• Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Which works out to around $29,200,000.00 / DAY in profits, not even total revenue but actual in the pocket profits, for selling sugar water with some flavor additives…

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good.

    How many people have diabetes because of their Coca-Cola addiction? How many people are overweight and hate their bodies because of all of the non-nutritious sugars they have drank?

    And they have the audacity to not only charge several dollars a pop for their sodas, but to also bottle water in the exact same plant and charge the exact same price for the water they have bottled that they do for their sodas.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Externalities with no direct impact on the company? No way! Milton Friedman assured me that capitalism was perfectly balanced with 0 exploits!

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Don’t blame a soda company of you being fat and chugging 130 calories down 12 ounces at a time. Own up to your own shit. “This item tastes good. I blame it for ne being unhealthy because I won’t stop eating/drinking too much of it”

      • KillerWhale@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        In isolation that is true, but it’s not a fair game. Own up to your own shit when They lobby against restrictions in schools to target children with their addictive substances. They have marketing budgets in the hundreds of millions to convince us one more won’t hurt. They employ psychologists to come up with the most manipulative strategys.

        It’s not a level playing field.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Coca Cola ensured that international drug laws grant them an exception to use real coca leaves (with the cocaine extracted from them first). Oddly enough, they could still make their cola taste the same without the leaves. The reason they still use them is because they likely wouldn’t be allowed to call it “coca” cola it it had no coca leaves. The name was so recognizable that they asked for an exception to drug laws rather than change the name of their drink.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    With a wink and a nudge, transactions are often structured to shift profits from high-tax countries to low-tax countries to cut their tax bills. The most popular target for transfer pricing abuse is intangible property, including licenses for manufacturing, distribution, sale, marketing, and promotion of products in overseas markets. Since intangible property doesn’t really have a physical home—unlike, say, real estate—it’s easy to transfer it to countries that offer certain benefits, including more favorable tax treatment. (That’s what’s in dispute in the Coca-Cola case.)

    Ugh

    • h_ramus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The intangible property for coke is a secret recipe that is preserved in some vault in the US. There’s no transfer of IP here and that’s not what’s in dispute.

      The facts are centred around the profitability of concentrate producers that earn the super profits. Operating entities and the US makes a slim margin.

      You can read a better informed analysis here.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The dispute centres on Coke subsidiaries in Ireland, Brazil, Eswatini and four other countries that manufacture concentrate, the syrup that gets mixed with carbonated water to make drinks such as Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite. The subsidiaries sit between the US parent company, which owns the brands, and the bottling companies that make the final product.

        The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates, the US tax court found. The subsidiary in Ireland, which had a tax rate as low as 1.4 per cent, at one point shipped to bottlers in 90 countries.

        Unlike independent contract manufacturers, which typically have low margins, an IRS analysis found these Coke subsidiaries were unusually profitable — earning a return on assets two-and-a-half times that of the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard.

        Those profit levels were “astronomical”, Judge Albert Lauber wrote in an initial ruling in 2020.

        • h_ramus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates

          Manufacturing is different than IP transfers.

          the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard

          IP is owned by the US. What they’re describing is transfer pricing. Subsidiaries are owned by coke hence by definition coke sets the prices under which the US charges for their IP. It’s tax advantageous to charge a low amount to shift profits to low tax jurisdictions.

          Numbers look massive but overall not large enough. Coke is gigantic and the dispute spans multiple years. The IRS hasn’t always covered themselves in glory and they may still fumble a technical aspect on the burden of proof.

          Interesting to see it unfold but coke has a history of environmental, business and humane malpractices. This is just another outcome of such business model.

  • xor@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    and i bet nobody goes to jail in the end, and ultimately they end up profiting after paying it back

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      For this to be criminal it’d probably require intent to be proven which is difficult without a “smoking gun” of an email being like “do this to avoid taxes or be fired”- CEO. For it just to be civil fines is a lot simpler to show. Their inevitable appeal and potential reduction in fine is a different issue.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Of course they have intent. That’s not an issue at all. They’re trying to avoid taxes, which is in itself legal, and they aren’t denying that. Their theory is that the IRS is doing the math wrong.

      • xor@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        16 billion dollars of money laundering isn’t an “honest mistake”…. criminal intent abounds

    • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Unflavourful?

      There are so many things you can complain about and you pick the one things so false an entirely new genre of soft drinks had to be created to tone shit down. Eg; flavored seltzers

      You may actually have a medical issue affecting your taste buds, or you’ve never drank a real soda.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Soda is literally an assault on your taste buds… Your tongue is completely numb 😂

  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The fact that there are so many legal loopholes to use to save from paying taxes, the fact they go this far to avoid taxes is disgusting.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Fun fact, most laws are written by the corporations to which they apply. There’s no possible way for politicians to actually write all of the laws, so they rely on their corporate paymasters lobbyists to go ahead and write them, then have their staff skim through it all, and then sign off on it before it goes off to the chamber for a vote.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      When you’re a billion dollar company, It’s cheaper to bribe politicians than it is to pay taxes.

      There’s a supreme Court judge right now who was giving companies favorable laws for like a pack of twizzlers.

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      it is just an inevitable consequence of money and lobby based politics. Whoever contributed to turn US elections into something like a pro wrestling match event is to blame

    • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I wish they’d pay the taxes in the country the drinks were bought. Even if the US manages to scrape back some, that’s only one country seeing the taxes owed.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure, it might be prudent to always assume any reported white collar crimes are at least one order of magnitude greater than we get to know. That said, I was really impressed with their stock ticker company description blurb where they strive to “honor God” in all their works.

        • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Assuming they’re referring to the Christian God, a selfish, emotionally unstable mega toddler, their behavior would be appropriate.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      This sort of stuff is why the corporate veil needs to be abolished. If they’re not criminals, then they can buy insurance.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Do people upvote these comments without checking anything? Does it sound reasonable for one of the largest companies in the world to be worth only $11 billion?

      The Coca-Cola Company is worth $296 billion. I don’t think they’ve been worth only $11 billion since the '80s.

      https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/KO/

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s a US bottling company that buys from the actual Coca-Cola Company.

          The company was formerly known as Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated and changed its name to Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. in January 2019.

          https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/COKE/profile/

          These bottling companies are the ones that beat people up in developing countries, not the actual manufacturer. They can be confusing.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

            Well, I at least stand by my earlier point, that white collar crime is usually way worse than is ever reported.