If
corporations are people, as the Supreme Court says, then why don't they
have to pay taxes? Paul Krugman expresses outrage about the latest
corporate scheme to dodge taxes in today's New York Times column.
Read more: Paul Krugman Lays Bare Latest Corporate Scheme to Rob American Taxpayers | Alternet
Admittedly, corporations do still pay some
taxes. "The federal government still gets a tenth of its revenue from
corporate profits taxation," the Nobel-prize winning economist writes.
"But it used to get a lot more — a third of revenue came from profits
taxes in the early 1950s, a quarter or more well into the 1960s. Part of
the decline since
then reflects a fall in the tax rate, but mainly it reflects
ever-more-aggressive corporate tax avoidance — avoidance that
politicians have done little to prevent."
The latest of these aggressive tax-avoidance ploys is called “ inversion.”
And as Krugman explains, it's a purely legal maneuver that allows
companies to claim that its "U.S. operations are owned by its foreign
subsidiary, not the other way around, and uses this role reversal to
shift reported profits out of American jurisdiction to someplace with a
lower tax rate."
The
company does not need to move overseas to do this. What a quaint and
old-fashioned notion. It's all done on paper. Sometimes, it might
involve opening an office somewhere abroad. The most egregious current
example is Walgreen, which will continue to operate its thriving
pharmacy business in the U.S. (have no fear, your local Walgreen's will
remain) but for purely tax reasons, is reportedly about to declare
itself Swiss, which "will deprive the U.S. government of several billion
dollars in revenue that you, the taxpayer, will have to make up one way
or another," Krugman writes.
Read more: Paul Krugman Lays Bare Latest Corporate Scheme to Rob American Taxpayers | Alternet
No comments:
Post a Comment