Inquiry into how Apple, Google and Microsoft rob Australians by not paying Aus taxes

[eschwartz]

I don't think you get the point, HarryT, shalym.

The only morally justified law is the one that says politicians can define the rules after the fact. Anything else is blatant cheating on the part of evil multinationals...

[mr ploppy]

We had something similar in the UK, it led to Amazon being forced to increase the cost of its ebooks. This is what the UK government decided to spend all that extra money on:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...-election.html

I doubt any other country's government will be any less corrupt or self-serving. The extra money certainly won't be spent on extra nurses, doctors, keeping people out of poverty, or any of the other things people assume it will be spent on.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes. And if your moral principle is to pay taxes you should pay what is intended and not minimize according to loopholes you can get away with. You should not use a bug in the implementation.

Sometimes you also have a law that say that transactions whose only purpose is to reduce tax is not allowed.

So what are these loopholes?

It seems people do not seem to understand that if something is allowable under the law then it is not a loophole.

If something is not allowable under the law then it is illegal and those who do it can be charged.

It may be that the law does not catch some situations that in the opinion of some that it should do. In that case the need for change needs to be assessed on the basis of rational assessment of the needs and consequences; and that certainly not by laypeople who have no understanding of those things and, it seems, to be inclined to being conspiracy theorists.

So again what you are calling loopholes and please give technical tax, business and societal pros and cons of correcting each one?

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

This question coming from someone who has just (in a different thread) called the European Commission "socialist gnomes," wo "are running out of things to screw others with"?

Well if you believe that the EU government is centrist or to the right then I am afraid we will just have to disagree. However, I do think that you will find that the balance of informed political opinion is on my side.

If you are open to convincing then I suggest that you look, just as only one example, at the list of the various member states governing parties represented in the Council of the European Union. You will find that they are not as shy of describing themselves as being socialist as you are in describing them.

So yes, the EU is socialist leaning.

And if you are of the belief that the EU does not have a disproportionate number of member states whose economies are screwed up then again I am afraid we will have to disagree. But I suspect even a cursory knowledge of the woes of many of those states and their suffering populations will prove me correct. I suspect that many of those suffering would be less shy of regarding themselves as having been screwed than you seem to be in regarding their plight as being in that light.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

...I think that you've taken my comments as being aimed at you - nope!)

No offence seen by me Lynxy, so it was just point making on my part. For myself, I don't see you as one of the irrational noisy ones who are long on opinion and short on facts who appear in every such thread, and if I had of I would not have spent my time responding to you .

But I would be interested in any facts behind your reasons for regarding corporates that have been mentioned as thieves. While I have seem much in the media claiming they do not pay taxes that they should have I have seen no actual evidence that is so.

All I have seen is claims along the lines of comparing their revenues to tax paid rather than profit (which is what tax is assessed against) to tax paid, and so such claims are not relevant.

Just one example as to why it is dangerous to compare tax paid with revenue, some years back I was engaged to recover a subsidiary of a holding company which while its revenues were strong as it held a majority stake in its markets it was not profitable; a consequence of that was it did not pay any tax (both the holding company and the subsidiary were in the same country and quite ordinary in structure).

My suggestion to the board was that the subsidiary remove itself from a couple of its markets that had high costs associated with them; they were not very happy with that suggestion as it meant that a significant amount of revenue would be lost, however given they had no other answers they went along with it. The result was that action (along with some others) resulted in the company's revenue dropping by a significant amount but the company became profitable and hence became a tax payer.

So it is not rational to judge from the uniformed side-lines that because a company has what appears to be strong revenues that it is making strong, or any profits. But that is what I see most of those criticising the corporates in question basing their criticisms on strong revenues so should be paying more taxes.

As I have said, if corporates understate their profits for tax purposes by overvaluing deductible costs such as intercompany transfer payments (and let's keep in mind that they may be making what they think is an honest valuation based on the law and their opinion) then the law already provides remedies. Perhaps in some countries the Revenue has not been diligent in auditing such deductions, but that is not the corporate world's fault in any way at all.

[Demingy]

Originally Posted by tompe

This seems circular or strange.

What defines what the taxes are? Is it the intention of the system that defines it? Or is it the letter of the law. If it is the letter of the law you do not believe everyone should pay there taxes. You are just believing that everyone should follow the rules to the letter and if they can get away with not paying it is OK.

I think everyone should pay there taxes and if the people writing the laws mess up so loopholes exists you should still pay the taxes as intended.

I try not to presume to read anyone's mind nor assume that I clearly understand what the intentions are of governments in their laws outside of what is written. I think trying to determine what your portion of taxes "should be", especially as a multinational corporation, is absurd without consulting the "letter of the law".

[Dulin's Books]

Microsoft will soon be paying more Taxes in Aus. They are opening a flagship store in Sydney http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-c...north-america/

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Well if you believe that the EU government is centrist or to the right then I am afraid we will just have to disagree. However, I do think that you will find that the balance of informed political opinion is on my side.

If you are open to convincing then I suggest that you look, just as only one example, at the list of the various member states governing parties represented in the Council of the European Union. You will find that they are not as shy of describing themselves as being socialist as you are in describing them.

So yes, the EU is socialist leaning.

Well, though I wish it were, the European Commission is headed by Jean-Claude Juncker, who is a member of the European People's Party --to quote Wikipedia: "The European People's Party (EPP) is a European political party that was founded by Christian Democratic parties in 1976, though it has since broadened its membership to include conservative parties and parties with other centre-right political perspectives."

And, "The EPP has been the largest party in the European Parliament since 1999 and in the European Council since 2002. It is also by far the largest party in the current European Commission. The President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission are both from the EPP. Many of the Founding fathers of the European Union were also from parties that later formed the EPP. Outside the EU the party also controls a majority in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe."

Contrary to what you imply, I do not consider "socialist" to be offensive, just factually wrong in this case. "Socialist gnomes" I do think to be offensive, though.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A company which pay a small amount of tax and employs 1,000 people in Australia is a lot better than a company which is not based in Australia, pays no tax, and employs nobody.

You clearly don't understand Australian Government policy.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Microsoft will soon be paying more Taxes in Aus. They are opening a flagship store in Sydney http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-c...north-america/

Microsoft already has an operation in Australia.

The store may actually lead to a decrease in taxes paid, especially if it operates at a loss.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by murg

Microsoft already has an operation in Australia.

The store may actually lead to a decrease in taxes paid, especially if it operates at a loss.

All Multinationals operating in Australia make a loss. They only come here as a public service and because they feel so sorry for us stuck down here in the Southern Hemisphere.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by darryl

All Multinationals operating in Australia make a loss. They only come here as a public service and because they feel so sorry for us stuck down here in the Southern Hemisphere.

Some of them make a loss when they come down here, and a number of them seem to like Singapore's weather (or something) better.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

Well, though I wish it were, the European Commission...

You seem to have come adrift if you are responding to my claim; I referred specifically to the European Council, not to the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission, that you refer to, is the executive of the Union running its day to day business functions (the "back office" so to speak) and proposing legislation (as can some others); it is not part of the legislature that enables legislation.

The Legislature comprises the Parliament and the Council (the latter being that to which I referred). For those not already bored out of their minds there is list of the Governing Parties representing each state in the Council on the Council's Wiki page, for example.

For those interested in further painful self-flagellation there is also a fleet of Wiki (and other) web pages on the many and various institutions and agencies of the EU the entanglement of which defies easy sorting out unless much mental gymnastics is applied. All good socialist complication and over-governance stuff confusticated in order to centralise power. No wonder there is so little participation from voters in electing the Parliament (voter turnout is now under 50% )

Really, is off topic so no more from me on that.