 5 years, the chances of that are slim to be frank.)

Despite my companies current small size, I have great hopes for it and because of that, I'm already investigating various options for setting up over seas operations. (If I set it up in the EU, then I won't have to pay import taxes etc. which will save me 20%.) Any corporate officer who does not investigate moving at least a portion of their corporate presence overseas to achieve beneficial tax status as well as to achieve other benefits should IMHO be fired.

It was not long ago that Hershey's moved their California operations to Mexico. The papers at the time talked about the people out of work and how Hershey's was abandoning California. Hershey's didn't abandon California, California through their onerous taxes, requirements, and out of control spending (hinting at even more onerous taxes and restrictions) told Hershey's that they were not welcome. Hershey's did the only sensible thing -- moved to another location (in this case another country) where they were more welcome.

Perhaps one day the politicians will realize that companies aren't their piggy banks and that employers simply respond to increased taxes and restrictions by passing the costs along, laying off workers, or moving to a location where they are more appreciated.

Logically... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719894)

FTA: Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries,"

So, to attract tax payers, just lower the US taxes and those same companies (and maybe even non-US corps) will pull the same "shenanigans" to not pay the lower foreign taxes, but, rather, would make their earnings declaration in the US... whatever is cheaper, right?

Idiotic Article - Completely misses the point (0)

mattmarlowe (694498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719920)

Why does anyone care how much taxes companies pay? if a company is rich so what? The money is worthless until it is returned to the investors or employees, and then it is very highly taxed. Short of controlling the flow of money across national borders, I can't see why anyone should be looking at how much taxes the companies pay rather than how much taxes the individual investors and employees pay.

YOU pay corporate taxes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719926)

My lord people. Companies have to pass on the cost of producing goods and services to their customers. If a company is forced to pay more tax, it will simply pass those costs along to the consumer ultimately.

Screaming about getting companies to pay more tax is just begging the government to tax more money out of your pocket.

Re:YOU pay corporate taxes. (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720002)

No, they don't. Companies already price all their products at the highest price the market will bear--- if they could raise their prices, they would have already done so. Corporate taxes generally hurt their profit margins, and to some extent the compensation and bonuses of their top executives.

Which is why they're so against them, incidentally. If corporate taxes mainly hurt the consumer, and had no negative effect on the corporation's executives or shareholders, they wouldn't care, and wouldn't exert all this effort trying to oppose and avoid them.

I tend to be a Georgist in such matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719932)

Tax land (in the economic sense) rather than income. Companies can effortlessly shift capital, and even move labor, but they aren't going to move Malibu or Manhattan to Switzerland in order to avoid taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism [wikipedia.org]

Re:I tend to be a Georgist in such matters (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720086)

That makes no sense though. For example, farmers use a lot of land, yet their services are -very- valuable to humanity and on a whole they don't make too much money. It honestly takes no more power to protect and defend 1 acre of land as it does 4,000. The government should only be concerned with fraud and force.

People should be taxed in proportion to how much government they need. In general, people who own a lot of land are pretty self sufficient and don't need governmental assistance. Considering that the US is basically free from invasion and other threats, it makes no sense to tax people based on land, it simply doesn't add up. Someone living in an apartment owns no land, yet could very well be a huge drain on the government with welfare and other programs, yet they are paying nothing. Plus, there is -lots- of land available. Don't believe me? Take a drive through the Dakotas and Wyoming. While land may be at a premium in Europe or large cities, on a large scale, land is insanely abundant.

In short, people should pay for the government they use, as a whole, people who own more land use less government in the 21st century. When Henry George used his theory, you must remember the US government was handing out land left and right to railroad companies and getting other perks from the government. Georgism was a natural idea back then, more land meant you took more from the government. Today, that isn't the case.

One World Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31719946)

The solution is simple. All corporations, incorporated on Earth, are subject to the laws and regulations, tax scheme and military industrial complex of a one world government.
Force companies into space.
Force capital into investing offworld resources.
Outsource pollution to Mars.

Value Added Tax (2, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719984)

I like the idea of a Value Added Tax over income tax.

Imagine we have two scenarios: The US with a 20% income tax (both personal and corporate) and one with a 20% sales tax (not the same as VAT, but for simplicity sake we will stick with sales tax). In both cases we have a competitor country with a 20% sales tax.

In each scenario, imagine a good that costs $100 to produce in each country if there were no taxes

In scenario 1, an item that would cost $100 to make in the United States costs more as labor costs more due to taxes. It also costs a bit more as there is a tax on the company to make. Now, they ship it overseas were trading partner levies a 20% tax on the consumption of that item.

In the same scenario, foreign trading partner builds the thing for $100, no tax on the company, no tax on the labor. They ship over here for less than the U.S. can sell it for. Basically the trading partner gets a competitive advantage and forces down the price of items sold in its borders. It makes its money off of the US corporation.

In scenario 2, there is equality between the trading partners.

Now, a VAT would have to allow for some type of "kick back" to lower income individuals due to the regressive nature of the tax. But overall, it would go a long way to helping our economy and balancing trade.

Re:Value Added Tax (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720130)

People should only pay for the government they use. VAT is unfair in that respect. What did the government do to deserve 20% of what I buy? Income taxes also make no sense. What we need is a tax that people pay when they use government services. Received $3,000 worth in welfare? Once you get a steady job you are taxed until you can pay back that $3K you "borrowed" from the government. Drive on government roads? Pay a fee when you get your first care licensed*. Add in a town tax for fire/police.

Governments should follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do, if I don't have an Xbox does it make sense for me to pay for Xbox live which I will never use? No, of course not. Yet that is effectively what VAT and income taxes do.

*One person isn't going to drive multiple cars at the same time, so it makes little sense to tax someone more if they own 3 cars compared to 1 because the wear on the road is going to be about the same

Don't read that first link (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719994)

Don't click on that first link about GE's tax bill. It's worse than goatse.

Seriously, I think I'm going to throw up.

Tip of the iceberg (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31719996)

has its overseas subsidiaries license software to its US parent company in return for handsome royalties that get taxed at lower overseas rates

And thats only when you talk about taxes. How about foreign aid projects? Quote the job at domestic rates (it is a subsidy to local industry after all) then outsource the work to your subsidiary at half the cost. Funded internal projects: send your own managers to the offshore site to organise local implementation then invent reasons why the cost is going to rise. Hire consultants at the offshort site who actually work for you to siphon money out of the project. Put the operation on hold for the two days the Big Boss is on site. Keep him/her up all night with prostitutes, etc.

Endless fun.

An economic principle... (3, Interesting)

meburke (736645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720070)

..."What you tax, you get less of." According to legend, The Zhou Emperor (China, about 1100 B.C.E) laid a heavy tax on salt. Enterprising traders found they could dissolve 20 times the volume of salt in fermented soy. Since there was no tax on liquids, people became more accustomed to salting and preserving their foods in soy. Should the peasants have been "patriotic" and insisted on paying higher prices for the salt?

Lay a tax on items and services, and you will get less of those items and services; lay a tax on businesses and you will get less of those businesses. Yup, they will move to friendlier shores. (For those of you thinking about this, what are the implications for Health Care? Arithmetically, price controls are form of taxation, and the new Health Care Reform imposes both controls and taxes.)

At the present time, Americans in the USA have very favorable prices for petroleum products compared to the rest of the world. What would the cost of gasoline be in the USA if we had to pay taxes on all the oil revenues including the taxes on where the oil is produced? (My estimate is around 9.44 per gallon, YMMV.) Then consider the implications for the Chemical Industry and consumer products.

You want jobs? Jobs are provided by profitable businesses. The more profitable businesses there are, the more jobs available. The more jobs available, the more competition for qualified employees. The more competition for qualified employees, the better the wages, conditions and benefits. There are equilibrium points with in the system, but when non-productivity costs (like taxes) get too burdensome, it makes it profitable for business to put up with the hassles and expense of moving to those friendlier shores.

Obama has changed this (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31720076)

I do not know if its this easy to setup a tax shelter anymore by just buying a PO Box in Bermuda. Maybe someone here on / could enlighten me on the new tax laws?

Personally, I feel that these companies are scum but at the same time I feel that they are doing this because our government is scum too for charging too much in corporate taxes. I would like to see lower corporate taxes to help small business out. Regardless if you think its fair that they should be taxed at all, the small guy in your community with his mom/pop coffee shop can not compete agaisn't Starbucks if he has to pay taxes while his competitors do not.

This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31720090)

This is why I support terrorism...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>