Live data from Hacker News

How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

nytimes.com

1–10 of 69 posts

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#5

> Congressional leaders agree that passing legislation according to [the Schumer-Portman] framework would stop inversions Until another country offers an even better tax deal to attract multi-national corporations.

Not really - there are benefits to being based in the US. If everyone just chased the lowest taxed jurisdictions then every corporation would be based in a tax haven.

Corporations aren't repatriating the money they hold offshore. I can see why the US wants a piece of that pie, but they currently aren't getting any pie and are losing piemakers. Taking a smaller cut of something whilst also having that something flow back into the US is surely a good thing.

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#6

Such a pile of crap, by Icahn, of course. Corporations do not exist in a vacuum of social irresponsibility and their first duty is certainly not to their shareholders but to the people they employ and to the societies they thrive on.

No, actually what you're saying is a pile of crap. The only irresponsible ones in this situation are the members of Congress. The United States is not immune to economic forces, yet for years despite all the evidence to the contrary they've been in utter denial about this. All they have to do is pass a simple bill to make the US tax code work the same way as it does in every other god damn country in the world, then no more jobs get moved overseas.

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#7

> Congressional leaders agree that passing legislation according to [the Schumer-Portman] framework would stop inversions Until another country offers an even better tax deal to attract multi-national corporations.

That's not how things actually work. If it was, every nation but one would lose all of their corporations to that one country with the lowest rate.

The decline in the benefit of a lower corporate tax rate accelerates as you go lower. For example, going from 35% to 25% might reduce your corporate inversions by 75%. Going from 35% to 10% might reduce your inversions by 85%.

The challenge is to find the level where you gain the most as a nation overall. If you have something to offer other than just the low tax rate, it will never make sense to chase toward zero. The closer you get to that ideal level, the more other factors come into play to your nation's benefit in regards to keeping companies. The US has vast benefits for a company like Pfizer that would compensate for N% additional tax rate.

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#8
post #5

> Congressional leaders agree that passing legislation according to [the Schumer-Portman] framework would stop inversions Until another country offers an even better tax deal to attract multi-national corporations.

Not really - there are benefits to being based in the US. If everyone just chased the lowest taxed jurisdictions then every corporation would be based in a tax haven. Corporations aren't repatriating the money they hold offshore. I can see why the US wants a piece of that pie, but they currently aren't getting any pie and are losing piemakers. Taking a smaller cut of something whilst also having that something flow b…

[deleted]

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#9

> Congressional leaders agree that passing legislation according to [the Schumer-Portman] framework would stop inversions Until another country offers an even better tax deal to attract multi-national corporations.

Correct. That's why 0% is preferable to 8%, and Schumer-Portman should be thought of as a medium term stop-gap measure. 0% is the only stable rate. Eventually that will happen, but for the time being 8% will work as other revenue adjustments are made.

Re: How to Stop Turning U.S. Corporations into Tax Exiles

#10

Such a pile of crap, by Icahn, of course. Corporations do not exist in a vacuum of social irresponsibility and their first duty is certainly not to their shareholders but to the people they employ and to the societies they thrive on.

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

- Judge Learned Hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand)

Post reply on HN