Corporate ethics, taxes and other related issues

tullfan

Member
2018 Sabbatical
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Location
Sydney
Mod Note: Moved posts from a thread on Frank Shaving Brushes here.


FYI a recent article about Ali Express was not very complimentary regarding the treatment of workers by the owner, Chinest richest man.
The gentleman sees no reason why the workers should not work a 72 hour week,as family life is not necessary.
Needless to say the gent in question has a bountiful family life, but the workers should give theirs up in order to make him a lazy billion or two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FYI a recent article about Ali Express was not very complimentary regarding the treatment of workers by the owner, Chinest richest man.
The gentleman sees no reason why the workers should not work a 72 hour week,as family life is not necessary.
Needless to say the gent in question has a bountiful family life, but the workers should give theirs up in order to make him a lazy billion or two.

It's a dilemma for sure because one can choose not to support aliexpress but then tens of thousands of businesses that use the platform for their businesses (people with families, employees etc) will suffer as aliexpress has opened up the Chinese market direct to the individual consumer, like me for example.

I have bought 50 brushes from Yaqi, 8 from Frank Shaving, several from ds cosmetic. So I've supported 3 different businesses all the while getting killer deals compared to ex-china vendors.
 
FYI a recent article about Ali Express was not very complimentary regarding the treatment of workers by the owner, Chinest richest man.
The gentleman sees no reason why the workers should not work a 72 hour week,as family life is not necessary.
Needless to say the gent in question has a bountiful family life, but the workers should give theirs up in order to make him a lazy billion or two.
You can also tar Jeff Bezos of Amazon with the same brush. There are plenty of exposés showing their work culture. Or talk about what they and eBay are doing to the local high street.
Especially as very little tax ends up in any governments coffers.
 
You can also tar Jeff Bezos of Amazon with the same brush. There are plenty of exposés showing their work culture. Or talk about what they and eBay are doing to the local high street.
Especially as very little tax ends up in any governments coffers.

It's complicated. But, no matter how you cut it, something's not right.

Quote:
In 2018, Amazon paid $0 in U.S. federal income tax on more than $11 billion in profits before taxes. It also received a $129 million tax rebate from the federal government.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html

I can't say I'm happy about paying more tax than Amazon (in the US or AU).
Those tax havens are great, aren't they?
 
...
Those tax havens are great, aren't they?

The article suggests, rather than tax havens, that is "mainly stemmed from ...

  • the Republican tax cuts of 2017, [which presumably apply to everyone and would only lower the rate of tax payable]
  • carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, [so they made losses previously and will only pay taxes once those historic losses are recouped]
  • tax credits for massive investments in R&D and [argued policy wise as a necessary incentive to encourage R&D]
  • stock-based employee compensation." [presumably resulting in an accounting profit as remuneration is not expensed but effectively capitalised - but still a cost to the company]

Still, at least it is better than Australian media reporting on low taxes paid by companies with high revenues (which may not even make any profit)

There used to be a website which allowed you to work out the date each year you have earned enough to pay your taxes and you started earning money for yourself - it was depressing ...
 
The article suggests, rather than tax havens, that is "mainly stemmed from ...

  • the Republican tax cuts of 2017, [which presumably apply to everyone and would only lower the rate of tax payable]
  • carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, [so they made losses previously and will only pay taxes once those historic losses are recouped]
  • tax credits for massive investments in R&D and [argued policy wise as a necessary incentive to encourage R&D]
  • stock-based employee compensation." [presumably resulting in an accounting profit as remuneration is not expensed but effectively capitalised - but still a cost to the company]

Still, at least it is better than Australian media reporting on low taxes paid by companies with high revenues (which may not even make any profit)

There used to be a website which allowed you to work out the date each year you have earned enough to pay your taxes and you started earning money for yourself - it was depressing ...
I have worked for several of the companies on the list you mentioned. In every case it's been a sophisticated way to fleece the federal government while doing as shoddy a job as possible and then crying poor.
It has left a terrible taste in my mouth.
 
I have worked for several of the companies on the list you mentioned. In every case it's been a sophisticated way to fleece the federal government while doing as shoddy a job as possible and then crying poor.
It has left a terrible taste in my mouth.

What list?
 
What list?
Still, at least it is better than Australian media reporting on low taxes paid by companies with high revenues (which may not even make any profit)
Every year in recent memory the tax office releases a list of the 100(?) biggest companies (by revenue) operating in Australia and include the amount of tax paid.

There are far too many to list them all. But, there's a lot of familiar faces. Apple is way up the top. Google too. Airlines. Banks. Defence. IT. Most of them pay zero tax year after year.

In my industry it is standard practice for multinationals to operate at a loss in AU and "purchase" services/expertise/etc from the parent company in Ireland/Delaware etc.
Since the Australian subsidiary never makes a profit no tax gets paid.
The same thing happens when you buy an iPhone (or similar). You pay $1000. Apple Australia buys the phone from Apple Ireland for $999. Resulting is little to no profit to be taxed.
 
Every year in recent memory the tax office releases a list of the 100(?) biggest companies (by revenue) operating in Australia and include the amount of tax paid.

There are far too many to list them all. But, there's a lot of familiar faces. Apple is way up the top. Google too. Airlines. Banks. Defence. IT. Most of them pay zero tax year after year.

In my industry it is standard practice for multinationals to operate at a loss in AU and "purchase" services/expertise/etc from the parent company in Ireland/Delaware etc.
Since the Australian subsidiary never makes a profit no tax gets paid.
The same thing happens when you buy an iPhone (or similar). You pay $1000. Apple Australia buys the phone from Apple Ireland for $999. Resulting is little to no profit to be taxed.

Ahhh, gotcha!

Transfer pricing - such an interesting practice!

I did read a [very technical] article on Apple that defended their transfer pricing in part. It looked at the Apple operations in Australia and concluded that their margins were not dissimilar to other importer/retailers. The key problem is the licensing operations in Ireland/Delaware. That probably doesn't actually reduce taxes in Australia, or even in their country of manufacture, China, as much as siphons profits from the US where their R&D is done - and the licensing should be done. From memory what they were arguing was that if the Apple supply chain was broken up into seperate companies it would be the US based company having profits siphoned off.

I'm glad that the ATO publishes the data, see here, but even it as the tax collector has caveats -

It is important to remember:

  • corporate income tax is payable on profits, not gross income
  • many single entities that did not pay tax are members of a corporate group that did pay tax
  • a significant percentage of companies make losses each year, for both tax purposes and accounting purposes
  • current profits can be offset against accumulated past losses, which means
    • a company with a bad economic performance in one year may not pay tax for several years afterwards
    • a company in start-up phase may take several profitable years to recoup establishment costs prior to paying tax; this is particularly the case with natural resource projects.
My frustration is the simplistic reporting of the data - because all that does is avoid discussion of the legitimate underlying issues.

BTW - I have the same frustration about the reporting of the 'gender pay gap' as if gender alone is the key driver. Attributional research has indicated that between 80 - 90 % of the difference can be attributed to factors you can actually address - we don't do that effectively though because the activists want to characterise the whole thing as some form of discrimination and maximise their need.

[/rant]
 
Oh, and while we are on the topic ...

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like."

Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow, quoted in John Poynder, Literary Extracts (1844), vol. 1, p. 268.

I think that I actually prefer the common misquoted form - "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?"
 
I agree with what you said.

It is indeed a very complex issue with few winners and very many losers. Not to mention the global systemic failures(?).
ie: It's clearly wrong (laymen term). But, when everyone is doing it you can't just stand on principle and expect to survive.

Everyone is more and more angry these days. Yet there are no easy solutions. I'm not sure where rock bottom is. But I'm sure, as per the the rest of human history, the system will have to collapse before being addressed. *sigh*

... Caring is so exhausting.
 
Oh, and while we are on the topic ...

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like."

Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow, quoted in John Poynder, Literary Extracts (1844), vol. 1, p. 268.

I think that I actually prefer the common misquoted form - "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?"
Ooh! I like that quote.
 
What do people expect, when we've been too complacent and allowed government turn what essentially is a service to represent our greater needs, into a business based around profit?
Reversing the privatisation and outsourcing situation within the public sector would be a good start.
Eradicating the apathetic, feeble minded folks running these departments would further help.
 
giphy.gif
 
I don't fear taxes. In fact I would welcome them.
And I say that as someone who would likely be the hardest hit.
 
I don't fear taxes. In fact I would welcome them.
And I say that as someone who would likely be the hardest hit.

I don't fear taxes but certainly don't welcome them.

As a fellow "wage slave" (takes me back to my uni days!) I would probably be hit as hard as anybody else and I'd much prefer to determine where it goes than any politician ;)

The first party in Australia who introduces a tax rebate, not merely a deduction but a rebate, for charitable giving will have my vote.
 
The first party in Australia who introduces a tax rebate, not merely a deduction but a rebate, for charitable giving will have my vote.
Also, when my disability pension goes above the threshold, if, I saved too much money will automatically get taken out from my account towards taxes.

Is not going to happen again since I got hit twice, next time I remember my savings threshold I give 6K to Mason Care instead of going towards taxpayers. Because I’m entitled to give the finger to any politician who deserves their pay raise is a bloody joke, so that’s why I give it to Mason Care.
 
I don't fear taxes but certainly don't welcome them.

As a fellow "wage slave" (takes me back to my uni days!) I would probably be hit as hard as anybody else and I'd much prefer to determine where it goes than any politician ;)

The first party in Australia who introduces a tax rebate, not merely a deduction but a rebate, for charitable giving will have my vote.
So corporate Australia further exploits it?
Before you ask how, think of the extra we pay supermarkets for items to raise money for a bale of hay etc, raising tens of millions.
Who claims the tax credit for that collective sum?
 
...

Before you ask how, think of the extra we pay supermarkets for items to raise money for a bale of hay etc, raising tens of millions.

...

Which is why the vast majority of my giving does, and would, go directly to charities I've reseached and support by direct donation. The professional fundraising industry, which can siphon off up to 80% of revenue, is as rapacious as any other...
 
Am keen to know which ones are they. I don’t have the proper skill set to work it out.
Which is why the vast majority of my giving does, and would, go directly to charities I've reseached and support by direct donation. The professional fundraising industry, which can siphon off up to 80% of revenue, is as rapacious as any other...
 
Top