SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the luxembourg-shuffle-fulfilled-by-amazon dept.
In 2012, something like US$80 billion worth of multinationals' profits worked on their suntans in Bermuda, according to an international report into profit-shuffling and tax avoidance.
Oxfam, the Tax Justice Network, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, and Public Services International have put their heads and wallets together to fund a report into how multinationals are picking the pockets of G20 nations.
In one way, it's no surprise: the world's top economies are, pretty much by definition, the places where multinationals will make the most money. However, they also have the best resources to try and get companies to pay their taxes, and if the Oxfam et al report is accurate, they're getting gamed hand-over-fist.
The report says just twelve countries (the USA, Germany, Canada, China, Brazil, France, Mexico, India, the UK, Spain and Australia) account for 90 per cent of US multinationals' “missing” profits.
Those profits get processed through various implementations of the “Irish-Dutch sandwich” to be booked in low-tax countries like the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Bermuda.
If the numbers are accurate (the report's authors put a number of caveats on the data), then between $500 and $700 billion gets shuffled around in this way, which is how Bermuda found itself home to $80 billion worth of profits in 2012 (its GDP in the same year was a paltry $5.47 billion).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:21PM
Nice that you put the EPA in the data collector argument... Apparently, the EPA trusts it's customer's data so much they don't need to check tailpipes. So oppressive...
I didn't say data collector. EPA games are more invasive and disruptive than that. For example, consider these three things: liability for pollution, wetlands, and the emissions ratchet. The EPA is notorious for creating tremendous pollution liabilities for lawful businesses. Superfund, for example, retroactively and illegally changes the status of pollution activities, and then follows up with vastly inefficient and costly mitigation approaches that have imposed vast costs on US businesses. This also has led to a business in environmental inspections since one can become liable for clean up of pollutants on land they purchase even if the previous land owner deliberately hid the pollution from the purchaser.
Wetlands are basically a nebulous term that can be stretched to cover any plot of land with poor drainage. The EPA has abused this to a staggering degree over the decades. For example, the EPA forced [washingtonpost.com] an Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett to cease construction on their home because part of the property was deemed to be wetlands. The EPA then had the gall to claim that the couple could not sue on the grounds that the couple first had to pay fines (up to $75k per day) and revert the supposed wetlands back to its previous state before they could have standing to sue the EPA to challenge the EPA's decision on their property.
Finally, what do I mean by the emissions ratchet? This is a process by which the EPA continues to demand more and more stringent control of pollutants without regard to the actual danger of these pollutants or their natural levels in the environment. There are some cases, such as with discharge of arsenic and selenium where the level of the pollutants is at or below the natural background concentrations of these materials (though fortunately, the EPA appears to currently allow polluters to ease up on their pollution controls if they can demonstrate the release of pollution would still be at a lower concentration than is natural). The nuclear industry is notoriously affected with ridiculously light levels of various radioactive isotope releases permitted.
There is no legitimate excuse to dodge taxes. If they are too high for the competitive environment, here's a ballot box, and here's Citizens United. Pay your share until you get enough people to agree that the rules need a tweak.
You have these same tools BTW to enforce your opinion of what "legitimate" is. Go for it.