I know better than to debate the merits of public spending with Americans, who for some reason see reducing funding as the only way to improve their government...
But why should Google benefit from tax evasion at the expense of most smaller businesses, who pay the normal rate of tax?
If Google paid their share, that's $2.4 bn less everyone else would have to pay to maintain the same level of service.
Or you could use the money to fund an American CERN, for example. (Because no private company funds such long term research.)
> But why should Google benefit from tax evasion at the expense of most smaller businesses, who pay the normal rate of tax?
You're assuming that because Google is being strategic in their tax planning that other people are getting hurt. This is similar to you having a good accountant who saves you money and thus are "cheating" the system because other people don't have as good of accountants.
Not to mention that it's easier than ever for small companies to operate multi-nationally.
I'd love for the people who want to lower taxes as a way to strangle the beast to push for something simple: remove all deductions from personal income tax. Nobody gets ANY deduction for anything. All income is taxed the same regardless of the source.
If we want less government spending, we should directly reduce government spending. This roundabout way of reducing income to reduce spending does not work. This is why I cannot trust anyone who says they think Ronald Reagan was a good POTUS. They are clearly either stupid or they have a huge ax to grind.
As far as the current situation goes, the only reason we have this situation is because of our overreach. If we limit our taxation to transactions here in the US, we'd not have this problem. Who gave us the right to tax worldwide income anyway? Does any other country tax worldwide income?
"All income is taxed the same regardless of the source."
That statement seems simple but isn't. For example, are you using the US definition of income (which specifically allows the deduction of certain expenses related to income-seeking activities)? Or are you using the plain English sense of "money coming in" (in accounting, the revenue number)?
If it's the former, you've already allowed lots of deductions in (raw materials, rent, utilities, salaries, sub-contracted labor, travel, etc), and for a sole proprietor or sub-S corporation, those are taken on the personal income tax return, schedule C.
Concretely, as an individual landlord, can I deduct the mortgage interest on my rental property, or the labor I paid to repaint and replace the carpets from normal wear and tear? Can I deduct the depreciation on the building, reflecting the fact that it "wears out over some characteristic useful life"? If not, why can the C-corp landlord right next to me do that and I can't?
If it's the latter (taxing all receipts), how do you treat businesses with low profit margins if you intend to tax them on revenue and disallow deductions for expenses?
Imagine an airline with massive fixed costs, large variable costs, and slim profit margins. If I pay $1500 to fly round-trip to/from Europe and they make a $50 real-world profit on that, at what rate should they be taxed on the $1500 of revenue?
How much more expensive will groceries become when grocers are taxed at double figure percentages against current gross profits in low single-digit percentages? (And not only the end grocer is taxed thusly, but every step along the chain that isn't vertically integrated will also be taxed that way.) How much will we help the poor and middle class if grocery prices double or triple? Will we now see a bunch of complaints of how Walmart is cheating because they bought up a bunch of farms and other elements in the grocery supply chain or if Coke or General Mills open up supermarket chains (thus minimizing the number of times the revenue is taxed)?
Most people who support lower taxes also support lower government spending. These are not republicans or democrats but people who mostly do simple math.
40% tax essentially means people are working for government from January to May and get to keep only what they earn from June to December. I think that is not the way a free society should look like.
I am all for paying taxes to build roads and police and courts. But heck I am not sure why I should pay for other people's food stamps, medicare and wars in Iraq.
If the system is complex enough to allow that then the system is unfair and should be simplified. Whilst it's unfair then the losers are absolutely hurt.
I doubt your local plumbing company has an HQ in Bermuda. Does the local convenience store license their IP through their subsidiary in Ireland? Has the taxi company a front office in Luxembourg?
Big players will always pay less irrespective of what people like Bernie Sanders might say. They have more resources to navigate the tax code. Plug one hole they will find ten others.
America is honestly not hurting for tax revenue; it's hurting for the will to pass laws that pull taxes from domestic wealth sources.
The U.S. isn't failing to fund an American CERN for lack of money; it's failing to do so because it keeps electing Congresses on the promise of lower taxes.
But why should Google benefit from tax evasion at the expense of most smaller businesses, who pay the normal rate of tax?
If Google paid their share, that's $2.4 bn less everyone else would have to pay to maintain the same level of service.
Or you could use the money to fund an American CERN, for example. (Because no private company funds such long term research.)