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

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#311

Post by ncallaway » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #288

ncallaway wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a choice, and one we could change. My company is taxed on revenue (under the Washington State B&O tax scheme, and similar local tax schemes). Taxing based on revenue is viable, it just needs to be done with a little more care up front.

Tax on revenue is just a sales tax on the consumer of that product or service. You might as just increase sales taxes and remove corporate taxes entirely.

In WA sales tax only applies to retail sales. Which means a revenue tax and a retail sales tax are not equivalent.

For example, if a home builder is buying lumber directly from a wholesaler, they aren’t paying a sales tax. Whereas the revenue tax does catch a portion of that income.

Maybe you mean we should broaden the concept of sales tax, and apply it to all transactions? That would be closer to equivalent to a revenue based tax structure, and would probably end up looking very similar to the VAT tax structure in Europe.

I’m fine with a VAT tax, if we want to structure things that way. Honestly it’s a lot more paperwork to manage that way instead of revenue, but either works for me.

Assuming arguendo that a sales and revenue tax were equivalent, a revenue tax would be the much simpler way to manage tax collection. Why would you ever prefer a structure that creates a tax event for every transaction, to an equivalent one that creates a single tax event per business entity?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#312

Post by johnminter » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

I suspect that here in the US it will require a vote by the Congress.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#313

Post by claudiulodro » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

pbourke wrote: post #302

MrPowers wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land taxes are based on the value of the land, not the size of the land. The property tax system already performs land value assessments. Land taxes are highly progressive. Note that land taxes are only assessed on the value of the land, not the value of any buildings on the land. This incentivizes land owners to put the land to its highest and best use.

How much land does Google use vs the most successful farmer in a given county? What’s the value of the land that Google uses?

The value of the land that Google uses is tremendous because the Google offices are located on it!

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#314

Post by CalChris » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

todd8 wrote: post #299

philjohn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate tax, as a share of total taxation in the US, has dropped from 30% to 10% since the 50's ... yet wages have been pretty stagnant since the 80's (in real terms).

The top corporate tax rate had been ~35% for roughly 25 years ; in 2018 it dropped to 21% and wage growth has indeed increased since 2018. Were wages positively affected by the lower corporate tax rate? I don’t know, so many factors affect the economy; corporations might choose to lower prices or do more research on better products or issue greater dividends to attract capital for expansion. I was just making the poi…

Average effective tax rate for corporations is considerably less than the top rate, so much so for companies like the FAANGs as to make a mockery of corporate tax as being anything more than a guarantee of full employment for tax attorneys. OTOH, brick and mortar which has to compete against Amazon has the privilege of paying for Amazon.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#315

Post by dane-pgp » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #194

yaa_minu wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Why is the government allowed to put me in prison for not paying my taxes, but when I kidnap someone and lock them up in my basement, I'm somehow the bad guy?!"

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#316

Post by valenterry » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #292

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…

If you're going to legally treat corporations the same as actual humans - then tax them the same. We pay taxes for services we expect from governments, defence, policing, justice, water, sewers etc etc I don;t see why corporations that use all these things shouldn't pay their share

Exactly this. Imagine a company that has makes X dollars and spends X dollars. So the company pays no tax. What that means is that all the other tax payers pay for all the infrastructure.

And that's fine, but if such a company ever needs to call the police and go to court, etc., they then would have to pay all of that out of their pockets (i.e. the work of the police, the lawyers and judges, and so on).

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#317

Post by jasondigitized » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

konart wrote: post #197

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)

Raise prices all you want. The invisible hand will figure out what people value and what they don't and supply and demand will adjust accordingly. "Your margin is my opportunity."

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#318

Post by dmje » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

There was a time that companies paid back into their local communities, funding schools and parks and infrastructure. It was normal until relatively recently for a pretty big chunk of profit to be "distributed" in this way. And it made sense. A company needs the community it sits in as much as the community needs the company. Then everyone went all single entrepreneurial / maximise profits for shareholders; a tiny sliver of people got astonishingly rich and incredibly greedy, and we ended up where we are with a huge poverty gap.

Companies are making enormous, enormous profits - of course they should be taxed. Tax them more. Bring back more money to the services that need them. Redistribute the wealth, because the alternative is absolute insanity.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#319

Post by indymike » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #209

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…

This is brought up again and again. You can make similar arguments for every tax. In fact let's look at income tax. The money people spend on income tax they could spend on. 1. Spent on goods or services 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing In fact income tax does not have the last two points that you admit are bad, so maybe we should eliminate income t…

Corporate profits are easily reduced to zero by say... Paying fat bonuses to ceos. All high corporate taxes do is encourage companies to dispose of the profits before the end of the tax period.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#320

Post by daveFNbuck » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

odiroot wrote: post #283

PaulRobinson wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re going down this route, many will argue that all forms of income tax are equally “wrong”. Henry George - a 19th century political economist - proposed exactly this, and suggested the only thing that should be taxed should be land: impossible to hide from a tax inspector, potentially a waste to the public commons if useful land that could be exploited isn’t and you can even protect land you wish to keep prist…

> If you’re going down this route, many will argue that all forms of income tax are equally “wrong”. I frequently come to a conclusion personal income tax should be abolished as it punishes work. CIT, VAT, capital gains and inheritance taxes should be enough to sustain a budget. These are all unrelated to performed work.

Why is punishing adding value not wrong? Isn't adding value a good thing?