Many of America’s largest corporations shift a surprising portion of their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes. Even more surprisingly, that’s a legal thing to do.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight
Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight
Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight
Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight
my family is really well off and i can tell you first hand that the wealthy are benefitting more ... this countys legislation fills rich peoples full pockets. The only intelligent people I know who support Trump are wealthy and/or in business :( its criminal that the wealthiest and most fortunate among us have the luxury of tax evasion and maximizing the leftover amount after taxes... such disturbingly disgusting greed.. These men spit venom and tell people its a remedy. Why are we lenient on people who will never know what its like to struggle, or to struggle again and so hateful towards those whose lives are nothing but struggle? Out of sight out of mind. Our politicians are monarchs living in their castles, looking down upon the peasants - seeing ants and expendable flecks of dirt. They've perched themselves on some pedestal of their own creation, and it's become easy for them to forget their job is to serve and protect - for the people they worked for are now distant ideas...
Corporations are essentially tax collectors. It is very much like sales taxes. I know this is oversimplifying it. If you reduce corporate taxes enough the incentive to escape taxes is greatly reduced. Also it helps level the playing field so smaller corporations can be more competitive with the large corporations that can afford to setup shops outside the US.
Honestly, if I lived in the US, I'd move just out of spite about taxation inequality.
JK, I wouldn't be able to afford to. My taxes would be too high to save up for something like that.
What I don't get is why places like Bermuda don't hike their corporate taxation to JUUUUUST below the next highest. Then they can bank off of every rich scumbag taking refuge there, and if they don't like it, they could always stop robbing America.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Oh, or maybe taxation based on profit. If only there were some word for that, some sort of thing every civilian has to pay. Anyway, this "Income tax" could be levied against companies as they make the money by the countries in which they made it, which would be a fact embedded in the past and not a thing which could be moved.
This is fucking stupid. He is basically arguing for taxes. Corporations dont pay taxes. People pay taxes. That simply means that the more you tax a company the more the people pay for goods and services. Not to mention we are paying those higher prices with money that has been taxed when we earned it. then we pay a sales tax. Corporations should not be taxed at all.
you're funny, but you hate on conservatism and trump every episode and mislead people. For that, You have my down vote every week sir. Half of what you say is GOLD, and the other half, very misleading. You are obviously a socialist, and half of your viewers think socialism is terrible. Perhaps you shouldn't push it so hard.
So poor Americans like me who barely have any money for college have to surrender the cash earned with our sweat and blood, while the richest companies in the world have loopholes to evade taxes completely? On behalf of literally everyone, a sincere fuck you!
I don't understand why social programs have to be cut, our social security threatened, and the minimum wage held low when this is happening. They don't need the money, but poor people and the middle class actually have a poorer quality of life due to their greedyness. Some people are even dying. It infuriates me.
Its called greed. Corporate CEOs don't care about poor people let alone their lower tier workers and would abuse them slavery plantation style along with kids if the US Gov't didn't have the minimum of worker protections that it does.
Get ride of all those money launders.
Do "No penalty & No question ask Tax Amnesty"
And put those companies and rich people under IRS microscope.
Americans do not need Tax Cut.
What needed is for the gov to have enough money to facilitate American people with good health care, welfare and education.
And of course, anyone who is in money laundry biz would against it to death becoz it would put them in a situation with no job.
Umm....Mr. Oliver, as an American I am curious exactly what any of us normal citizens (meaning we are not in the ‘donor class’ as we’re not billionaires and we aren’t close friends or relatives of any Congress members, hell I’m not even connected with any smart criminals that want me to hold onto a bunch of cash) were supposed to do to either personally make change, petition change, or even wish for the tax (money grab for rich and corporations) reform as Paul Ryan put it to help any ‘normal Americans’. If I knew what to do I would have been happy to do it as I’m sure many of us would.
What are they doing with your money??? Probably on par with that stupid shit you do with all your money! It is rare to see any famous individual actually do anything that isn’t excessive or dumb as fuck, which is why tax or no taxes your ass will be broke before you are forgotten by everyone but your mother and TMZ
Christopher Neese agreed. Although while banks may throw money at democrats, like you pointed out it's because they know they will get no where with republicans. Democrats at least tighten regulations on banks. Really they schmooze all candidates though. When extreme wealth is at stake it doesn't matter what party you are. It would be nice if we could unite as the lower income working people, but they have us so distracted with identity politics we can't even do that.
The banks push more support towards Democrats in order to keep them from going after them, because the republicans won't and they are the only opposition. Kind of how Obama promised to crush and punish wall street for 2008 , but in the end he did nothing but accept massive campaign donations from them.
I think I am trying to get the point across of "liberal corps are just as shady as conservative corps" when it comes to lobbying and not paying taxes. Everyone looks up to these big corps like Amazon/google/apple to be the pillars of morality in the corporate world, but in the end they behave no differently than big coal or the military industrial complex when it comes to dealing with our government.
Although I will say they contribute a lot to the country in other ways. But still
You fill out a complicated form, or now you can file electronically. It took me about a half hour to enter all of my information, which includes the information from your W2 which shows how much taxes you paid out of each paycheck, how much you made in the year, etc. Then you enter any deductions you might have, such as charitable donations, or a gazillion other things. You get a deduction for a mortgage, for having kids, for driving an electric car, for registering your car, literally there's a million things. It's so complicated I use a software that walks you through it, but wealthier people have to hire an accountant to file their taxes to make sure they get it right. It's nuts.
Yes most people think that. Even I think that to a degree(I don't think communism is achievable at all and certainly not a moral system). That's why pragmatism wins in the end. All this stuff is just thought experiment what an ideal society based on voluntarism would look like. I can make lots of compromises. I am for example currently reluctantly in favor of the Universal Basic Income as it eliminates lots of bureacracy and lots of the negative effects such as incentivizing single motherhood and obstacles to work, where you earn less than you get in welfare (which i have heard a million times on the subway) Basically Charles Murrays or Milton Friedmans perspective on it.
Yes i think I reached the limit.
And I think you are blind. I used to be very far to the left btw(this is unfortunately the result of public schooling and leftist teachers) and many american conservative economists were so too so I think I can understand your perspective quite well.
Your comment is cut off at the end. Did we reach youtube's character limit?
Anyway, i'm getting tired of this discussion. If you actually believe that the work only 5% of the population did deserves to be rewarded by 62% of the wealth the country, then you're blind.
Sorry for answering this late.
_your parents are just buying your share_ Why can parents just steal property from the system to give it to a minor? Even as a kid you are forced to join the system. You are paying taxes on the products you buy from your pocket money for example. If a kid then becomes an adult and buys foreign stocks(not in the system) with the money it has earned selling lemonade for example (which is forbidden btw), the person still has to pay taxes on the income.
Therefore Taxation is theft.
_And the power exclusively lies with the government?What happened to voting and the people elected representing you?_ You said earlier that voting has to do with the system not with the principle of taxation itself and doesn't really change anything (the social contract applies to monarchies aswell according to you). If I sign a contract at a company my power is roughly even with its own. If I vote my power is 1/eligable voters of country, here my earlier criticisms of democracy applies not to speak off governments != their elected purpose and you can't vote issue based. Government can constantly change the contract or completely disregard it if it wishes to do so.
_You're just given quite a lot of rights over the land you rented, enough so that it's almost a private land in practice._ I don't agree. The land belongs to a juridiction ofc, but it is still privately owned. You can buy it and if the governement decides to just take it in order to build a pipeline that is tyranny.
_You take resources from the land and turn them into products, which are then sold and used to make/do other things._ Those resources are privately owned a lot of the time aswell. If you are a wealthy person you likely payed all the services and societal benefits a million times already including for other people even if you payed tax a rate of just 1%. If anything the government should give Bill Gates money to get him to stay as he likely did much more good to the country as a job creator than the government did for him.
_There is a problem if no choice is given, if you aren't allowed leave the country under reasonable terms._
Those "reasonable terms" are entirely subjective. I would say you didn't join any contract at all if some government decides to take your property(your work) if you leave. There is no choice.
_Nobody accumulates most of the wealth for himself like in capitalism._ I think wage disparities are overrated and exaggerated. Even the poorest members of western society are infinitely richer than any model of forced redistribution in the form of any hunter-gatherer tribe or experiment of communism.
_I think it is due in no small part to the fact that in small tribes everyone know each other and will care for others' well being enough to help each other out instead of keeping it for themselves._ I agree. Another example would be the family, where you share everything with each other. The point is it must be voluntary in order to be moral. I don't care about social stigma as a "force" necessarily. A culture of philantropy is good. Capitalism allows people to form their own communities where they share everything if they want. Most people however seem to be more after other peoples property. I also wouldn't agree that capitalists are keeping their wealth for themselves. Wealthy capitalists keep their money in productive capital usually, which means they don't really own it in the moment in my opinion as it is controlled by other people.
_My point is that if it was easier to get out of ones' country, and so if everybody that thought like this tried to move to panama, would they accept that many people? Would they even be able to do it even if they wanted to?_ That seems to be a bit of whataboutism. You should be able to leave without being hindered. If somebody takes you is another issue. Probably not millions. However as countries like Panama are still relatively poor they will take a lot of people as they are beneficial to the country. Even $5000 signifies that you will be a productive member of society and pay more than take out aswell as signifies entrepentrepreneurial mindset. And as you said not many people are like that, so you should be allowed to leave especially. Countries like Singapore and Hong Kong started like Panama. Nowadays you need millions to get in.
_It matters because you only use a small part but you also only pay a small part. In other words, you get your money's worth out of it. Of course, this is not necessarily true, we are still talking about how taxes are supposed to work, not how they're actually currently implemented._ That doesn't make sense to me. If a robber steals my smartphone, but my neighbours whole jewelry collection he paid a bigger part of the robbers luxurious lifestyle. My smartphone still got stolen. If i only use roads as services and no other government services whatsoever I will pay way more into the system percentage-wise than I get out from the individual standpoint. In practice of course again most people benefit way more from government than they pay in. In my country I read somewhere only 8% of the population pay more than they take out and those people increasinly leave in droves to countries like the US ironically.
_And taxes is something you agree to pay when using the system so it's not taken._
It is taken as its not voluntary to use the system.
_So you die younger while having less free time than most other western countries. What freedom do you think is worth it?_ Most importantly: The freedom to say whatever you want, which is increasingly under attack under so called "hate speech" laws in the countries you listed. The freedom to decide what to do with the product of your sweat and not have effectively 80% stolen and allocated in ways you can't control. The freedom to decide what healthcare plan to buy and how much to pay for it, the freedom to support only the schools which you like (I wouldn't support the social sciences for example as I think they do enormous damage to the western world). The freedom to build my own hobbit homes if I want to on my own property and to not be forced to put solar panels on it and lots of insulations which hurt the environment and are extremely expensive. The freedom to be able to defend yourself and not be dependent on the whims of the state. The freedom to really make it in a big way and have much easier access to venture capital for example. The US is nothing what it used to be ofc and it gets more like Europe each day unfortunately.
I'm not sure if I'm personally really interested in living my 80s as you aren't free then anyway. However I think the low life expectancy besides the healthcare system which i don't like in the end, because it's not free market based like advertised (instead it's crony-capitalist) also has to do with the US having a lot more accidents and drug-addicts, where young people die early and drag the statistics down. Also the US is huge and has a lot of rural areas, where access to healthcare isn't so easy. Regarding working hours: First off all you don't get world leader in pretty much every department by sitting around. The US has the fifth most productive population in the world and this for a huge population after European countries with small populations with distorted GDP, which are either financial tax havens like Ireland and Luxembourg or oil-rich like Norway. Second: 33.6(2015) hours per hour for the average worker is not actually that much. Especially if you compare it with emerging markets like China. If you don't want to die, you have to compete. Honestly I think Europe will fade into total irrelevance as our priorities are completetely wrong. Americans also have a lot higher expectations what they want to own. Houses are HUGE, if you have seen them. Nobody is forced to live that way. You could for example live in a van and only work 10 hours a week.(I believe Chris Pratt did that)
_When was the last time you checked how much benefit your employer made on a product you worked on? Or even just how much benefits were made by the company compared to how much was paid in salaries?_
It's quite easy to calculate and very easy to check if you work in a company registered in a stock exchange.
_Nice strawman._ I didn't think you are communist. I'm just saying your own company, in which you share is an alternative. I wouldn't have anything against it in principle.
_but there is a limit to that and it has long been passed._ That isn't true in my opinion. The pay of CEOs is typically decided by investors and stock holders, which are a greedy bunch so they are not just throwing their money out of the window. Jeff Bezos is the richest man now. If you redistributed all the money he owned to his 566000 workers every worker gets $233 once.
Incentive system is totally destroyed then obviously.
_The competition isn't immoral, taking advantage of it is._ I worded that badly. I know full well how CEOs "take advantage" of competition. They try to get the lowest price possible just like for every other good. You aren't forced to apply for that job and to compete with others. You can try to unionize with the other contenders. You can try to talk into the CEOs conscience(most ceos are still human), however he has competition to think of too. If CEOs behave like total assholes in the modern age with social media they are quickly hated by the world and the image of a company is very important to its sales. You shouldn't force the other party to pay more however. Low pay is a sign society does not really need you and you are easily replaceable.
That sets an incentive for others not to join the overcrowded competition and for you to learn a different trade. Mandating higher pay does not change the fundamentals. And btw this is not necessarily the case. Many companies simply can't afford to pay minimum wage for example as the job does not pay for itself. Minimum wage laws kill all the entry jobs. Ther
As a foreign person that purchase american products, I don't think all the profits should go back to USA, otherwise we are just been explored. You make billions on our countries and we should have nothing invested here? Then we're better not buying from your companies...
I hope your house doesn't catch fire, or that you don't drive into a gigantic pothole or that your sewer system doesn't get clogged. Taxes are the foundation of our society. We get plenty of benefits by paying.
Well, i'm quite happy to know there's a fire departement ready to help me if needed, that the police is going to help me if there's a crime, that i'll get a lawyer even if i don't have any money to hire one, that there's 911 (well, 18 where i live) in case i need help and that the roads and sewers around here are regularly maintained, so i'm going to keep paying my taxes, thank you.
There are probably a few things i forgot to mention, but you get the point.
It's still theorically possible for somebody to get a monopoly and yet keep innovating and selling at low prices as if he was still in a competition. In other words, it's theorically possible to have a monopoly without any negative consequences.
I'll agree that it's easy and expected for it to go wrong, but it's still possible for it to be just fine.
*If government has a monopoly or increases the price of a product or service, demoncrats praise it, but if a private citizen does it it's morally wrong?*
Having a monopoly isn't wrong. However, it is easy to abuse, which is wrong.
Increasing the price of a product or service unreasonably is wrong in both cases, but if it's the government doing it then we can elect people that will change it. It will even become a selling point for candidates, an easy way to get elected and then increase their popularity by sticking to their promise.
On the other hand, how do we get a private citizen to change their prices? If you intend to say "competition", then you'll have to explain dumb me how a competitor could possibly allow somebody to avoid the overpriced road in front of their house in the middle of the city and reach that competitor's road instead.
*So what you're saying is, YOU wouldn't pay for roads or services if you weren't forced too so?*
No, i'm not saying that. I'm not sure how you understood that from what i said. I would pay my taxes even if i weren't forced to. Of course it doesn't mean i agree with how my taxes are spent, but i try to change that through my vote.
Lmao. It seems like you're starting to struggle with basic english now that your brainless verbal diarrhea has been exposed as a hot pile of garbage. California has been a SOLID BLUE state for decades and will continue to be so. And what's stopping redneck flyover states like Alabama and Mississippi from establishing their own "networks"? I know you'll blame liberals for that too and I'm calling you out on your bs in advance. Now coming to the poster-child of redneck states aka Texas, majority of the well-to-do cities that host such large companies are blue and the majority of the workforce in those companies there will be out-of-state, college educated, high skilled liberals! I understand that's going to sting but it's important you losers are taught the hard, cold facts. Republicans on the other hand are hell bent on dragging those shitty redneck states and the rest of the country backwards by giving away free tax cuts worth BILLIONS to corporations while nickle-and-diming the middle class workers, laundering russian money into the country via corrupt organizations like NRA and forcing regressive policies that hurt the economy. Now I know you'll spend next few hours frantically googling random shit to post as your next comment but I still look forward to it. It makes me laugh every time.
Sam S You are pretty bad at trolling tbh. When Silicon Valley was created California was a lot more economically liberal as republicans still got elected there regularly and democrats were a lot more economically liberal at the time. (same is true for the federal level) It only really makes sense to establish your business there for the networking effect. The costs are otherwise way too high. So its questionable how much longer it will hold together. You are living off the spoils of the past like leftists g3nerally do. Texas has AT&T, Dell, National Instruments for example. Texas is the second best state for business, california the 31st.
could you imagine how massively the average IQ of blue liberal states will improve once they kick out the low IQ MAGAturds? It'll be the best thing to ever happen to the blue states. Speaking of, why isn't there a hillbilly version of Silicon Valley in the rust belt? What's stopping those coal shovelers from starting billion dollar tech startups? I just can't figure out!
Sam S Sure, it's 7% for iowa and 15% for alabama. However its even worse as the conservative counties average out the literacy skills of the liberal ones. This is the case for New York and California aswell. Queens has an illiteracy rate of 45%, Los Angeles of 33%. Results in STEM are similiar.
It's the goal of capitalism to maximize profits. That's what you do. And you do it any way you legally can. If the government passes laws to alter the path to maximized profits, corporations will naturally follow that new path. All makes sense in the abstract, except that in practice, the unintended consequences of these laws are instantly exploited by smart corporations. We'll restrict X and it will cause Y. No, you restrict X and someone figures a way to bypass Y and end up at Z. And it's not like these things aren't predictive, so it makes one wonder: Are these laws really created in the best interest of America/American workers. Seems to me the track record over the last few decades has been, Hell no! The only two options I can see is ineptitude or corruption.
It all starts from kind of a funny mindset, though: "What are you doing with _my_ money!?"
People don't seem to even be capable of the mindset of, "It's because of this nation, the government, and the laws, that I'm able to enjoy all the uninterrupted amenities I need in my daily life to be safe like law enforcement/crime prevention, basic education, fire extinguishing, etc., or the job and wealth opportunities it all results in; so it's time for me to put back into the system that made all this possible in the first place, and I'm proud to be doing my part to pay for all the things I take advantage of."
Instead, people today really are very entitled. They want it all for themselves and get upset at even the mention of sharing their wealth with others; even rich celebrities that have more than they'll ever need, as seen at the beginning of the clip. And with very little or no appreciation at all for all those basic things provided that they use everyday - like roads, sidewalks, or drainage systems.
Don't get me wrong, the current state that corporations operate in within the US, and the political power their wield, should be criminal. But ironically it never will be, nor will what they do ever be seriously punished, because of that political power. It's really pretty frustrating how much they get away with while literally laughing at us all about it.
We really need to just start arbitrarily assessing multinational corporations' taxes at 10000% interest based on whatever arbitrary amount we think they made rather than rely on whatever number their fraudulent accounting practices says they made, and finally turn any attempts to avoid paying the tax into a RICO-style capital crime where everyone managing and invested in the company is executed regardless of level of participation after being found guilty. Since super rich and corrupt people think they can get away with fucking people over for decades this would make for a fun little revenge "prank".
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.