Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in taxes than they should? That would be absurdly negligent on the part of everyone leading the company.
Would an individual pay $500 more in taxes than they are required to out of the goodness of their heart and belief in the American government?
Don't indict corporations for following the tax code, change the laws.
I've done it. I also let the shopkeepers make "mistaken" change when I visited Nepal. Sometimes I tip $5 even when I buy less than $25 worth of food at a restaurant. Maybe I'm a moron, but I think of money as a tool and when I can afford it I am happy to help others accomplish their goals. In the case of taxes many of the government's goals are aligned with mine so I'm even happier to contribute.
Do you think $500 extra to the federal government will do as much good as you directing that $500 to specific individuals or families that could really use it?
Sure, don't indict them, just please, please recognize them for exactly what they are: soulless, inhuman, profit maximizers that will take every inch afforded to them by the law (and sometimes more). You gotta watch them like a hawk and don't believe their statements to the press.
Let me know when you invest your savings in a company that returns lower profits because they refuse to pay lower taxes, even if they legally could.
And let me know when you find a tax deduction that could save you money, but you decide to not take the deduction and pay more taxes.
My takeaway from that comment was, to expect that behavior and ensure legislators write and enact laws that establish effective corporate governance.
This isn’t a “statement of the obvious”, it’s a somewhat popular misinterpretation of the fiduciary duty owed by a corporation to that corporation’s shareholders.
Do you feel the same way about every person that takes an income deduction?
So closing the loophole will force companies to raise wages and invest in R&D, instead of keeping it in offshore accounts or giving to the government.
Isn't there? I thought shareholders has a legal remedy if they believed companies weren't maximising return?
I wouldn't have done in the past before Google hired lobbyists, but if they're sending people to Washington to "help" draft laws then pretending that they are not culpable is simply dishonest.
> Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in taxes than they should?
What do you mean, 'should'? They 'should' pay the amount that is expected of them - the amount proportional to their profits. Each corporation should pay what is expected of them in full. This would produce is vastly more stable economy which would then let those corporations earn more money. It would benefit the shareholders of every corporation to have a stronger and stabler US consumer base than to have a crippled middle class like they create by not paying their taxes.
Yes, of course Google should have paid that $19.2B.
> Would an individual pay $500 more in taxes than they are required to out of the goodness of their heart and belief in the American government?
Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes.
I read it as something like 'are required to by law.'
> Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes.
I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?
I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes.
> I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?
If you have more money than necessary, and you know that others don't, and you know that a good portion of your taxes goes to helping others, the rational thing to do could be to help out and not attempt to claim every tax break and benefit you could. I'm not saying that's always right, I'm saying it can be rational for people to do it.
Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations. This is a classic tragedy of the commons: if people and companies paid taxes as due, we would all be better off for it. The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes, not use offshore secret hideouts to avoid improving your own country.
Your list of conditions for rationally paying more taxes hinges on so many assumptions that it's a moot point. You might as well say it's rational to burn money in a fire.
If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly, and you know that corporations will keep it instead of paying higher wages to workers, and you know that non profits will eat the majority of it in overhead before it helps people, and you know that decreasing the amount of money in circulation will cause the value of all money to increase, you should rationally set fire to your extra cash.
You don't pay taxes so that governments can spend money. Governments can spend as much money as they like - they print the damn stuff.
The economy would function precisely as it does now if every dollar paid in tax were burned and every dollar spent by the government were printed.
Taxes paid to extinguish money. It is supposed to be deflationary - a transfer of wealth to everybody else spending money in the economy.
Even discounting local and state governments, which use tax dollars to fund themselves and can't print money like you describe, even the federal government doesn't work like that.
Of course it is, and then both individuals and companies have the option to make voluntary payments as charitable contributions or to support local institutions--as many universities to to their municipalities.
You can see it in the statistics on life expectancy, infant mortality, and average height.
Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.
> The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes
The difficulty is in defining "expected." If the tax authorities give your return the green light, in what sense did they "expect" more? If your definition of expectation isn't about the letter of the law but the spirit, then whose spirit (amongst the many lawyers, accountants, and executives) should be followed? This doesn't even touch the issue of fiduciary responsibility, covered elsewhere in the thread.
It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company.
It's clear cut.
> Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.
Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.
>It's clear cut.
See, that's the thing; it's obviously not clear cut to other people.
There's a very reasonable (IMO) position that a taxpayer is merely obligated to comply with the law, but is not similarly obligated to structure their affairs in such a way as to maximize the government's take.
Also, charities don't bomb the living shit out of strangers around the world.