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

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#371

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

acomjean wrote: post #238

BurningFrog wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This a typical economist analysis, and I think it's mostly right. But I don't think those making these decisions think in such terms at all. People love to tax companies, because they think it's "someone else" paying those taxes. Maybe there is also some anthropomorphising going on where you think of the company as another person who is much wealthier than you.

In the US at least companies have many rights like they’re people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_la...

I see that mostly as "code reuse".

Instead of writing separate but very similar laws for personal and corporate property, you say that the law is the same for both cases, aside for a few exceptions.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#372

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:05 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

> If you're going to legally treat corporations the same as actual humans ...

We don't do that, though, not by a long shot. There are some cases where the rules are the same but many, many cases where they are different. So I don't think that can serve as an argument that they should be taxed the same.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#373

Post by ok123456 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

throwaway13337 wrote: post #44

This sounds like it will be hell for small software companies with customers all over the world. Paying taxes differently for each country of the customer you sell to is a ridiculous hardship. It only benefits the large multinationals to reduce their competition. These sorts of rules centralize markets to fewer and fewer companies able to spend the resources to fulfill more and more complex rules. The end result is h…

> This sounds like it will be hell for small software companies with customers all over the world.

No. Because, they have a single physical nexus and can't pick and pick and choose where to declare their profits, after of course reaching a sweat-heart deal.

If a small business doesn't pay a tax the IRS thinks it owes, the IRS sends armed agents to serve process. They have no leeway compared to the large multinationals that pay nothing.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#374

Post by ffggvv » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:06 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 really don’t get why people get upset over share buybacks but not dividends. they’re literally the same thing.

as a stock holder there’s no difference between the stock going up 10 cents from a buyback versus me getting a 10 cent dividend. other than the fact that i can have more control as a shareholder in the buy back

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#375

Post by raldi » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:06 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 perplexed with your endorsement #2 above: Why would it be a good thing for tax breaks to end up flowing into landlords' pockets?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#376

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:07 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 don't think corporate taxation has always been this bad, so there's no reason why is should be impossible to return. To something reasonable.

And while 1-5 are good, they don't pay for the massive infrastructure and other investments that governments have made the enable corporations to do business in the first place. Those resources have to come from somewhere. I don't see it likely, for example, for dozens of corporations to come together and fund interstate highway and bridge maintenance.

I might agree with you more if corporate profits were plowed back into higher pay or better benefits for employees, significant voluntary investment back into society, etc. But benefiting from government investments in their ability to do business without paying taxes essentially means they are extracting their profits indirectly from all individual tax payers whether or not they are even customers.

I do #1, #3, #4, #5 and I'm still expected to pay taxes.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#377

Post by novok » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #74

throwaway13337 wrote: post #44

This sounds like it will be hell for small software companies with customers all over the world. Paying taxes differently for each country of the customer you sell to is a ridiculous hardship. It only benefits the large multinationals to reduce their competition. These sorts of rules centralize markets to fewer and fewer companies able to spend the resources to fulfill more and more complex rules. The end result is h…

Don't worry. The proposed tax does nothing you think it does, as the article explains. Pillar one does not apply small companies. Small companies pay just corporate tax as they did before, as the article explains. Nothing changes in that front. Pillar two.

Yeeeeahhhh, just like the GDPR had exemptions for small companies and side projects for someone's sunrise calculator app. Oh wait, it didn't.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#378

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

tmpz22 wrote: post #357

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…

Are you kidding me? All of modern history points to the money being spent on only one thing: executive compensation. You really things the wealth of the world should prioritize Zuckerberg buying another island in Hawaii??

Zuckerberg's salary is $1. The billions of dollars he has come from his equity share from, you know, founding the company.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#379

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

magila wrote: post #310

sudhirj wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s usually the case of any kind of operation, no? If you use the infrastructure and services of a particular country its seems reasonable to pay taxes on your profits there.

Even without a corporate income tax companies would still generate tax income in foreign countries where they sell goods and services, e.g. VAT/sales tax. They would also pay property tax on any physical presence they maintain and probably a myriad of other taxes depending on the country.

While the tax incidence (where the burden lands) of various taxes is a thorny question subject to much debate in the literature I don’t think it’s especially controversial to say that sales, property, and wage taxes are likely to have different incidences than a tax on profits.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#380

Post by fastball » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

> It was reported this week that an Irish subsidiary of Microsoft had paid zero corporation tax on $315bn (£222bn) profit last year because it was resident in Bermuda for tax purposes.

This is just flat wrong, right? MSFT's profits last year weren't even close to that.