How straight forward is it to fix licensing and fiscal laws in 30 “independent” countries which have their own agendas without introducing new loopholes?

I agree that it’s rediculous that the double dutch (irish) sandwhich is still legal, so they should work on closing that hole.

As a datapoint: "Apple's 2017 accounts showed they made $44.7bn outside the US and paid just $1.65bn in taxes to foreign governments, a rate of around 3.7%. That is less than a sixth of the average rate of corporation tax in the world." [0]

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787

That practice is not only the standard in accounting, but somewhat impossible to move out of. As I mentioned in another post:

Profit is a complex calculation when talking about cross-borders. If your company spends $20B in country A, $0 in country B, has revenue of $10B in country A and $10B in country B, how much profit did it generate in country B?

In a sane world: $0B

But we don't live in a sane world. All these multi-country tax schemes effectively mean that corporate profits can't be trusted to be reported accurately. It's easier to just stick the tax on revenue and then corporations may finally have an incentive to lobby to live in a sane world again.

Another option I can think of is for countries in the EU to set guidelines and impose harsh provision (a doubling of the tax rate, say) if a court finds that the guidelines have been breached.

It isn't right if Wall St is overjoyed at EU earnings, but the EU hasn't collected a dime of profit.

As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.

> As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.

That's perfectly right, unless you're suggesting that every country should have only local companies and should block every foreign company from operating there.

Not only it is right, it is very, very good for society. In the past 60 years, poverty went from 60% to 9% dues to that.

I'm not against foreign companies operating where ever they want but tax comes as a cost of business. If a company won't contribute to a nation it whether through taxes or investment it has no right to be there. It's effectively a parasite.

That doesn't make any sense. If your product costs 100 to make in country a and you sell it for 100 in country b, you're not having any profits.

But if you want to ignore that and charge non-existing profits in your imaginary country, go ahead, you're dooming your imaginary country to failure for not understanding basic economics.

Yes you are. Look I know you want to seen the big picture but that's not how it should work. If you spend money in country A that shouldn't give you the right to write of revenue in country B. From the perspective of country B you were profitable. If you want to write off revenue in country B then invest, pay taxes or don't do business there.

Countries don't need parasitic businesses like that. All they will do is undermine the economy and local competition.

Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all from a global economics perspective. You seem to want completely isolated countries with no international trade.

There's no such things as parasitic businesses, "right of revenue" or anything like that.

You're not even wrong.

See this is what I don't like about these kind of tech companies. They act like they're special and deserve special treatment. They aren't and they don't.

A company is fully within their right to choose how it spends money but the taxation should work on an individual nation basis. Why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue generated in country B?

Not sure I get your point. This is how accounting works, you need to allocate the actual costs of creating and operating a business.

And this isn't any special for tech. Tech companies are not asking for special treatment, they are currently treated like any other company in accounting terms. Governments are trying to treat them in a special way.

If you have a company that makes a chair in France for $20, ships it to Spain (let's day for free) and sells it in Spain for $0, how much profit did this company generate in each country?

This is exactly the same accounting as the tech companies, but their services have a very high fixed cost and a null variable cost, while the chair maker is the opposite.

But it wasn't sold for $0 in Spain. Its not right to be able to write off revenue from expenses of another country. Taxes are a cost of business. Again I don't get why it seems reasonable that country A gains at the expense of country B's loss. Why would country B want your business when you contribute nothing to their country/ economy?

Why would people in country B care about what the State itself or the vocal majority wants? Business is primarily done through companies, not countries. If avoiding the "cost of business" that is taxes is possible without getting a gun to the face it's how all rational businesses would act.

The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the same infrastructure the parasite gets for nothing. If anything the people of country B should care more.

Go ahead and close your country for foreign companies then, that has worked out well in exactly 0 times in history.

Your "parasite" analogy doesn't make any sense. Trade relationships add value to both sides, but if you wish your people to have a worst product for a higher price, go ahead and ban competition.

How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off?

As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses. All these charity efforts have done is undermine the local clothes and shoes production and market making it impossible for people to build businesses and create jobs.

If I open up a new fictitious nation to all trade and allow them all tax write off on investment in other countries then I don't get a prosperous nation. I get a basket case that cant compete with foreign existing industry, can't develop competitive local industry or employment, and likely stuck in debt because tax revenue would be so low.

> How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off?

It isn't "zero" at all. That's not how economics work.

There is an alternative where the "parasite" and the others both pay for infrastructure voluntarily instead of at the point of a gun. The dregs of society can just deal with it while valuable people live without being shaken down by State thugs.

I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .

Is it? That sounds like the subject of a Steve Yegge rant.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... (search for legalization)