Industry News Forum

News about the Industry itself, as opposed to a specific game. Only TA Newshounds can start threads here.

Activision Blizzard Moved €5 Billion To Tax Havens According To Recent Report

AuthorMessage
Shadow 00 Fox
543,541
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 07 August 19 at 17:41
zombizero said:
I don't believe that whatsoever. Keep being you brother.
Thank-you smile toast
Shadow 00 Fox
543,541
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 07 August 19 at 17:56
Buttercup III said:
No, tax avoidance is not legal. Stop paying your taxes and the IRS looks for you. The fact giant corporations get away with it by moving their money offshore is not something to celebrate. When the bridges and tunnels in your town start crumbling because they’re old, you can blame companies like ActiVision and Amazon for putting zero money in.
I just have to mention this--how I see it, when the bridges and tunnels and roads start crumbling in our towns, and no-one else does anything about it, then guess what--all the local business and people and organizations will do something about it because we need roads and bridges and tunnels. Giving your money to a company online simply puts your money into the pockets of all that company's employees/employers/etc, some of whom probably work in our towns, and who currently do help provide for local maintenance through the huge gas taxes, property taxes, and all the other taxes that happen to us all anyway.
Vindibudd
8,245
Vindibudd
Posted on 07 August 19 at 19:11
I literally could not care less about articles like this. Everyone should avoid paying as much tax as legally possible. Crying and whining about this is like being mad when people buy something on sale instead of retail. If you can buy a game or a console at 50% off you're going to do it. If you can avoid paying taxes, you're going to do it.

If you're mad about some company not paying taxes then go start your own company and donate 100% of your profit to ignorant bureaucrats.
BegFourMercy
727,340
BegFourMercy
Posted on 07 August 19 at 21:01, Edited on 07 August 19 at 21:30 by BegFourMercy
SantaUndercover said:
Buttercup III said:
No, tax avoidance is not legal. Stop paying your taxes and the IRS looks for you. The fact giant corporations get away with it by moving their money offshore is not something to celebrate. When the bridges and tunnels in your town start crumbling because they’re old, you can blame companies like ActiVision and Amazon for putting zero money in.
There is a big difference between companies and a person. A company is not a person, so different rules and different 'opportunities' to avoid taxed which bookkeepers love to use.

It is a different question if it's ethical. That is a big NO in my opinion. But hey, as long as the shareholders are happy.
OMG, its all not legal. If you do business in a country, you owe the taxes. Period. I am sick of these huge companies not paying. My property taxes went from 3K to 9K in 10 years because of this crap. Illinois now has not money to pay for schools or roads. When a sale transactions, taxes should be paid to everyone right then. Its the cost of doing business in the city, stay, country. And they make billions in profits on top. BS
a Fi1thy Casual
Posted on 07 August 19 at 21:26
Shadow 00 Fox said:
I just have to mention this--how I see it, when the bridges and tunnels and roads start crumbling in our towns, and no-one else does anything about it, then guess what--all the local business and people and organizations will do something about it because we need roads and bridges and tunnels.
But those local businesses / people / organizations were already doing something about it - paying taxes.

Is your proposed new agreement that they do additional things to supplement what is lost by others who refuse to pay? That doesn't seem right...although, I am someone who thinks that plutocracy is not right, so that makes sense for me.

Shadow 00 Fox said:
Giving your money to a company online simply puts your money into the pockets of all that company's employees/employers/etc, some of whom probably work in our towns, and who currently do help provide for local maintenance through the huge gas taxes, property taxes, and all the other taxes that happen to us all anyway.
This is true. However I am still not seeing an argument for why giant corporations should be allowed to essentially not pay...
Fully loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness.
Ganon255
291,509
Ganon255
Posted on 08 August 19 at 06:46
I don't blame them, it's legal as far as I know, but it's still dubious.
Praise the Sun!
Shadow 00 Fox
543,541
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 08 August 19 at 16:49
a Fi1thy Casual said:
Shadow 00 Fox said:
I just have to mention this--how I see it, when the bridges and tunnels and roads start crumbling in our towns, and no-one else does anything about it, then guess what--all the local business and people and organizations will do something about it because we need roads and bridges and tunnels.
But those local businesses / people / organizations were already doing something about it - paying taxes.

Is your proposed new agreement that they do additional things to supplement what is lost by others who refuse to pay? That doesn't seem right...although, I am someone who thinks that plutocracy is not right, so that makes sense for me.

Shadow 00 Fox said:
Giving your money to a company online simply puts your money into the pockets of all that company's employees/employers/etc, some of whom probably work in our towns, and who currently do help provide for local maintenance through the huge gas taxes, property taxes, and all the other taxes that happen to us all anyway.
This is true. However I am still not seeing an argument for why giant corporations should be allowed to essentially not pay...
You have some good arguments. Thanks.
On the first point, i wasn't so much referencing additional taxes or payments but instead if it really fails leave it in the hands of the local people who actually need it. Not more taxes, like for example WA state where I live--the government has deeply mismanaged the repair funds for years and now want more funds to fund the roads and bridges, etc--when they've for years been appropriating what was supposed to go for that and using it for other stuff. More taxes will almost never solve a problem.

On the second point, I see no need for a corporation to pay any tax, after all we're already taxed at least twice or thrice on the money we get--once on the company, once by the government on our getting it, and again when we use it. A single tax on any given monies makes more sense. For everyone except those who have their hands in our pockets at least. laugh

So kudos for everyone for avoiding as much tax as they can, the government is never sated just like you and I wouldn't be if we could go into a bank and take as much as we wanted. Except, we're the bank. LOL.
a Fi1thy Casual
Posted on 08 August 19 at 21:24
Shadow 00 Fox said:
You have some good arguments. Thanks.
On the first point, i wasn't so much referencing additional taxes or payments but instead if it really fails leave it in the hands of the local people who actually need it. Not more taxes, like for example WA state where I live--the government has deeply mismanaged the repair funds for years and now want more funds to fund the roads and bridges, etc--when they've for years been appropriating what was supposed to go for that and using it for other stuff. More taxes will almost never solve a problem.

On the second point, I see no need for a corporation to pay any tax, after all we're already taxed at least twice or thrice on the money we get--once on the company, once by the government on our getting it, and again when we use it. A single tax on any given monies makes more sense. For everyone except those who have their hands in our pockets at least. laugh

So kudos for everyone for avoiding as much tax as they can, the government is never sated just like you and I wouldn't be if we could go into a bank and take as much as we wanted. Except, we're the bank. LOL.
I get all that - I honestly do - and we could easily jump into a discussion about government inefficiencies where you and I, most likely, see eye to eye on that issue.

But that is not what I am really talking about here - I am pointing out how taking chunks of concentrated capital out of a system where it was working and putting it somewhere with limited to no actual movement within said system hurts the system at large.

Monies within a capitalistic economy is intended to move. I am not saying that savings are bad as they are not. But overall, the cash you earn today is not meant to stay with you until your dying breath. It is intended to move within the system.

When individuals or groups decide to take billions out of a region to save a few million in tax bills, and drop it on the other side of the planet typically in some form of a holding / bank account, then that region suffers. Not simply because they lost a few million in taxes, but also because literal billions that existed immediately in their economic ecosystem are now gone. We see this happen on much smaller time tables when companies decide to close a plant down in some town in rural America, and years later the town has been reduced to a modern day ghost town because the available capital in the area dried up.

Is Activision taking billions and dropping it elsewhere going to kill the neighboring area? Not necessarily. But when you have multiple corporations practicing these methods of tax "avoidance", then over time things start to happen where economic class gaps emerge / widen, and nations with unbridled wealth also get staggering numbers of people living in poverty.
Fully loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness.
Shadow 00 Fox
543,541
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 08 August 19 at 23:32
I think we also do agree and hope that I'm not actually taking a rabbit hole here. smile

Basically as I see your comparison, it's like having one of those child toys where you could push two buttons and the water in the machine would push rings or whatever else around, and you could try to get the rings on the towers. The more water that got lost out of the device, the more poorly it worked.
I think that's a fairly good parallel?

Isn't it my right, or any companies, to take whatever amount of money we have and put it wherever we want? Let's say I have $5, and I hide it under my bed for years and years. Since it's already mine, what difference does it make whether it's $5 or $5B? Everyone will still keep working creating resources and getting paid for it still, my $5/$5B isn't going to stop anyone from doing so, and I have no inherent responsibility to put my money in circulation, although by doing so I could probably make a profit.
Also, lets say I take that $5B and invest it into a region that is severely depressed--that could well create a wave of prosperity like never before, and make a whole lot of people happier. That's my prerogative isn't it though? There's always been ups and downs in history, it all depends what people do.

Specifically regarding this paragraph of yours:
"Monies within a capitalistic economy is intended to move. I am not saying that savings are bad as they are not. But overall, the cash you earn today is not meant to stay with you until your dying breath. It is intended to move within the system. "

I can agree with that in part--but let me phrase it differently how I see it working--in a capitalistic system, the economy is so free that monies will move freely and quickly because there is so little impediment to their movement and usage that everyone wants to actively be using and getting them.

And currently in the world, Activision seems to have a very good motive to not keep their money where it can be taxed, as I see it, because there is a special lack of freedom there and it simply drives the money away. The lack of freedom can be many things and in this case I think is simply higher taxes.

So what I see happening is that more regulation/taxes/etc is the main killer of the economy we are referencing through the removal of capital from the locale. On a scale like an entire country such as the US, I don't see it making any difference anywhere unless nearly EVERYbody does it. Billions is kind of chump change on the national scale, I'm reminding of the trillions that disappeared right before 9/11. Those didn't seem to affect things.
However, if everyone sends capital elsewhere, then yes, that would have a profound effect....

I think you and I should be on the Federal Reserve Board. LOL
Sketchy77
286,097
Sketchy77
Posted on 09 August 19 at 09:32
Another article like this. As per usual the company is doing nothing illegal and I don't see what the "news" is here.

Especially when the people who seem to have the largest issue with companies doing whatever they can to avoid taxes, are more often than not the ones who support large and noncompetitive corporate tax rates that incentivize this type of action in the first place.

Reap what you sow.
Achievement Unlocked ~ Read My Signature 0G
Bboy Dimi
209,719
Bboy Dimi
Posted on 12 August 19 at 12:22
""I expect many players of Candy Crush would be outraged to find that the payments they make through the game are sent to a company in Malta, even though King, the Activision company behind the game, is managed from London.""

Don't think any player would care how they organize their shit. If companies earn more they can make more / better games.... So we lose in the end..
Bboy Dimi
a Fi1thy Casual
Posted on 12 August 19 at 13:36
Shadow 00 Fox said:
I think you and I should be on the Federal Reserve Board. LOL
If I was ever appointed to the Federal Reserve Board, I would work to just dismantle it wink
Fully loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness.
Shadow 00 Fox
543,541
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 13 August 19 at 19:50
a Fi1thy Casual said:
Shadow 00 Fox said:
I think you and I should be on the Federal Reserve Board. LOL
If I was ever appointed to the Federal Reserve Board, I would work to just dismantle it wink
Oh sweeet!! Then you and I DEFINITELY need to be on the Board!!
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.