The flip side of this argument is that the companies are ripping the countries off by using myriad tax loopholes, because they can.

I find it interesting that the companies are often portrayed as smart for doing this, but politicians are jealous and incompetent. Almost like we worship businesses and malign government. I wonder whose interests that viewpoint supports.

>I find it interesting that the companies are often portrayed as smart for doing this, but politicians are jealous and incompetent. Almost like we worship businesses and malign government. I wonder whose interests that viewpoint supports.

Megacorps have been systematically screwing people for several hundred years. By comparison, most of the book of Exodus is a story about government systematically screwing people. People seem to prefer the devil they don't know right now. The arc of progress is long.

The anecdote is funny, but what does it have to do with anything?

One could argue that the statist systems in Scandinavia work quite okay... don't you agree?

I think many people here believe the correct thing for politicians to do would be focusing on making their own countries more competitive when it comes to having tech giants of their own, and they view regulations or taxes like this as being partially the result of 'sour grapes' that their own countries are less successful in this arena.

More competitive, OK. Who doesn't want their country to be more competitive anyway, whatever that means? Certainly no one in their right mind would argue to make it more diverse, more educated while we're at it?

How about you share how you think this could work? While I agree for more competitiveness for my country, history has shown me repeatedly that low taxes isn't actually working out that great.

Equating low taxes with increased competitiveness is to me dishonest as a generality. I'm certainly not opposed to admitting that it can work in some cases, but I can't agree to this as a general rule.

Why would it be lower taxes? All the major tech hubs in the US are in higher tax areas (by US standards). If lower taxes were the solution, you'd see Silicon Valley in Texas or Oklahoma or somewhere like that.

The fact that you commented against a proposal made by a parent made me believe that you were in agreement with it. Sorry!

The rub is what “more competitive” actually means. I get the feeling lots of people think it means lower taxes, but limited government also hurts a company’s ability to hire educated employees if lack of funding hurts education.

If being more competitive meant lower taxes, Silicon Valley wouldn't be in California, it'd be in Oklahoma or Kansas or Utah, or some other GOP state that pushes lower taxes.

>but politicians are jealous and incompetent

...well they did create these tax loopholes in the first place. That’s pretty much the definition of incompetence.

So are you arguing that corporations should pay more tax than they are legally required as a gift of charity to countries? If so, how much? What if a competitor decides to pay less?

The politicians in the US, Germany and France didn’t create the loopholes tech companies use in Ireland. The globalization of business is what allows maneuvers like the “Dutch Sandwich”. Taxation hasn’t really adjusted to this type of international tax avoidance. It will likely be a prominent discussion over the next 20 years based on the Panama Papers.

Corporates likely helped shape those loopholes, and viciously fought the legislation the entire way. Let's not pretend these corps are innocent victims here.