This is going to sound like a 99% rant, however this article perfectly demonstrates a scenario where tax-avoidance benefits few at the expense of the greater populace.
To quote the article: "a company's obligation to its shareholders is to try to minimise its taxes and all costs, but to do so legally"
Let's talk about who those share holders are: In tech companies the largest percentage of shares usually belong to the founders or the investors. Meaning that the tax minimisation is directly profiting few, and in some cases a single individual.
Regular persons do not have the financial clout to either purchase shares, even in low volumes which would see so little of the avoided-tax-returned-as-profits. Similarly small companies don't have sufficient funding to set up elaborate tax minimisation schemes, effectively forcing them to bear the brunt and be less competitive.
Governments deprived from tax income then turn to the population to bolster their coffers, and often to remain popular the tax rate is kept lower than required - which means cutting back on programs which benefit the greater good. We've seen some pretty ridiculous examples of how underfunded the education sector is becoming. (Somewhat hypocritical when the education sector is responsible for creating the skilled individuals that fuel these companies.)
Stopping international loopholes is incredibly difficult, however there is still plenty that can be done to entice companies to not start them in the first place. Incentive rates could be introduced which allow companies (especially smaller ones) to take advantage of a lower rate in exchange for certain business restrictions that limit these sorts of activities.
To quote the article: "a company's obligation to its shareholders is to try to minimise its taxes and all costs, but to do so legally"
Let's talk about who those share holders are: In tech companies the largest percentage of shares usually belong to the founders or the investors. Meaning that the tax minimisation is directly profiting few, and in some cases a single individual.
Regular persons do not have the financial clout to either purchase shares, even in low volumes which would see so little of the avoided-tax-returned-as-profits. Similarly small companies don't have sufficient funding to set up elaborate tax minimisation schemes, effectively forcing them to bear the brunt and be less competitive.
Governments deprived from tax income then turn to the population to bolster their coffers, and often to remain popular the tax rate is kept lower than required - which means cutting back on programs which benefit the greater good. We've seen some pretty ridiculous examples of how underfunded the education sector is becoming. (Somewhat hypocritical when the education sector is responsible for creating the skilled individuals that fuel these companies.)
Stopping international loopholes is incredibly difficult, however there is still plenty that can be done to entice companies to not start them in the first place. Incentive rates could be introduced which allow companies (especially smaller ones) to take advantage of a lower rate in exchange for certain business restrictions that limit these sorts of activities.