Congratulations on living off of the backs of litteral slaves un the gulf emirates
But hey! At least YOU aren't paying them filthy taxes
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Corporatism]: Pfizer "acquired" for $160B, now free from the need to pay taxes
- Thread starter Xisiqomelir
- Start date
- Status
But hey! At least YOU aren't paying them filthy taxes
Gareth Bale
Member
I'm sure Allergan employees are delighted at another acquisition just so Pfizer can pay less corporate tax than they are already paying
Yes following laws that were not intended for said use or that were explicitely created in a distorted way by lobbying. All the while using the base framework of societyfor which the large majority of people still have to actually pay taxes. And those benefit from society a lot less. I wouldn't that exactly "following laws", more like abusing society with money to make their dominance even greater.
Melchettsmoustache
Member
This thread is a little strange. A company is basically moving its base to Ireland so as to avoid paying tax on profits it realises in countries other than the US and people are pissed?
Who wouldn't do this? The company will still pay tax on US profits, UK profits or any profits it makes in other countries.
It's nonsensical to pay more in tax when you don't have to and I'd suggest that it's a bigger issue on the US corporate taxation system that they're trying to tax profits in foreign countries.
Slightly off topic, businesses pay for many things that the public simply aren't aware off. In the UK I pay a host of almost stealth taxes now that I didn't pay on PAYE ( a fee to have a radio or sound system on in my office, a fee to be listed as an information holder, a whacking great big tax to have a shop frontage etc) and that's before we touch on the fact that banking costs me ten times more through my business transactions than it does in my personal transactions. I realise that many lean far to the left and feel that business is the route cause of many of society's ills however I would argue that the world would be a significantly more difficult place to exist in if it was for business and small business keeping liquidity flowing.
I should say that I was aware of all of these things when I decided to start my business, I'm not looking for a hug or a kind word here, simply pointing out that just because businesses can make huge sums of money it's not their responsibility to sort out societies problems or to hand all of their gains to the state. Tax planning is a sensible practice and I would be surprised if the majority, if not all, would utilise it if it applied to them and was in their ability to make use of it.
Who wouldn't do this? The company will still pay tax on US profits, UK profits or any profits it makes in other countries.
It's nonsensical to pay more in tax when you don't have to and I'd suggest that it's a bigger issue on the US corporate taxation system that they're trying to tax profits in foreign countries.
Slightly off topic, businesses pay for many things that the public simply aren't aware off. In the UK I pay a host of almost stealth taxes now that I didn't pay on PAYE ( a fee to have a radio or sound system on in my office, a fee to be listed as an information holder, a whacking great big tax to have a shop frontage etc) and that's before we touch on the fact that banking costs me ten times more through my business transactions than it does in my personal transactions. I realise that many lean far to the left and feel that business is the route cause of many of society's ills however I would argue that the world would be a significantly more difficult place to exist in if it was for business and small business keeping liquidity flowing.
I should say that I was aware of all of these things when I decided to start my business, I'm not looking for a hug or a kind word here, simply pointing out that just because businesses can make huge sums of money it's not their responsibility to sort out societies problems or to hand all of their gains to the state. Tax planning is a sensible practice and I would be surprised if the majority, if not all, would utilise it if it applied to them and was in their ability to make use of it.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Bring that tax money to Ireland, thnx.
The salt directed at phatmichael is hilarious. If I could get away with not paying taxes you're god damn right I'll do it.
The salt directed at phatmichael is hilarious. If I could get away with not paying taxes you're god damn right I'll do it.
And that kind of thought is harmful to society as a whole. The world is bigger than you and your Xbox. Greed is not a good color on anybody.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Wait there's more to the world than myself and my Xbox? Interesting.
I don't particularly like paying taxes. If there was opportunity to not pay taxes or pay less taxes legally I would absolutely available of it. All the snarky comments in the world doesn't change that fact.
Melchettsmoustache
Member
I wouldn't argue for paying no taxes as that's self defeating. Certainly here in the UK with the NHS being intrinsically linked to taxation I'd end up swapping my tax for an insurance policy. However where I have a problem is with the politics of envy that surround high tax earners. A friend of mine earns £120k a year as a systems analyst. Including national insurance he pays just under £50k per year in direct tax yet I read that people think he should pay much more because he can. I simply don't think that's how it should work, he has a great job, he's paying more than most couples do himself but the left believes he should be handing even more over.
speshylives
Member
Allergan shed anything that would have been close to an overlap by selling all of their generic side to Teva a few months back (Allergan was bought by Actavis, and then Actavis pretty much sold anything that wasn't Allergan/Forest off.) This was a deal long in the making, starting with Actavis' purchase of Forest. Basically, everyone internal figured this was the end game, it was just a matter of when.
Of course my comments arnt going to change you, only YOU can change YOU. And yet even someone so selfish doesn't seem to see that.
To each their own...
PanicFreak
Member
I'm sure you voluntarily overpay on your tax bill, right?
Just because you have a good job and are earning solid money, try not to let the greed get to you. Yes their allegiance is to their shareholders, but there's also a moral responsibility and obligation that we all have, especially those of us who earn more or are far more successful, and that is to give back to the people and the system that allowed us to prosper in the first place.
Moves like this, and being particularly sly with tax liability reduction, not only limit the amount these companies re invest via taxes, but give them a further competitive edge. The big players get bigger, and the smaller and medium sized fish get swallowed up whole or do not have a hope in competing.
Not voluntarily but I do overpay considering my income (which is entirely from my shitty job) is taxed at a higher rate than those who make money off of capital gains.
If I made enough money to live comfortably I'd be more than happy to help those who didn't. The average person doesn't have a problem with taxes. The average rich person does.
We got a fucking defense force for multi billion dollar companies that evades taxes...
This is just awful and sad
HoodWinked
Member
its more a matter of fact than defense. its like if water was flowing and there was an outlet running level or one with a downward slope, the water would flow down slope. corporations are like water they just go where its cheapest to operate.
if you're against this it's actually more pragmatic and productive to look at what caused this to occur.
Darren870
Member
You mean a defense for for multi billion dollar companies evading double tax.
A lot different and not sad.
What?
What are you talking about? That's not what happens with mergers, you wouldn't lose money unless the market thought it was a crappy move. Even then you wouldn't lose all your money.
Why would you think that?
Before they do it with corporations they should do it with their citizens first. The US tax laws are so credulous for expats.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I'm nowhere near rich and I would prefer not to pay taxes. I'm an anomaly then?
No you're part of the problem. When everyday folks rationalize and propagate the selfish and greedy nature these corporations show you're saying it's "okay". And it is simply not.
If they were paying their fair share you wouldn't have to be paying a disproportionately unfair share. (Capital Gains vs. Income Tax)
Schools, infrastructure, everything is paid for by taxes. Do you now want nice things? Do you not think those who take advantage of these things should contribute so others can have the same opportunity?
Rktk
Member
You say that but if the system is such that companies can legally pay very little tax then the problem is with the system. If governments really wanted to shut down tax havens they would be shut down.
So you'd rather benefit from all aspects of society without paying for any of it?
You do realize that's entirely unworkable, right? Taxes are also cheaper than paying tolls and fees a-la-carte.
Extra Sauce
Member
Lawful =/= Right
Of course many in Government don't want to reform the tax structure. They're also making millions themselves off it.
I think most are well aware that our bought-and-paid for politicians don't work in the best interest of their constituents.
Rktk
Member
I agree, but I think having a go at Google & Starbucks (or an individual using whatever clever accounting method to pay less than most) really gets away from the fact that they act legally and in the end their responsibility lies with their shareholders. I think it's largely a waste of time to make a moral argument, sure I'll try not to support said companies where I can avoid it but I don't expect a company or individual to pay more tax than they absolutely have to.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Kev, I really appreciate your posts (and from other posters as well), they have really taught quite a bit about economy (a topic I know virtually know nothing about), and was actually wondering what can be done to address this kind of thing? What has to be changed specifically?
Also, is there anything a layman like me can read to educate himself in the topic?
A moral argument is all you can make because what they are doing is legal. They pay someone to write a law that favors them, then give it to the politician they helped buy and it all hurts us in the end.
Just keeping quite and letting it happen cause its legal is ridiculous. Things don't change unless we fight for it. For that reason alone you shouldn't expect a corporation to be morally responsible but you should at least expect yourself to be so.
Rktk
Member
I think not giving money to (buy from) a company that aggressively avoids tax is something, and I think there is a moral argument but that's for government since unlike a company they are supposed to represent and act on behalf of the public, one of the few things you can do is vote and participate.
As for what I expect of myself, that's for myself, I wouldn't berate someone here for not wanting to pay taxes, they aren't the problem.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I understand fully why and how a tax system works.
I've also seen the ugly side of the system first hand. Like you say the corporations are the ones benefitting from this, not us. So me saying if I could get away with not paying as much tax if I could still stands. Why give any degree of a shit about a system that never gave a shit about us?
The system (for lack of a better word) facilitates all these loopholes and ways to avoid higher taxes, and then hurts the people at the lowest end. The whole thing has always felt disproportionate to us, seems it always will. At this stage "fuck it" is what we are conditioned to feel.
Call me greedy, selfish or whatever other smartass comment you want. I'll still have no faith in the system ever being fair.
I appreciate you for adding to the conversation. I wish more people would educate themselves on economics so they can see how these mega corporations are shaping our decisions, our outcomes, our whole lives.
You simply cannot avoid giving money to these companies because they are so big and unwieldy that they have their paws in every facet of life. You're going to avoid buying medicine?
I will have to disagree on your last point for the reason I stated above as I do believe it perpetuates the greedy behavior.
While this conversation has devolved into a moral question I think a more factual one we should be having is about the reality that we do not have a government anymore. At least not one "by the people, for the people..." but one that works solely to facilitate the rich staying powerful while the rest of us stay poor and weak. Morally, economically, environmentally and all the other ways we have sold each other and this planet out.
I'd love to have a conversation about Capitalism and how it only works to de-humanize us all but I'll save that for another thread and another time.
I'm with you on the broken system but an "eye for an eye" and all that. It doesn't change until we change ourselves.
Probably the best and easiest description to understand I've seen.
There's a reason other OECD countries have lower tax rates, maybe the U.S. should follow suit.
I think you misunderstand what is going on here. This is not writing a law that is favorable for them. If they could do that, they would get the US to adopt the similar system adopted in most of the developed world (no taxation of foreign profits outright). They do not benefit from the current system which requires jumping through a lot of hoops to arrive at a similar result as foreign competitors. This is why they move to foreign countries, not because they have convinced the foreign country to adopt the principle to not tax foreign profits, but because that is a general principle followed by developed countries that are not the US.
The most logical solution is to end global taxation and implement a territorial taxation regime like the other countries.
In the US, it's like this:
Income earned in the US: taxable by the US government
Income earned abroad: taxable by US government
For most other developed nations, it's like this:
Income earned in the US: taxable by the US government
Income earned abroad: taxable by relevant jurisdictional authority
The US should try to simplify the code by eliminating deductions and loopholes and move to a territorial system.
Ian Read, who IMO is a douche and a paper pusher and NOT a scientist, says Pfizer is competing against Novartis, AstraZeneca, Glaxo, Roche, etc., with "one hand tied behind [their] backs." How is he wrong?
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
So, in this way it would allow companies to use the cash deposits they have to invest in the same nation or at least pay dividends to shareholders, which can be reflected in income tax and therefore more money for a nation's treasury? (I'm sorry if I'm being too ignorant on the topic)
BTW, is that question directed to me? I can't tell heh.
No, sorry, just in general. 
It would allow corporates to move money around the globe freely (provided there are tax treaties between the two countries, I think, and in most of the developed nations there are) without additional taxation. The US is really the only country I think that has this issue.
There is, I guess, the possibility that money returned in the form of dividends would get taxed again as personal income. So yeah, it would create more tax revenues for the government than under the current scenario where it earns squat.
It would allow corporates to move money around the globe freely (provided there are tax treaties between the two countries, I think, and in most of the developed nations there are) without additional taxation. The US is really the only country I think that has this issue.
There is, I guess, the possibility that money returned in the form of dividends would get taxed again as personal income. So yeah, it would create more tax revenues for the government than under the current scenario where it earns squat.
I was talking more about corporations (and anyone) in general avoiding taxes and not this specific case. But I got a little off topic at the end cause I have a hard time with those who justify this kind of thinking. Really I'm just trying to challenge our relationship with greed and why we allow it to preserve. I can't control governments or businesses or any human but I can make sure my voice has a chance of being herd.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I should find an Irish family to adopt me so I can become an Irish citizen to avoid paying US income taxes.
If corporations are allowed to do this, why can't private citizens?
If corporations are allowed to do this, why can't private citizens?
You can renounce US citizenship if you want to.
But (this is a whole other topic) it may be reasonable for US to follow other developed countries and not tax the foreign income of their private citizens.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
No, sorry, just in general.
It would allow corporates to move money around the globe freely (provided there are tax treaties between the two countries, I think, and in most of the developed nations there are) without additional taxation. The US is really the only country I think that has this issue.
There is, I guess, the possibility that money returned in the form of dividends would get taxed again as personal income. So yeah, it would create more tax revenues for the government than under the current scenario where it earns squat.
Awesome, thanks for helping me understand!
I literally received a letter by Pfizer themselves that failure to sell my shares by a certain date would lead to their forfeiture. Possible its unrelated I suppose.
The acquisition hasn't even gone through all the approval processes. Maybe you should re-read the letter?
Went back and checked the paperwork because you had me paranoid now. It is definitely unrelated. Forget my previous statements.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
"Corporatism" is a word that has a definition that is not "pro-corporate policies". Corporatism refers to a policy rationale in several countries, most notably continental Europe, where major actors in society are brought together for a negotiation-based policy session. So rather than government dictating policy from on high that affects labour movements and companies alike, they act as facilitators for information exchange between labour movements and companies. Another example would be that you want to make policy on food, so you invite the farmer's collective, the food processing companies, the food retailers, and the restaurants association, as well as various workers unions associated with food-related jobs, to the table.
Now, corporatist governments can end up with pro-corporate outcomes, but they can equally end up with anti-corporate outcomes. This speaks to the danger of just adding "-ist" to a word to mean "things I don't like". Corporatism largely stems from classical conservative (i.e. Burkean) notions of players' roles in society, rather than classical liberal (i.e. most of what America calls conservative) notions of market economics and reverence towards business.
Doing a brief search on GAF, all the results I find are people saying "corporatist" to mean "pro-corporate". And if you're like "semantics, semantics, you know what it means, it obviously meant pro-corporate", then my response would be that one of the best ways we can actually talk about public policy is to understand it in comparative perspective. By understanding how different societies answer questions of fairness, we can make our own more fair. So when something like this comes up and the myopia of American politics is more obvious, I think that's the best time to encourage people to think about how other countries operate.
Now, corporatist governments can end up with pro-corporate outcomes, but they can equally end up with anti-corporate outcomes. This speaks to the danger of just adding "-ist" to a word to mean "things I don't like". Corporatism largely stems from classical conservative (i.e. Burkean) notions of players' roles in society, rather than classical liberal (i.e. most of what America calls conservative) notions of market economics and reverence towards business.
Doing a brief search on GAF, all the results I find are people saying "corporatist" to mean "pro-corporate". And if you're like "semantics, semantics, you know what it means, it obviously meant pro-corporate", then my response would be that one of the best ways we can actually talk about public policy is to understand it in comparative perspective. By understanding how different societies answer questions of fairness, we can make our own more fair. So when something like this comes up and the myopia of American politics is more obvious, I think that's the best time to encourage people to think about how other countries operate.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Why is it bad news for the US? This tax hurts public interest, harms purchasing power, and distorts things in ways people don't want i.e. higher prices than otherwise, lower wages than otherwise, etc. And given the performance of Ireland's economy and inflation since 2008, I'm not sure how increased tax collection will help solve Ireland's serious problems.
- Status