

10 Big U.S. Businesses That Have Moved Their HQ Abroad to Pay Less Taxes - psogle
http://www.focus.com/fyi/finance/10-big-businesses-that-have-moved-abroad/

======
cwan
With taxes set to rise (and given the literally trillions of dollars of
cumulative new deficits how can they not?), this is going to happen
increasingly more. The unfortunate reality is that politicians heap blame on
the "greed" of profitable corporations and wealthy individuals forgetting that
these companies (and people) have the greatest ability to move abroad.

Going Galt anyone? Related article: [http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-
budgeting/article/107123/Mi...](http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-
budgeting/article/107123/Millionaires-Go-Missing)

------
ktharavaad
Its kind of unfair that only big companies can get this sort of competitive
advantage while smaller startups are stuck paying taxes through their nose
under the draconian tax policies of the US government.

There should be a guide or services for smaller companies and Startups to
incorporate in tax shelters so they too can enjoy the tax benefits and thus
level the playing field with the big boys. Are there such resources around?

~~~
bwd
These resources are called tax lawyers, and they are very expensive. The
knowledge required to do this is very specialized and guarded with extreme
zeal by its possessors. As is usual in any situation involving government
regulation, the biggest winners are the lawyers. If you want to get an idea of
how complex and draconian these things really are, try looking up PFIC and
"controlled foreign corporation".

------
jonursenbach
Astonishing how so many companies are relocating to Bermuda and the Cayman
Islands. The weather must be really nice there!

/sarcasm

------
jhancock
We should treat companies that move overseas as dead to us. The estate tax on
death is around 50%. Please pay as you leave.

~~~
gaius
It would be worth it.

------
jrockway
The "tragedy of the commons" in action. The infrastructure that enables their
customers to buy their products doesn't come for free. But since they don't
_have_ to help pay for it, they don't.

It will all come tumbling down eventually.

~~~
dantheman
It's not a tragedy of the commons. If you look at how actual money is spent
there is plenty of money to cover all costs. Sales tax, gas tax, and property
tax should be enough to cover the services that benefit the corporation. Now
when the government is involved in all sorts of activities that in now way
benefit the company -- non infrastructure/police/fire services, and a company
wants to opt out by moving that's not a tragedy of the commons since they
aren't externalizing any costs or exploiting any resources.

Some might argue that education, welfare, etc are beneficial to a corporation,
but in reality they're not. They are to benefit the community -- the
individuals receiving the output of those services. Of course a company
requires educated people and if there aren't any available then they will have
to develop schools to train their employees (something that has been done in
the past).

~~~
jrockway
_Some might argue that education, welfare, etc are beneficial to a
corporation, but in reality they're not. They are to benefit the community --
the individuals receiving the output of those services. Of course a company
requires educated people and if there aren't any available then they will have
to develop schools to train their employees (something that has been done in
the past)._

My point is, when everyone stops paying taxes, there won't be any educated
people anymore. Each company will have to get into the business of training
people, making the cost higher than not paying taxes.

Classic tragedy of the commons.

~~~
mhb
Education has not always been funded by taxes and need not be.

~~~
jrockway
Translation: "I can afford private school for _my_ kids; fuck everyone else."

~~~
gaius
Ermm, bollocks. Very high quality education has been provided free to students
by religous, charitable and philthropic foundations for centuries, in most
cases far better than what the State (with its obsession with equality over
achievement) could provide.

Not to mention that in the UK it's been shown that private and State education
actually cost about the same per student... If the government just got out of
the way, everyone could afford a good education for their kids.

------
martythemaniak
Yes, because Halliburton, Tyco and Accenture are the model corporate
citizens...

------
quizbiz
favorable tax laws != favorable business laws

To what extent will a government go to protect your investment/property? Are
you big enough where the potential for loss is an acceptable risk? If so and
your business is very liquid and global then I see no problem in having an HQ
elsewhere. What do you care where their HQ is? Most likely, their investors
are still collecting profits in the US. The saved money from taxes drives up
equity, reinvestment, research and development. Am I crazy for not caring
where a business is centered? I guess I don't watch enough Lou Dobbs.

~~~
sielskr
_To what extent will a government go to protect your investment/property?_

My guess is that it is better for a business to be under a common-law
jurisdiction. The legal system in most of the world is of a type called civil
law, as contrasted to common law, but common law tends to protect property
better because property is more central to its conceptual framework. Nick
Szabo argues convincingly for the superiority of common law over civil law on
his blog, <http://unenumerated.blogspot.com>.

One of Dubai's economic zones uses common law. (They hired a retired English
judge to run the legal system in the zone.) _added._ Bermuda and the Cayman
Islands use common law, too.

