Comment · Mon, July 23, 2012
Super rich hiding up to $32 trillion offshore, which amounts to roughly the US and Japanese GDP combined. Up to $280bn is lost in tax revenues. Some of the world's biggest banks are involved: HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America, UBS, Credit Suisse
What they were answering
[deleted] · 1 points
Your example is a false-dichotomy.
I suspect you mean something else. Or else I don't know what you mean by that.
It supposes that the bill is split equally, which is in no way the case for our tax system. It also supposes that I get more out of out system than others, or my company does, which is also incorrect. It is just an all around bad equivocation of what we are discussing. I see how you emotionally equated it though.
Well my example isn't exactly supposed to be an analogy for tax evasion. I don't think they're exactly the same thing, but my point is that both of those things are about the same level of "immoral" in my mind. Neither are outright malicious, but both consist of trying to game a system and shirk your personal responsibilities.
So what reasoning would you give for us to incorporate in a specific state if there is in fact no reason to other than what is in the best interest for the company?
Is there any specific place where your operations happen? Who is actually running the show? If there's no real "office" and you're running the show, then I'd suggest you should be incorporated wherever your home base is (probably where you live). On the other hand, I'd admit that having your business spread out does complicate the issue.
Tax Evasion- "Tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, corporations, trusts and other entities to…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
Ohh come on now, tax evasion is a very clear definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Evasion
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-evasion.html
I suspect I mean something other than false-dichotomy as well, but I cannot think of the word. In any event, your example is just applying emotion about one immoral/douche bag action, to another completely inequitable action. I would never participate in the split check run around in your example, and take some offense to you questioning my morality as such.
As far as my business is concerned, why should it pay Arizona taxes? It does not regularly do business here. It also does not benefit from any Arizona government program. I do, that is why I pay my own personal AZ income taxes, as well as sales and property taxes. The business is not me. Similarly, when I do business in Dubai, I am not protected by US corporate law. Yet I still pay the US income taxes on that income. I am actually getting less benefit from the programs in the US when I work overseas, yet I still pay the same amount. It's actually opposite to your dinner equation. My company takes all the risk when working overseas, yet the US still gets the same income from my company. If someone were to not pay me in another country, the US would do nothing, and has no authority to do so.
Let's take another company for example, Accenture. I regularly do business with them, so I know their operations and I used them as an example above. They too are a consulting company, with offices in almost every country in the world. They have almost 300,000 employees that move around to various projects that are currently going on. They are incorporated in the Caymans. So let's think about this now. Let's say they have a job in Zurich Switzerland that they spend 1 year on and make $10million. They pay all applicable taxes in Switzerland on the operations there. Then they must pay taxes on the profits where they are incorporated too. The United States provided no benefit, no laws, and no security for the money on that project. If Accenture was incorporated in let's say Nevada, then they would pay $0 state, but still owe the US government massive amounts for ZERO benefit. Why should they be expected to do this? They are a multinational corporation. Any US workers that worked on that project will still pay their income taxes to the US and any state that they live in. Why should the corporation be expected to do the same? Now if Accenture does a project in New York, they do pay a percentage of US taxes on the work there. That is how these things work. Expecting a company to incorporate in a specific state or country, for no other reason than the knee-jerk emotional response to the lost revenue, just does not make any sense at all!