Big tech companies have been at the cutting edge of corporate tax avoidance(vice.com)
vice.com
Big tech companies have been at the cutting edge of corporate tax avoidance
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n7e8/silicon-valley-owes-us-dollar100-billion-in-taxes-at-least
74 comments
> ... singling out "Silicon Valley" seems strange.
Not to mention that two of the companies in their subtitle (Amazon and Microsoft) are not Silicon Valley companies.
Not to mention that two of the companies in their subtitle (Amazon and Microsoft) are not Silicon Valley companies.
Other industries employ a significantly larger amount of people. Ford has 85,000 employees. Facebook has 35,000.
It's a wealth concentration issue.
It's a wealth concentration issue.
The SCOTUS decision in Gregory v. Helvering supports tax minimization.
There is zero obligation for any individual or company to pay any more tax than they owe.
These companies all pay the taxes they owe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
There is zero obligation for any individual or company to pay any more tax than they owe.
These companies all pay the taxes they owe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
Make money. Buy law favoring yourself. Make more money. Buy more laws. Just because its legal, doesnt mean its ideal.
So the problem you've raised is with the government here, not businesses.
Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it?
As I see it, the founders did a good job with checks and balances relative to other countries, but if anything, they didn't go far enough.
There should have been a check on allowing anyone to favor any tax changes that they are not equally hurt by or that don't equally help everyone but themselves. One of the largest corrupting forces is that congresspeople and individuals can support taxes that others pay but not themselves. If you think something is worth being paid for, they you should also be among those that are paying for it. Anything less than that invites corruption.
Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it?
As I see it, the founders did a good job with checks and balances relative to other countries, but if anything, they didn't go far enough.
There should have been a check on allowing anyone to favor any tax changes that they are not equally hurt by or that don't equally help everyone but themselves. One of the largest corrupting forces is that congresspeople and individuals can support taxes that others pay but not themselves. If you think something is worth being paid for, they you should also be among those that are paying for it. Anything less than that invites corruption.
> Perhaps government should not have so much power that people have an economic incentive to corrupt it?
Seems dubious. Wealth, left to its own devices, is not known for trending towards equality.
And disempowering the government, while removing incentive for corruption, also remove one of the only checks on capital.
Seems dubious. Wealth, left to its own devices, is not known for trending towards equality.
And disempowering the government, while removing incentive for corruption, also remove one of the only checks on capital.
The press points this out because it's a new phenomenon. It's the new in "news."
Just because Walmart, Exxon and others are bad doesn't mean SV isn't bad. It just means tech companies also get to be called out when they misbehave.
Just because Walmart, Exxon and others are bad doesn't mean SV isn't bad. It just means tech companies also get to be called out when they misbehave.
Agreed. We could have single-payer and all the infrastructure could be well maintained if the big corporations paid the same rates the small ones did.
Instead we have kleptocracy.
Instead we have kleptocracy.
> tax-dodge just as much as Google
It isn't dodge. It's "cleverly follow the tax laws that are allowed".
What are top 3 tax loopholes that could get closed? One on hand, it sounds like robbery for companies to not pay taxes. However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?
It isn't dodge. It's "cleverly follow the tax laws that are allowed".
What are top 3 tax loopholes that could get closed? One on hand, it sounds like robbery for companies to not pay taxes. However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?
>However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?
Yes because it would reduce the economic power of corporations vs people.
The point of a tax system is only tangentially to provide goods and services. The main point is for it to stop the infinite accumulation of wealth at the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Capital tends to a gini coefficient of 1 when left to its own devices. Without the visible hand of government to stop that from happening the invisible hand of providence [0] reaches in and does it for us.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
Yes because it would reduce the economic power of corporations vs people.
The point of a tax system is only tangentially to provide goods and services. The main point is for it to stop the infinite accumulation of wealth at the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Capital tends to a gini coefficient of 1 when left to its own devices. Without the visible hand of government to stop that from happening the invisible hand of providence [0] reaches in and does it for us.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
>However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less...
This isn't a given, and most companies would rather pay the taxes and see less profit, than sabotage their labor and fold even quicker. If it's a blanket policy, I imagine you'll see an initial market shock, and then things will go back to normal. And that's all the people in charge really care about. Pay won't change because it's a supply/demand issue, or so I'm told.
This isn't a given, and most companies would rather pay the taxes and see less profit, than sabotage their labor and fold even quicker. If it's a blanket policy, I imagine you'll see an initial market shock, and then things will go back to normal. And that's all the people in charge really care about. Pay won't change because it's a supply/demand issue, or so I'm told.
Technology companies are able to dodge much larger amounts of taxes because their IP-heavy nature allows them to use constructions like the "Double Irish", which Walmart and Exxon can't do. It's worth mentioning that tax dodging is widespread, but also worth pointing out that tech companies can engage in the same behavior to a greater degree.
Best case - Politicians made rules. Companies took the most economically favorable (to them) interpretation of those rules as they could get away with.
Worst case - Politicians made rules. Companies bought ("Lobbied") politicians and changed those rules to make them as favorable as possible.
There seems to be something similar in both cases.
Worst case - Politicians made rules. Companies bought ("Lobbied") politicians and changed those rules to make them as favorable as possible.
There seems to be something similar in both cases.
I used to be married to a lobbyist, and the actual events are closer to this: Company lobbyists take a group of legislators out for dinner and drinks approaching the cost of rent for most Americans. Company lobbyists and attorneys (the venn diagram here is almost a perfect circle) write rules. Company lobbyists give company-written rules to legislative staffers on a relevant subcommittee. Company lobbyists attend 4- or 5-figure political fundraiser for legislators and discuss desired rules. The next day, legislator sees the agenda for the week, with a topic relevant to Company, and "draft legislation" already available. Company then takes the most economically favorable interpretation of rules written ~90% by them in the first place.
This is why the Tea Party wave was so devastating: not because of their ideology, but because they swept into office with little experience in policy or the topics they were then appointed to committees to govern. Compare to, say, AOC: much maligned, but who sits on an economics committee and has a degree in... economics (albeit a BA).
It's really, really important that our representatives have at least a modicum of knowledge, or else you get a rubber stamp machine instead of a republic.
It's really, really important that our representatives have at least a modicum of knowledge, or else you get a rubber stamp machine instead of a republic.
I'm no fan of them, but this paints the incorrect notion that the members of Congress in the Tea Party are a bunch of uneducated rubes and is pretty blatantly false. Current members[0] have the following degrees:
My point isn't to defend them, but to point out the dichotomy one can easily reach from reading your comment (Tea Parties are farmers that can barely read, similarly or less experienced legislators on the opposite end of the spectrum are not) is false.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_curre...
* BA, Finance + MBA
* BS, Journalism + JD
* BS, Political Science + JD
* BS, Computer Science
* BA, Forestry
* BA, Accounting + MPA
* BA + MS (no major listed)
* BA, Political Science
* BA, Political Science + JD
* BA (no major listed)
My point isn't to defend them, but to point out the dichotomy one can easily reach from reading your comment (Tea Parties are farmers that can barely read, similarly or less experienced legislators on the opposite end of the spectrum are not) is false.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_curre...
The rubber-stamp nature is why those corporatists were courted (and funded) to run in the first place.
When money is allowed to essentially buy elections, then a race-to-the-bottom is an obvious outcome.
When money is allowed to essentially buy elections, then a race-to-the-bottom is an obvious outcome.
Is it that both sides are mostly scumbags?
A 401(k) is also "avoidance". Are we next going to talk about all of the retirees and how much they "owe" us?
If the author wants to suggest a new law, then suggest a new law that would be a net improvement.
If the author wants to suggest a new law, then suggest a new law that would be a net improvement.
I bet no one on here is mad at the tax break companies get by offering RSUs, which is how a lot of Silicon Valley dodges taxes as well.
In fact most of these articles neglect to point out why the tax rates are what they are or offer specific policy prescriptions. I would at least respect them if they said something like "let's get rid of the R&D tax credit." SarbOx made stock grants an expense that is recognized so we could undo that which would greatly increase the net income that is taxable by many of these companies given their reliance on stock based compensation.
Without discussing which provisions (and they are actual laws, not loopholes, because many/most are intentionally there) we should be eliminating this is all just a lot of handwringing.
Without discussing which provisions (and they are actual laws, not loopholes, because many/most are intentionally there) we should be eliminating this is all just a lot of handwringing.
Exactly. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Any real discussion needs to get into specifics of which rules of the game are unfair and how they can be improved.
Reminds me of that episode of futurama where they almost become rich from being acquired by Mom. "I suddently have an opinion about the capital gains tax!"
The tax bill paid by new grads for their rsus is usually their first experience with non-income tax flavored taxes, and I think we have an incentive to ask for cash in leiu of rsus for that exact reason. Of course, not going to complain too mich.
The tax bill paid by new grads for their rsus is usually their first experience with non-income tax flavored taxes, and I think we have an incentive to ask for cash in leiu of rsus for that exact reason. Of course, not going to complain too mich.
What tax breaks do companies get by offering RSUs instead of cash?
No payroll taxes.
Which payroll taxes do you mean? I've seen Social Security (up to the limit), Medicare (no limit), and Additional Medicare (after $200k) being withheld from the employee side. I would assume that employer-side taxes are also being paid.
The employer medicare tax doesn’t max out.
The employee gets most of the benefit of RSU’s. They’re taxed as cap gains, maxing out around 23% while cash is taxed at the marginal rate, closer to 50% all in with state and federal and a FAANG salary.
The employee gets most of the benefit of RSU’s. They’re taxed as cap gains, maxing out around 23% while cash is taxed at the marginal rate, closer to 50% all in with state and federal and a FAANG salary.
Pretty sure RSUs are taxed as income when they vest. The employee has the option to automatically have a portion of those RSU withheld for tax purposes.
Then when the employee sells the stock, the diff from vesting price is naturally taxed as cap gains/losses.
Then when the employee sells the stock, the diff from vesting price is naturally taxed as cap gains/losses.
You’re correct, Schwab says they’re “almost always” taxed at vesting.
Payroll taxes typically max out short of the typical engineer base pay. The RSU comp would not generate more tax even if it was cash.
people who get RSUs in California pay about 50% (state plus federal) tax on it.
Where is that tax break again?
My read was that the _companies_ get the tax break. The employees get taxed to shit, but it's still better than not getting the RSUs.
I don't think that's true, other than the value of the RSUs being counted as an expense against earnings (like Salary would be).
I wouldn't be surprised if RSUs were not included in payroll taxes.
From the source:
"The Silicon Six and their $100 billion global tax gap, which examines the tax conduct of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft over the last decade."
One third of their companies are not based in Silicon Valley.
One third of their companies are not based in Silicon Valley.
Of course, those are clearly all Irish companies.
Population of potential US customers: 650 million
Population of potential world customers(minus US): 7.1 billion
But sure, let's pretend worldwide subsidiaries of those companies should not turn a profit outside the US.
But sure, let's pretend worldwide subsidiaries of those companies should not turn a profit outside the US.
I think the author is using Silicon Valley as a tech coverall. Which is silly, but doesn’t ruin the point IMO
I'm sure that's the point the article is making, not that these companies have been stealing from the american taxpayer for a decade
“Silicon Valley” is a metonym for the technology and Internet industries and has been for some decades now.
Next you'll tell me that Wall Street companies aren't actually on Wall Street.
"Imagine what sort of world we could have if the Silicon Six [gave the government more of the $15 trillion]."
The modern concept of wealth doesn't work that way.
If you transfer money from someone not likely to spend it any time soon (tax shelter) to someone who is going to spend it right now (the government), it works almost exactly like inflation.
And often the money isn't held in cash anyway. So, moving it to the government requires divestment. That divestment has consequences that are complex, and it's far from clear that the government would spend it better in every case.
The modern concept of wealth doesn't work that way.
If you transfer money from someone not likely to spend it any time soon (tax shelter) to someone who is going to spend it right now (the government), it works almost exactly like inflation.
And often the money isn't held in cash anyway. So, moving it to the government requires divestment. That divestment has consequences that are complex, and it's far from clear that the government would spend it better in every case.
That's only with a limited supply of product. Instead, I see a throwaway culture, where we have a surfeit of product such that anything not perfect is thrown away (safe but expired food, appliances with dents in them, electronics with a single broken component, etc.). Likewise, Americans suffer through services that run inefficiently, or go without services that don't exist because there isn't a critical mass of demand for them.
People are pretty good at coming up with good uses for an influx of money without crashing the entire system. That's the whole point of a market-based economy, right?
People are pretty good at coming up with good uses for an influx of money without crashing the entire system. That's the whole point of a market-based economy, right?
If what you want is inflation... why not just inflate the money supply more directly? What's the point of trying to do so through the tax system?
Let me flip that: why would you create more money when there's already plenty to go around, just that it's locked up in tax havens, and only used to allow the wealthy to live, effectively, for free? If inflation is a menace, why would we risk the absolute calamity that would occur if disappeared wealth was repatriated after we'd created a bunch more money?
Maybe I'm missing something super obvious, or I'm preaching to the choir; but why wouldn't it make sense to eliminate all corporate taxes; but also eliminate capital-gains-tax-rates?
I'm not sure you'd have a 100% wash, but it feels like it would be close enough that you could re-jigger rates to capture any short-falls (or drop them if you bring in too much).
It seems like it would:
- Eliminate the need for corporate tax firms / accountants - Reduce the incentives for industrial lobbying - Encourage hiring - Enable Businesses to save for "rainy days"
I'm not sure you'd have a 100% wash, but it feels like it would be close enough that you could re-jigger rates to capture any short-falls (or drop them if you bring in too much).
It seems like it would:
- Eliminate the need for corporate tax firms / accountants - Reduce the incentives for industrial lobbying - Encourage hiring - Enable Businesses to save for "rainy days"
How would corporations get taxed if you eliminated corporate taxes? You wouldn't want corporations to get taxed on their income/revenue/profits?
I'm not the OP but it's fairly simple: corporations wouldn't get taxed. Instead, shareholders would be taxed, as they're the ones who own the company and ultimately profit from the company's activities.
You could do this by increasing the tax rate on capital gains (dividends are already income if I remember US taxes right).
You could do this by increasing the tax rate on capital gains (dividends are already income if I remember US taxes right).
Instead of taxing the income twice at lower rates with loopholes (corporate tax rate => capital gains rate) it would only get taxed once, but at a higher rate (marginal tax rate) with relatively fewer shenanigans.
I think you might be missing the super obvious that it would take a law to do this thing that would reduce the incentives for industrial lobbying?
So I shouldn't hold my breath for term limit legislation to pass anytime soon either...?
:-)
:-)
Frankly, I’m happy as long as money is out of the government’s hands. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they can spend money way faster than they can generate it. What’s the point of paying more taxes if they’re just going to waste the money? Leave it in the economy and let the market sort it out.
That's encroaching into a false comparison. Is the money politician's 'waste' any less in the economy than the money the corporations spend? Of course not, it's still going to trade hands after leaves the government.
I feel there are two real issues here that the article (which is mostly just click bait) doesn't get into.
1. Are any of the companies violating current tax code? (i.e if they actually owe more taxes then the IRS should intervene)
2. How are they achieving these low tax rates? And when/should we fix the possible loopholes.
It's really stupid to get mad at companies following the letter of the law. We should be made at the politicians who refuse to close the holes. And who knows, if it results in companies just spending/reinvesting more money to still avoid taxes than at least it's more in line with the intent of the tax code.
I feel there are two real issues here that the article (which is mostly just click bait) doesn't get into.
1. Are any of the companies violating current tax code? (i.e if they actually owe more taxes then the IRS should intervene)
2. How are they achieving these low tax rates? And when/should we fix the possible loopholes.
It's really stupid to get mad at companies following the letter of the law. We should be made at the politicians who refuse to close the holes. And who knows, if it results in companies just spending/reinvesting more money to still avoid taxes than at least it's more in line with the intent of the tax code.
The issue is that it's not so much a loophole as it is a structural deficiency in the way international corporations are taxed -- it's supposed to be a tax on "profit" but it's straight forward to structure an international corporation such that its profits happen in whichever subsidiary they want. Then they naturally structure things so that profits accrue in a subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction.
The key to fixing this is to realize that VAT and corporate income tax are basically the same thing, except that instead of corporate income tax being paid to the jurisdiction where "profit" accrues (easy for a corporation to move around), it's paid to the jurisdiction of final sale (good luck moving all your customers).
The key to fixing this is to realize that VAT and corporate income tax are basically the same thing, except that instead of corporate income tax being paid to the jurisdiction where "profit" accrues (easy for a corporation to move around), it's paid to the jurisdiction of final sale (good luck moving all your customers).
Also, what some people call loopholes, others call incentives. The market is doing pretty well since the tax cuts, in terms of equity prices, wages and labor. It makes you wonder if the incentives (“loopholes”) are such a bad thing, or if they’re working as designed, and actually stimulating the economy.
Seems like an overly simplistic view. If you take your logic to the extreme why have taxes/government at all. It’s interesting to see people complain about government but never take action on making their government better. The saying you get the government you deserve rings true here.
I mean, I wouldn’t mind taking it closer to that extreme. Do we really need the hundreds of federal agencies and bureaucrats that are infesting our government right now? Or a defense budget orders of magnitude larger than other nations? Or billions of dollars in foreign aid?
Let’s not forget income tax was introduced originally as a temporary solution to raise funds for World War I. Long term, it’s only increased since then. At what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax increases?
Let’s not forget income tax was introduced originally as a temporary solution to raise funds for World War I. Long term, it’s only increased since then. At what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax increases?
Using words like infesting is what people who’re demonizing others do.
We’re currently living in the most peaceful era of human history, so maybe American hegemony isn’t terrible? There’s certainly been far less regional conflicts than ever before, I’d be hard pressed to find a decent reason how the world’s preeminent superpower wouldn’t play into that dynamic despite it’s missteps and overreaches which are very easy to point at.
And income tax rates, especially for the extremely wealthy have been consistently declining since their highs post WWII which also coincided with one of America’s most egalitarian and balanced periods socioeconomically.
Of course, now we have extremely low income tax rates for the wealthiest among us and near banana republic levels of wealth inequality with staggering statistics like the fact that 400 families own as much wealth in America as the bottom 150 million of it’s citizens.
If we look at current trends in the Democratic party, which tends to represent more individuals than the Republican party despite the latter’s outsized share of privilege thanks to the Senate, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, we’re seeing large sentiments of exactly the opposite “at what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax cuts?”.
We’re currently living in the most peaceful era of human history, so maybe American hegemony isn’t terrible? There’s certainly been far less regional conflicts than ever before, I’d be hard pressed to find a decent reason how the world’s preeminent superpower wouldn’t play into that dynamic despite it’s missteps and overreaches which are very easy to point at.
And income tax rates, especially for the extremely wealthy have been consistently declining since their highs post WWII which also coincided with one of America’s most egalitarian and balanced periods socioeconomically.
Of course, now we have extremely low income tax rates for the wealthiest among us and near banana republic levels of wealth inequality with staggering statistics like the fact that 400 families own as much wealth in America as the bottom 150 million of it’s citizens.
If we look at current trends in the Democratic party, which tends to represent more individuals than the Republican party despite the latter’s outsized share of privilege thanks to the Senate, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, we’re seeing large sentiments of exactly the opposite “at what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax cuts?”.
Long term, it’s only increased since then.
Not true.
Top marginal tax rates have mostly dropped over time. They peaked at 94% during WWII, then dropped into the 70% range for a while. Two more drops in the 1980s, first to 50%, then 28%. Since then, the top rate has bounced back to 38% or so (depending on how to calculate it).
Furthermore, federal tax receipts have hovered around 17% of GDP, regardless of marginal rates, over that entire period.
Not true.
Top marginal tax rates have mostly dropped over time. They peaked at 94% during WWII, then dropped into the 70% range for a while. Two more drops in the 1980s, first to 50%, then 28%. Since then, the top rate has bounced back to 38% or so (depending on how to calculate it).
Furthermore, federal tax receipts have hovered around 17% of GDP, regardless of marginal rates, over that entire period.
> bureaucrats ... infesting
Even if you disagree with their necessity, that kind of language is needlessly inflammatory. I mean, I know this is The Internet and all, but come on.
Even if you disagree with their necessity, that kind of language is needlessly inflammatory. I mean, I know this is The Internet and all, but come on.
Considering how much of the intelligence community and state department is working actively against the interests of the citizens it’s meant to serve, I’m not sure the term is entirely inappropriate.
Not all government expenditure is waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State
But it's also not hard to imagine equivalent scenarios of corporate welfare / graft. At some point, how different is it to give a corporation a bespoke $10B tax break, vs. wasting an identical amount in markup on a crony no-bid contract? Choosing the former over the latter is not necessarily any better.
It's entirely reasonable to default to skepticism with regard to government spending; but that's different than the Norquistian view that taxation and government spending is a a-priori evil or net-negative on outcomes.
But it's also not hard to imagine equivalent scenarios of corporate welfare / graft. At some point, how different is it to give a corporation a bespoke $10B tax break, vs. wasting an identical amount in markup on a crony no-bid contract? Choosing the former over the latter is not necessarily any better.
It's entirely reasonable to default to skepticism with regard to government spending; but that's different than the Norquistian view that taxation and government spending is a a-priori evil or net-negative on outcomes.
Seems like on every thread about regulation or taxes someone with a libertarian point of view has to chime in with this extremely orthogonal point to spread their views on government.
For one thing, you’re arguing simultaneously that the government is spending more money than it’s generating while also arguing that people should pay less taxes which seems extremely odd in back to back sentences.
For another you just toss in this implicit idea that government spending is wasted money.
That may be something you believe but it doesn’t appear to be the belief of most Americans or Europeans who enjoy things like public utilities, roads, education, defense, research, etc.
And finally, the point is, again, very orthogonal to the discussion at hand. It might be tangentially related but it’s an entirely different discussion.
This article is talking about how these mega corporations are using tax evasion strategies to avoid paying their fair share in the existing framework.
And your discussion is about reworking the entire framework, and feels slightly evangelical, and flippant.
For one thing, you’re arguing simultaneously that the government is spending more money than it’s generating while also arguing that people should pay less taxes which seems extremely odd in back to back sentences.
For another you just toss in this implicit idea that government spending is wasted money.
That may be something you believe but it doesn’t appear to be the belief of most Americans or Europeans who enjoy things like public utilities, roads, education, defense, research, etc.
And finally, the point is, again, very orthogonal to the discussion at hand. It might be tangentially related but it’s an entirely different discussion.
This article is talking about how these mega corporations are using tax evasion strategies to avoid paying their fair share in the existing framework.
And your discussion is about reworking the entire framework, and feels slightly evangelical, and flippant.
How is it any more evangelical than arguing that companies should pay for some nebulous concept of “their fair share?”
What is “fair,” if not what’s legally required of them? Is anyone suggesting that these companies are breaking the law or violating the tax code?
Btw, I would love it if the government could figure out how to spend money on “public utilities, roads, education.” And yet, our infrastructure is in an embarrassing state of disrepair, and our public education system is a laughingstock. Despite trillions of dollars that would be more than sufficient to fund these projects, nothing gets done. So why should I support giving them even more money? If the government could demonstrate an ability to allocate capital efficiently, then I could see the argument. But as is, they do a terribly wasteful job of investing it in projects that would actually benefit the public. Before raising taxes, maybe they should try rearranging the budget to prioritize projects that benefit everyone.
What is “fair,” if not what’s legally required of them? Is anyone suggesting that these companies are breaking the law or violating the tax code?
Btw, I would love it if the government could figure out how to spend money on “public utilities, roads, education.” And yet, our infrastructure is in an embarrassing state of disrepair, and our public education system is a laughingstock. Despite trillions of dollars that would be more than sufficient to fund these projects, nothing gets done. So why should I support giving them even more money? If the government could demonstrate an ability to allocate capital efficiently, then I could see the argument. But as is, they do a terribly wasteful job of investing it in projects that would actually benefit the public. Before raising taxes, maybe they should try rearranging the budget to prioritize projects that benefit everyone.
It’s evangelical because it’s being brought up in a conversation that’s not about that topic at all.
I'm of the opposite view: i'd rather have the money go to the government, which is accountable to me as a voter, rather than some board of directors which I will never have enough capital to impact in a meaningful way (either through my purchasing power or through share ownership)
It's not "out of their hands", they're just borrowing it.
It's not just SV. One major company I worked for had only one validation requirement on the code we checked in which was the ensure that the copyright header saying that the code was owned by the subsidiary in Lucerne, Switzerland was present. That had to be for IP and tax purposes because nothing else makes any sense to me why that would be so important. It was not a Swiss company. So all the code and business products of value were offshored to some tax-friendly locale. Although I never thought of Switzerland as being particularly tax friendly.
Well I'd just love for congress to increase the IRS budget again and then maybe they could actually audit a few of those companies
[1] https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook-...