7 ms·

There's a difference between using legal tax structures to reduce (or eliminate) your bill, and simply not paying your taxes.

• mcantelon 13y ago
  The end result is the other guy has to pay your fair share of the taxes.
  • gtCameron 13y ago
    So how do you define "fair share" if it is not defined by following the tax laws as written?
    • mcantelon 13y ago
      Fairness is defined by law? Interesting idea. By "fair share" I mean, unsurprisingly, a share that is fair. Corporations are subject to taxation. A corporation that makes healthy profits, in part driven by publicly funded infrastructure, should be required to give back to maintain said infrastructure.
      • grey-area 13y ago
        Typically corps accused of avoiding tax earn no profits after their myriad coats are applied, that's how they avoid taxes. While governments could probably do more to charge corps tax, this is a complex grey area and there is no simple way to define fair or collect taxes as accounting rules are so complex. If you tax revenue you penalise new companies, if you tax profit it is easy for corps to find costs or transfer funds to shield profits.
        • mcantelon 13y ago
          They play lots of shell games to hide the profits, yes, and it is complex. I'm more talking more about the big picture than specifics because, as you point out, this is an involved topic which involves a great deal of money. A lot of effort has gone into creating arguments to justify the idea that workers should have to pay all costs of public infrastructure.
    • smtddr 13y ago
      I would say "intent" of law, rather than what actually happens. e.g., the reason we call tax loopholes, "loopholes", is because the consensus is that they're being used to defeat the intent of law. Megacorp with a shell company of zero employees in Ireland using the double irish[1] I think means the company isn't paying their "fair share". 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement