-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|348|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
SoCoder -> Link Home -> Science News


 
Afr0
Created : 07 June 2011
 

SoPolitical: Money is not a good motivation



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded#at=32
Science proves part of what Marx has been trying to show all along; for anything other than the most rudimentary work, more pay leads to poorer performance.

If you're going to comment on this, please watch the movie in it's entirety first.

 

Comments


Tuesday, 07 June 2011, 18:52
JL235
Your taking the video entirely out of context. Money is a motivator, the speaker even says so at 4:50: "Money is a motivator, FACT!".

The point is that encouraging employees using high rewards (not specific to money, rewards in general) for non-algorithmic tasks do not lead to better performance. That people do want money; but they also want other things too.
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 05:39
Afr0
He says "Money is a motivator, FACT!".
Then he continiues to say "But in a slightly strange way".

...

And then he basically goes on to demonstrate the point, which is that once you pay people enough that they aren't thinking about money, anything above that actually becomes... if not demotivational, then an obstacle rather than a boost.
It basically means that anything above what is needed for peple to provide for themselves and their family, in terms of money, is a negative factor rather than a positive one.
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 05:46
JL235
It's only a negative, in terms of getting them to work harder. His real point is not about money at all, it's that people are far more complex then that and are mainly motivated by personal goals.
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 05:57
Afr0
It's only a negative, in terms of getting them to work harder.


Exactly. So much for financial bonuses.
He says so himself in the video. "This is not the sort of thing that I would have done three years ago before I knew this research. I would have said 'You want people to be creative and innovative? Give them a fricking innovation bonus!"
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 06:57
JL235
This also doesn't match up with marxist ideals at all. His point is that you need to give people the ability to have more responsibility and the chance to be more creative; to be able to have a 'purpose' in a company. That it's this which raises performance.

Under a communist regime you have the opposite; the state provides and takes decisions for you. In turn your expected to be a productive member of society. You have less purpose and less opportunities to be creative.
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 09:02
Afr0
This also doesn't match up with marxist ideals at all.


It does. Because it disproves the idea that different people 'need' to be paid differently because some work more/harder than others.

Under a communist regime you have the opposite; the state provides and takes decisions for you. In turn your expected to be a productive member of society. You have less purpose and less opportunities to be creative.


Marx was actually always quite vague about what an ideal communist society would be like. One thing that's for sure is that the state would most likely be dissolved (otherwise it wouldn't be a true communist society, at least not the way Marx described it).
One thing he WAS clear on though, was that he wanted man to utilize his full potential as a creative, producing human being. And that is not achieved in today's system for the majority of people, however you look at it.
Marx was an avid fan of freeing people from having to sell their labour to the highest bidder, thereby making them free to control what to do with their time.
Thus, you'd have situations like in the Australian company, where people created bugfixes or came up with new programs that solves new problems because they had time in which to utilize their full potential.
Wednesday, 08 June 2011, 11:47
JL235
Afr0 It does. Because it disproves the idea that different people 'need' to be paid differently because some work more/harder than others.

This is the thing though, that is NOT what the video said. It said money is a factor, and you need to be paid enough to get the issue 'off the table'. He did not say that people didn't care about money!

If I work harder, then I expect to be paid more. Most people would agree with this.

Plus I could easily turn around and say this is a very capitalist film. It shows how to get more from your employees for less pay. Most bosses would want to know about that!
Thursday, 09 June 2011, 14:10
Afr0
This is the thing though, that is NOT what the video said. It said money is a factor, and you need to be paid enough to get the issue 'off the table'.


But then it went on to say that if you pay beyond that, efficiency actually decreases.
You could speculate that different kinds of work needs different kinds of payment to get the issue 'off the table', but that would be speculation.

Plus I could easily turn around and say this is a very capitalist film. It shows how to get more from your employees for less pay. Most bosses would want to know about that!


Well, if that is capitalism, then I propose it is a good idea. Less money for everyone means more money to go around. Maybe the cantina could be extended to include a cinema!
Generally though, the boss(es) are the one(s) that should be making less money, not the workers.
The video also makes a point out of getting rid of bosses. He says "Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement, self-direction is better!".
Friday, 10 June 2011, 01:05
Stealth
It seems you have conflicting interests Afr0. You've ranted before about how capitalism screws employees by making them work harder and pay them less and now you're endorsing it.

People do NOT deserve to be paid the same. Some jobs require special skills, some are more risky, some are easier. You deserve to be paid for your effort and skills. You propose a lot of ideas about how the world should work, but it would create a very dysfunctional world.

Corporations do one thing very well: make money. And before you complain about this, don't forget that money is what makes the world go round. Governments have proven countless times that they can't efficiently make money. If we put them in charge, the price of everything would skyrocket and there would be economic collapse. There is a reason the world works the way it does: it works very well.

A fair and balanced world will never exist as long as humans exist. The mind at its core is constantly competing with others. It's a fundamental human trait--survival of the fittest.
Saturday, 11 June 2011, 15:46
Afr0
It seems you have conflicting interests Afr0. You've ranted before about how capitalism screws employees by making them work harder and pay them less and now you're endorsing it.


Mainly because in capitalism, everyone works hard, yet some earn more than others.

People do NOT deserve to be paid the same. Some jobs require special skills, some are more risky, some are easier. You deserve to be paid for your effort and skills. You propose a lot of ideas about how the world should work, but it would create a very dysfunctional world.


I propose that the current world is dysfunctional.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Governments have proven countless times that they can't efficiently make money. If we put them in charge, the price of everything would skyrocket and there would be economic collapse. There is a reason the world works the way it does: it works very well.


This is one thing we agree on: The government should be dissolved (or at least be reduced to a minimal capacity). But we disagree on the why and how. Marx believed that the government should own all businesses and corporations in order to grow wealthy enough to eventually sustain a Communist state. In some states today, like Norway for instance, this isn't even neccessary. The state is already wealthy enough.
But there must still be a revolution by the people, for the people, in order to remove power from all business owners and thus make sure that everyone starts off on an equal footing. Only then can the wealth of the state be distributed, as Marx put it, 'on an as-needed basis' (providing one works to ones capacity).
Saturday, 11 June 2011, 16:48
Stealth
Afr0 "Mainly because in capitalism, everyone works hard, yet some earn more than others."

I'd highly disagree. Some of us are hard workers, some of us are lazy. Some people come in to work and give 200% and some give just enough to not get fired. Paying everyone differently allows employers to encourage good behavior.

I feel like communism is the worst possible solution. That would make the government more massive than we have ever seen.

I've always had this idea for a "minimum standard of living". Using this model, the government would declare things every citizen is entitled to (basic healthcare, food, basic shelter, etc). A human should be able to stay healthy and safe in this program. Any citizen would be permitted to use these resources without question. This gives you a safety net that you can always fall back on. The biggest problem I see in the US is that we don't have programs to help everyone. When you have an unpredictable economy, you need this. People stave, can't get medical attention, and live on the streets because they can't find work. Unacceptable.
Saturday, 11 June 2011, 17:59
JL235
Afr0 I propose that the current world is dysfunctional.

I fully agree. But capitalism not being perfect does not mean that communism works.

If you look back over the last century, the only successful communist countries are those which have made great market reforms (such as China, Vietnam, Laos and very recently Cuba). They are really 'State Capitalist', and even then are moving further and further away from this.

In contrast capitalist countries have been shown to be far more successful. The best transport, health care systems and schools are all in non-communist countries.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011, 10:42
Afr0
Paying everyone differently allows employers to encourage good behavior.


This video shows science has proved that paying people more encourages bad behaviour, not vice versa.

That would make the government more massive than we have ever seen.


You have no basis for saying that.
None of the so-called communist societies that have existed so far have been truly communist. Soviet came close, but they started off with the worst possible society that they could have started with (essentially a feudal one).
That, the fact that they had to wage multiple wars while still building society and Stalin's powerhunger were the combined reasons why they failed.

If you look back over the last century, the only successful communist countries are those which have made great market reforms (such as China, Vietnam, Laos and very recently Cuba). They are really 'State Capitalist', and even then are moving further and further away from this.


Read what I wrote above.

For more information, I'd suggest reading Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton. It basically shatters all critical questions about Marx' thoughts into smithereens.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011, 15:48
Stealth
"This video shows science has proved that paying people more encourages bad behaviour, not vice versa."

I've actually studied this concept before you made this post. The problem is, this has nothing to do with communism.

Here is the one thing you have to understand about governments vs companies. Governments thrive when change is slow and predictable. Companies thrive when change is rapid and unpredictable. They are entirely incompatible.


"You have no basis for saying that."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a government controlling all businesses would need to be massive and powerful. Who is in favor of more government control?
Wednesday, 15 June 2011, 00:00
Afr0
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a government controlling all businesses would need to be massive and powerful. Who is in favor of more government control?


Right, it would be powerful, but only for a limited amount of time. Ideally it would only be at it's most powerful right after a revolution, then it would essentially be dissolved.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011, 07:57
HoboBen
I think it's important to add to what Afr0 said there that this isn't, or shouldn't be, a top-down government; it should be bottom-up. It will be massive and powerful because every worker will take part in the organisation of their workplace, i.e. a system of soviets, workers' councils or more direct trade unions.

When a "provisional" government is set up after a revolution, as was the case in Russia, or in the case of the military seizing power after the 2011 Egyptian People's Revolution, the revolutionaries should demand "all power to the soviets"! In Egypt, this could be the new democratic Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011, 08:13
JL235
With millions of 'soviets', you will just have chaos. So ultimately you need individuals to run this, which defeats the argument as your back to a top-down structure (a few individuals running it from the top).
Wednesday, 15 June 2011, 08:20
HoboBen
Not really. You still have elected officials to represent each soviet at a higher level, but there will be mechanisms such as instant recall, elected officials standing on a workers' wage, etc, preventing elitism.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011, 13:51
Stealth
I have zero interest in a single-salary country. In America, I can work my ass off and be wildly successful and rich. I can also be lazy and relaxed and make less. My government has no business telling me what to do with my life and I sure as hell don't want them putting a cap on how successful I can be. Some of the greatest innovations in the world come from America. Our model isn't perfect, but it sure isn't bad.

I think most people agree with me. It's usually the lower classes that are for socialism because it would give them an automatic pay raise with no work. I would consider myself in the lower class. Most of the lower class is there because they prefer to play video games and get drunk (or other wasteful activities) instead of working hard. I have little sympathy for those kind of people. Why should they be compensated the same as someone who works hard? I live in a country where I can be successful if I am willing to put forth effort. You can't get much more fair than this.

That being said, I think we should support the needy, but only for basic survival. Everytime the US creates a program that gives a little extra, it becomes severely abused by the lower class. (Such as food stamps being used to buy junk food or welfare supporting peoples drug habits.)
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 06:37
HoboBen
Most of the lower class is there because they prefer to play video games and get drunk (or other wasteful activities) instead of working hard


In fairness, that's hardly a working-class problem. Boris Johnson, George Osborne and David Cameron, all members of the Bullingdon Club, got drunk and trashed luxury 5-star hotels. In Boris Johnson's own words:

""We got drunk, trashed the Ritz <probably the UK's top hotel> & then went down Piccadilly to loot a few items from Fortnums <luxury goods store>"

Now one is Mayor of London, one is Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other is Prime Minister, and peaceful protesters who occupied Fortnums were arrested and branded by Boris as rioters.

If you or me really did live in a country where there really was equal opportunity to succeed, I would be much more in favour. But I think we've argued on that point before.

Also I have to admit I haven't actually watched the video yet, but anything arguing for less money for workers sounds dodgy to me.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 07:26
Afr0
but anything arguing for less money for workers sounds dodgy to me.


Quoted for truth.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 07:27
Afr0
I think most people agree with me.


Most people in the US, most likely. But even in the US, there are people who are members of parties like the CP-USA.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 07:52
JL235
Afr0
[quote=HoboBen]but anything arguing for less money for workers sounds dodgy to me.

Quoted for truth.
Quoted for hypocrisy. You were in favor of the video, you held it up as an example of proving that Marxism is correct. Now your saying it's dodgy???

But again the video is _NOT_ about workers pay, it is about bonuses and how workers are motivated at work! It's like comparing the wholesale cost of apples to how you go about display oranges. These are entirely different topics.

@Ben, I fully agree with you. But I also think that is a separate issue to workers pay.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 08:29
Afr0
Now your saying it's dodgy???


I already answered that previously.

"Less money for everyone means more money to go around. Maybe the cantina could be extended to include a cinema!
Generally though, the boss(es) are the one(s) that should be making less money, not the workers."

Ideally though, noone should have to worry about money. Ideally it should be abandoned as a means of bargainingship.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 13:35
Afr0
Just to clarify, bosses are also workers. And there are different groups of workers. Typically those earning in the higher reaches tend to start on earning more and then just keep on earning more and more and more. This is clearly wrong.
But what this video shows more than anything is that it is time that money was abandoned as an incentive altogether.
That is very much in line with Marx' thinking.
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 16:00
Stealth
Hoboben If you or me really did live in a country where there really was equal opportunity to succeed, I would be much more in favour.


It's not perfectly fair, but it's a lot fairer than you'd think. Rich people are rich because they are smart and because they are doers. The free market in America allows anyone to start and run a business. I'm tired of people thinking they can't be successful. You can, you just have to figure it out. Nobody is going to hand it to you.


Afr0 Ideally though, noone should have to worry about money.


This is incredibly unrealistic. Even if everyone were paid the same, people would still be unhappy. You'd start to hear things like "I work harder than John, I should make more". This is a battle you can never win.

Everyone making the same is not fair at all.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 02:36
JL235
Lets say we did setup a society where pay was equal. How would you stop people breaking this system? How would you stop Stealth from decided he will go against it?

You would have to force such individuals to conform, and I am fundamentally against forcing people to conform to any social setup.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 05:10
Afr0
Lets say we did setup a society where pay was equal.


The better thing to do would be to remove money altogether, so that services could get traded for objects and vice versa. It would be very effective in getting to the core of the real value of services and objects, and you wouldn't be able to speculate on the value of things.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 07:38
HoboBen
@Jl, that's the wrong way round

Through progressive taxation, etc, the income gap is reduced.

George Orwell said this quite well* in The Lion and the Unicorn (remember £3/week was a bit more back then):

In practice it is impossible that earnings should be limited quite as rigidly as I have suggested. There will always be anomalies and evasions. But there is no reason why ten to one should not be the maximum normal variation. And within those limits some sense of equality is possible. A man with £3 a week and a man with £1,500 a year can feel themselves fellow creatures, which the Duke of Westminster and the sleepers on the Embankment benches cannot.


* (although he said a lot of things quite badly in the rest of the book)

With free transport, cheaper costs of living, an extremely powerful economy, etc, eventually everyone has excessively more money than they need and at that point money ceases to have much meaning. Whether you do away with it officially or not is arguably irrelevant.

We already "force" individuals to conform to this to through taxation. The only thing is that we would remove the tax evasion of the super rich and wealthy institutions (I've made the point before of Barclays, which paid only 1% corporation tax in 2009).

I know Stealth has made the point before that he doesn't believe in high taxes for the rich, but we're just going to have to disagree on that (correct me if I've misunderstood, I'm just attempting to not have the same argument twice).
Friday, 17 June 2011, 08:08
JL235
There are two parts to your taxation argument. I fully agree that big corporations should pay an equal share, not much less. I'd expect Stealth probably agrees with this too.

The other is of course about if more pay == higher rate of tax, and I personally support this. The issue I have is the idea of 50%, and higher, tax rates. The idea that half of your earnings should be removed, simply because you have managed to build a better earning?
Friday, 17 June 2011, 08:29
HoboBen
I'd be happy enough to concede/compromise on that point.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 13:20
Stealth
Afr0 The better thing to do would be to remove money altogether, so that services could get traded for objects and vice versa.


The world used to be like this. It was chaos. Money is simply a generic way to represent labor. Trading labor directly is a terrible idea. You want an apple, but the guy selling them only wants oranges. What do you do? This is what money solves.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 13:24
Afr0
The issue I have is the idea of 50%, and higher, tax rates. The idea that half of your earnings should be removed, simply because you have managed to build a better earning?


The solution to this problem is simple: Don't earn enough to get your tax rates that high!
Friday, 17 June 2011, 13:36
JL235
Afr0 The solution to this problem is simple: Don't earn enough to get your tax rates that high!

I do not agree with that attitude, it's like saying "don't be a success".

For example I'd love it if PMC became a huge success, and I'm sure we'd all be happy if Jay's games took off and he earned lots selling lots of iPhone games.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 16:26
Stealth
Afr0 The solution to this problem is simple: Don't earn enough to get your tax rates that high!


It's odd that you complain about how the rich are screwing over the poor while you simultaneously talk about stealing money from them (through excessive taxation). You're being just as bad as them by saying that. Why should they have to pay a higher rate of tax than you? If it were fair, everyone would pay the same proportionate amount of their income.

Nevertheless, I don't think very many people would want to live in a world you're describing Afr0. Superimposing equality on every citizen is the opposite of freedom. Most people enjoy the fact that they can make more money if they so desire. It's a huge motivation for people.
Friday, 17 June 2011, 16:41
JL235
It's also not that big of a motivation for some. I know plenty of coders who now work for banks, and although they earn a tonne of cash doing so they also hate the fact that they literally work 9 till 9, six days a week (yes, they really do work 72 hour weeks).
Friday, 17 June 2011, 17:47
Stealth
"they also hate the fact that they literally work 9 till 9"

It's just part of the job. Corporations don't take us as slaves, we agree to do something in return for a certain amount of money. We don't have to agree to it.
Friday, 01 July 2011, 10:48
Afr0
I do not agree with that attitude, it's like saying "don't be a success".

For example I'd love it if PMC became a huge success, and I'm sure we'd all be happy if Jay's games took off and he earned lots selling lots of iPhone games.


These are two really poor examples. Do you have any fucking clue how many games Jay would need to sell to end up paying 50% of his earnings in taxes?

You're being just as bad as them by saying that. Why should they have to pay a higher rate of tax than you? If it were fair, everyone would pay the same proportionate amount of their income.


The answer to this is simple: When someone who earns 100,000 USD (or any other currency) a year pays 25% of that in taxes, that has a much bigger impact on their budget than it has for someone who earns 1000,000,000 USD a year.

Edit: You could argue that 25% is 25%, but the one who earns 1000,000,000 USD is still left with a heck of a lot more money. Therefore it would be more fair if they paid, for instance, 30%, which would still leave them with a shitload of cash.
Friday, 01 July 2011, 10:59
Stealth
Afr0 Therefore it would be more fair if they paid, for instance, 30%, which would still leave them with a shitload of cash.


Fair - Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.

I don't think you understand what fair really means, so I've defined it. Forcing someone to pay a higher percentage of taxes, no matter how much they make, is not fair. The whole point of a percentage based tax system is to charge less to those who make less. However, once we start using different percentage rates, it's not fair.
Friday, 01 July 2011, 11:51
Afr0
Fair - Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.


That definition of fair requires a definition of 'unjust advantage', and that definition usually changes based on the eye of the beholder.
Friday, 01 July 2011, 12:29
Stealth
Unjust is describing advantage. Reading it without that word makes more sense:

Fair - Without cheating or trying to achieve advantage

Fair typically means equal.

I don't care if you think the rich should pay more, but I disagree with you calling it fair. The poor are draining money from the rich by imposing all these government regulations. There will always be rich people. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean you're being screwed, you're just not being privileged.

The money the rich have is not yours, nor are you entitled to any of it. You are not entitled to anything in this world. You are bullying the rich by forcing them to pay massive amounts more in tax. The rich already pay almost all taxes in the world. Furthermore, the poor tend to utilize more government services. The fact is, most of the governments cashflow is funded by the rich and spent by the poor. Does that sound fair?
Friday, 01 July 2011, 14:18
steve_ancell
If the world leaders weren't such greedy pigs, there would be no poor. The rich shouldn't have to pay high taxes as much as anyone else shouldn't. If the governments didn't fuck up the country so much, we wouldn't be in such a mess in the first place.

On top of all that, the UK gov should start spending the taxes they have extorted from the people on this country, instead of keep using it to fight other country's wars.

I could go on, but after seeing so much damage that was done by the Labour Party due to Tony Blair being so far up George Bush's arse, what's the fucking point?.

|edit| And I agree with Stealth on this one, fair typically does mean equal! |edit|
Saturday, 02 July 2011, 05:25
Afr0
instead of keep using it to fight other country's wars.


Agreed!

The poor are draining money from the rich by imposing all these government regulations. There will always be rich people. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean you're being screwed, you're just not being privileged.


The poor doesn't impose government regulations, the government does. As for who's in government, there are typically more poor people than there are rich, which means that the poor typically have more voting power. Or at least they would have, but in the US, even this has been taken away because the rich use their money to lobby the government.

You are not entitled to anything in this world.


I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank God I live in a society where the idea that "you're not able to fend for yourself, so you are entitled to help" is still a driving force.
Unfortunately it is gradually corroding away because of greedy capitalist pigs and stupid politicians, but I will keep fighting until my dying day to make sure that they will never win.
Saturday, 02 July 2011, 09:53
steve_ancell
I say send all the scum to planet Mars and elect fairer govenernments!.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 09:18
HoboBen
You know Stealth, even if we all paid a flat tax rate it might end up fairer than the system that allows Rupert Murdoc's Newscorp made 10 billion USD in profit and pay negative 4.5 billion tax in the US. Your average working class person each paid 4.5 billion more in tax than Newscorp did.

This doesn't even seem like an isolated incident, either. General Electric: worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States and GE claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Even Google only pays a 2.4% tax rate

The same shit happens in the UK.
Thursday, 14 July 2011, 02:15
spinal
The problem is, even though it is 100% terrible for the economy, governments take big handouts in exchange for these tax breaks for high earners.
It they taxed everyone by the correct amount and make it illegal to shift profits though other countries so that tax is paid in the countries that earned them the money, the world wide economy would probably be fixed in a few years.
Thursday, 14 July 2011, 02:34
JL235
I am in no way condoning News Corporations tax rebate-trick, but having companies making money does not hurt the economy.

For example News Corporation alone spends around $30 billion each year on wages and other costs. Pretty much all large business, including the oil giants, spend _FAR_ more then they earn. Retail chains often receive around 5% of the price of a product as profit, often less then that. This is all money which is going back into the economy.

Lets also remember that there are some perfectly legitimate reasons for companies receiving money back from the tax man, such as giving money to charity or being taxed by an incorrect amount (again, I'm not defending News Corporation). There is no 'tax loop hole' law that we can simply close; most loop holes exist due to the complexities economics.
Thursday, 14 July 2011, 09:59
HoboBen
There are some legitimate reasons, I'll grant you. Some, particularly, are essential to small businesses in their first few years of trading. But it's absolutely grotesque the way that huge multinationals can claim the same advantages.

Unfortunately I'm not an economist, and can't confidently point to specific examples (I could try, but I don't want to spread misinformation if I'm wrong on any case. Tax free loans between subsidiaries might be one example) but many of these loopholes exist due to aggressive lobbying - by News Corp especially in the US, as any attempt to close a loop hole leads to a Fox News campaign of hate and lies. To a slightly lesser extent in the UK, Murdoch's media, as has been revealed recently, also held vast political power.

Off-shore tax havens are also another problem. Do you think many small businesses or even middle class individuals can afford the lawyers to make it work? No, it's a luxury that only benefits massive corporations and the super rich. In my completely unqualified opinion, why not just tax these money transfers to other countries? Everyone else already has to pay tax when they do this.

Also, I think in the UK there is a legal distinction between tax mitigation (a legal practice) and tax avoidance (illegal), a "course of action designed to conflict with or defeat the evident intention of Parliament" Willoughby v CIR. A huge corporation paying zero, ~1%, or negative tax, I would argue should be against the official intention of UK Parliament... but it isn't, otherwise criminal charges would have been brought to Barclays, Phillip Green, and many others by now.