Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 931 posts

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#341

Post by dane-pgp »

nickpp wrote: post #190
avianlyric wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such crap. While in theory you’re right, it ignores the biggest difference. With politicians ever person only gets one vote, theoretically equal power to force change. With corporations, the number of votes a person gets is directly related to their bank balance. There’s no such thing as equal power for the people, only the rich get to vote.

That is exactly how we got the planet to its current state: if you give more power to the numbers you'll encourage more numbers. Maybe it's time to give more weight to another human accomplishment than reproduction, like to the value created. But I don't hear governments giving more voting rights to more populous countries, instead it's to the "more developed" (PIB) and "more powerful" (military) both proxies for wea…

> like to the value created.

Or to the value stolen. You have to understand that by giving state power to the wealthy, they will declare their own actions legitimate and the actions of the poor to be illegitimate.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#342

Post by simondotau »

Pelam wrote: post #211
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. Buying and controlling media for desired political outcomes. 10. Astroturfing As different sectors of business have different structures of material costs, labor costs, profit and investing. Maybe having at least some kind of equal corporate tax can be seen as being fair across different types of businesses. Additionally many forms of business have externalities which are negative for the rest of the humanity. Oft…

Your 9 and 10 aren’t captured by corporate tax either, because spending money reduces profit.

But your 9 and 10 are captured by the income tax of the people tasked with executing these operations.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#343

Post by gambiting »

lars512 wrote: post #282
MrPowers wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deadweight loss of taxation is much lower for a land tax than an income tax. The deadweight loss is the economic resources allocated to complying with the tax. The armies of tax lawyers would be able to perform other economically productive activities if they weren't pouring over the tax code. Pigovian taxation is even better. Taxing gas is a great example. Gas consumers emit carbon which has a cost for society.…

As an Australian who moved to Sweden, I was amazed at how efficient the Swedish income tax process was. The government already knew everything they needed to calculate your return, and gave it pre-filled. There were not endless exemptions. Nobody at my work used an accountant, most approved their tax with a few clicks and were done. So much more efficient than in Australia!

In the UK if you're in full time employment and only have one job, then there's literally nothing to do. Not even clicking somewhere to approve your tax return - your employer does it all for you. I know people who are literally unaware when the tax year ends because they never in their entire adult lives had to do anything with the tax return - it's just completely irrelevant to a normal working person. And on the ocassion that you have to fill one out for whatever reason, most of it is already prefiled from the information HMRC holds about you already.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#345

Post by jandrewrogers »

ipaddr wrote: post #276
runarberg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tra…

Capital gains is much lower in the US compared to other countries, your idea floats the value at your current tax bracket. It could work but where do royalities fit in? Estate taxes?

This is incorrect, capital gains rates in the US are currently similar to or higher than many European countries. Federal (20%) + NIIT (3.8%) + State (up to 13.3%) puts you firmly in the middle of the pack for European countries. The proposed changes would make them the highest in the developed world, by a large margin.

The elephant in the room is that the main difference between US and European tax rates is that the middle-class tax rates in the US are much lower than their European counterparts. If you are in the top tax bracket in California, the income taxes aren’t that much different than in most of Europe and the capital gains taxes are typically lower.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#346

Post by Ericson2314 »

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?

Urban office land is easily more expensive.

I say the land value tax (LVT) is best grouped with Pigouvian taxes; as PP says, normal property tax relatively incentivizes holding undeveloped land, which is like charging a higher carbon tax if your car has a better MPG.

One one hand, we can also do a VAT in developed countries --- perhaps more feasible than in the 19th century and making more sense if we are no longer rapidly developing and reliant on private investment to foster those changes --- on the other hand in big closed economies we can also just print money quite safely, so Henry George is quite right to focus Pigouvian taxes when "taxation for the revenue" is far less important than curbing bad material outcomes.

(I only suggest VAT with a UBI to make it no longer regressive.)

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#347

Post by Misdicorl »

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…

The problem I don't see addressed is that no/low corporate tax leads to bad market incentives. It is more efficient for my company to buy me things than for me to buy me things. But my company will inevitably buy inoffensive/cheap things that appeal to all employees rather than what I really want. This is most often implemented as a food perk or car perk, but obviously extends to almost any consumable purchase.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#348

Post by relaxing »

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.

I frequently come to the conclusion that personal grocery bills should be free, as charging for food punishes existing.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#349

Post by Black101 »

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. Kept in cash

Like Apple likes to do: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/29/apple-q4-cash-hoard-heres-ho...

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#350

Post by edgyquant »

claudiulodro wrote: post #313
pbourke wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

But an LVT isn’t a tax on the infrastructure it is a tax on the value of the underlying land.
Post reply on HN