G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals • Hacker News Board

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#191

Post by Schlaefer » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #179

Schlaefer wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens all the time, see e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect Of course you're free to ignore it, if you don't care about hundreds of million potential customers.

It links to the opposing effect too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom So it isn't that simple when it is something like this. So far history shows that tax havens work and the loop-holes are very challenging to close.

This legislation is directly aimed at preventing a race to the bottom, because societies (represented by their governments) realized that they are getting played by extranational entities if they act alone.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#192

Post by nickpp » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

miohtama wrote: post #93

nickpp wrote: post #90

So the largest violence monopolists in the world are using the unique opportunity handed to them by the pandemic to create a cartel with two purposes: - raise the protection tax they levy on their subjects - prevent smaller violence monopolists from undercutting their protection fees through competition Basically governments deciding competition is not good for them and everyone should just pay up.

It's good if all competition can be taxed equal. Small biz cannot compete against Amazon that pays 0% tax in their international arrangements.

Small biz can use their creativity to find other ways of competing, not just price. Support for example, which Amazon is atrocious for.

We cannot held consumers hostage for the good of the "small biz".

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#193

Post by awillen » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #162

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…

People's attitude towards Amazon is the biggest counterexample of this. They have avoided a lot of taxes not through nefarious means, but by constant reinvestment (items 1-5). At some point, when a company is bringing in enough revenue, a lot of public attitude seems to be that it should be paying taxes regardless of whether it's investing that revenue in things that we generally see as positive.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#194

Post by viraptor » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

yaa_minu wrote: post #168

greenwich26 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, of course. But Rousseau made it quite clear that the sovereignty of a government is discretionary. This sort of thinking isn't convincing on an ideological or theoretical level to anyone but a medieval peasant, and it only increases my indignation.

It's interesting that you're being downvoted but you make a solid point. People in government are no different than those not in government, we're the same human beings. To suggest that they should be able to do anything they want seems pretty backwards and quite contrary to the enlightenment ideas.

It's a philosophical point disconnected from reality. In most countries we've got some system of elected government with various branches who get more power and influence than other people. Having a solid philosophical point against it doesn't change the world.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#195

Post by large » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #158

I already said that the pandemic would force the entire world to lean to the left in terms of politics. It's inevitable. I'm very happy about that decision, but I'm not really confident it will lead to something. I'm also a bit cynic that it took a pandemic to make countries realize they need money. I'm also waiting to see if government are really planning to fight against tax havens. The problem is that it's impossi…

>I'm also a bit cynic that it took a pandemic to make countries realize they need money.

Money doesn't come from taxes. Maybe 'progressive' taxes should be low to none.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#196

Post by nickpp » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #174

rjknight wrote: post #162

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…

9. Just kept in a large pile like Apple does.

Apple's cash reserve hasn't grown in a while since they are spending it on stock buybacks and dividends.

But the very reason they didn't repatriate it and spend it in the US is the corporate tax the GP is arguing against.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#197

Post by konart » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

More taxes = higher prices. In the end buyer is the one who will be charged.

+50$ for an iPhone in the US, +50€ in EU and +5000₽ in Russia.

People in rich nations will spend proportionally less than people in poor ones obviously. (no serious analytics, just thoughts)

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#198

Post by runarberg » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #162

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…

I’m of the opinion that there should only be income tax (paid as a function of standard deviations from from the mean wage on the logistical curve). And all personal profits should be considered income, including sold shares, paid dividends, earned interest, etc.

However I can see how that system would be abused. E.g. instead of buying that yacht from your personal money (which you need to pay 70% tax on when you transfer it from the company) you simply have the company pay for it and say this is a company yacht. Then I can see how people would continue to hide their wealth in off shore shell companies that they never have to pay a tax on. So even with this scheme it is still ripe for tax havens.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#199

Post by dgb23 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

Proven wrote: post #9

Sight, those socialist thugs... All of them are above the minimum, so what does that really achieve? Message for the central planners: you can't tax me anything if I don't work. Or if I work but not here. And let's not forget that involuntary taxation is theft.

The massive infrastructure and education is free then?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#200

Post by nickpp » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

awillen wrote: post #193

rjknight wrote: post #162

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…

People's attitude towards Amazon is the biggest counterexample of this. They have avoided a lot of taxes not through nefarious means, but by constant reinvestment (items 1-5). At some point, when a company is bringing in enough revenue, a lot of public attitude seems to be that it should be paying taxes regardless of whether it's investing that revenue in things that we generally see as positive.

Which "people"? Consumers are delighted with Amazon, otherwise Amazon's revenue would dwindle. Investors, even more.

I think the attitude you are talking about is largely driven by media.