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

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#911

Post by lostcolony » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #699

lostcolony wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens tend to be all over the place when it comes to taxation. Traditional corporations are pure profit seeking entities. What they would -prefer- is to pay no taxes at all, while benefiting from all tax paid services they can. So I'm not really sure, given we're talking hypotheticals here anyway, that designing a system to tax corporations based on what they -prefer- is really going to get us anywhere. The curren…

> would -prefer- is to pay no taxes at all, while benefiting from all tax paid services they can. I think you could probably preface the above with the word “citizens” and it would still be true. But both citizens and corporations have the right to lobby their representatives in their own interest. It’s the politicians job to try and create policy that balances the interests of all their constituents.

I addressed citizens in the very first sentence.

I, personally, would happily pay -more- in taxes, if it meant that, for instance, we stopped all fundraising for elections (and instead candidates had a set amount to spend per race), and also if we provided healthcare to everyone.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#912

Post by trainsplanes » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

alentist wrote: post #838

trainsplanes wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying Ireland, Luxembourg, Bermuda (part of the UK), the Virgin Islands (part of the US and UK), Singapore, and Switzerland aren't western countries part of or at very least allied with and influenced by other western "neoliberal" countries/G7? Because that's a very, uh, unique idea. Also weird to jump from implying escape from western influence doesn't exist to listing western countries as a way to escape…

Are you implying they're socialist?

I'm directly stating that they're not, and the implication that any G7 country is socialist is bizarre.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#913

Post by melesian » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 8:18 AM UTC

rswail wrote: post #864

briandear wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also agreed in principle to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other. Why? If a country can be more efficient, why must they be penalized by being required to raise taxes? This is the equivalent of a price floor. Why should a country be required to have higher taxes to appease those that make different policy decisions? It should be up to the government (voters) wha…

Ireland is part of the EU, so how it taxes corporations is something it has to negotiate with the rest of the EU. That is its problem, not something the G7 care about. Ireland has attracted investment and revenue by undercutting other nations, while providing access to the EU. Not surprisingly, the rest of the EU is not happy about that. No one is denying nations the right to set their own tax rates for corporations.…

Evidently you know little or nothing about the EU. Taxation by member states of the EU is a sovereign national competence and the Irish have both a veto over change and a likely requirement to hold a national referendum over any change.

If you do some research you'll find that there is zero evidence of any EU countries shifting profits to Ireland. Almost all of the profit shifting which Ireland is blamed for facilitating is undertaken by a handful of US MNCs enriching their shareholders at the expense of US taxpayers via mechanisms enabled first and foremost by the US govt

https://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-shifts-...

I recommend spending some time reading https://irisheconomy.ie

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#914

Post by tomp » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:56 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #759

saddlerustle wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Apple's sales is to consumers, so it's equivalent for the sake of argument.

Its not equivalent to a revenue tax, because a VAT excludes purchase price and revenue doesn’t.

VAT excludes the VAT paid when the company purchased the raw materials, i.e. it's paid net.

The end result is, the consumer pays VAT which is 20% of the price (i.e. 20% of the revenue), and the tax is spread out evenly across the whole production supply chain, weighted by the amount of added value by each company in the chain.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#915

Post by tomp » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:57 AM UTC

rmah wrote: post #532

throwaway4good wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should do a sales tax then.

The UK already has an 18% GST rate, which is equivalent to an 18% tax on revenues. In 2020, Apple had revenues of $274B and pre-tax net income of $67B. On which, they paid $10B in income tax (a 15% rate). Apple revenues in the UK was about $2B. Which means Apple is already paying $360mil in GST tax to the UK gov. Apple also paid some amount of wage, income, real-estate and other taxes. Let's imagine companies had to…

Bingo. The reason that non-US governments (like the UK) want to get a share of the tax on profits is because they lack domestic innovative high-profit companies. They want to take a share of the added value created / subsidised by another government (US in this case). It's bad incentives all around.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#916

Post by world_peace42 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #415

world_peace42 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George’s ideas are interesting to ponder now and then. I’d definitely want to be a billionaire in that system, though, you’d pay pennies on your penthouses split with everyone living below you. If only taxes were that easy to figure out.

Middle class families in single family homes are hoarding a scarce and essential resource. Billionaires in high rises aren’t. The idea is to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior, not to cut down the tall poppies.

I’m sure many peasant farmers living in feudal lands share the same perspective as you on what resources are scarce.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#917

Post by azernik » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #844

azernik wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would quibble that the name collision of the US Senate's "ratification" power is intentional and not confusing. When the Senate votes to "ratify" a treaty, it is authorizing the US government to perform the international act of ratification. i.e. US domestic law governs the procedures by which the state can perform the internationally-recognized act of treaty ratification.

To be strict about it, the Senate never votes to ratify a treaty. It votes to give its "advice and consent to the ratification". The actual ratification is done by the Executive not by the Senate. But the Senate's advice and consent is popularly called "ratification" even though it isn't. And the Senate's consent is not required to ratify a treaty. Ultimately the Executive decides whether to classify something as a "…

The Senate's consent is required to ratify certain treaties.

It all depends on what the treaty's terms require the government to do. If the terms can be fulfilled by executive power, the executive can sign and ratify on its own (executive agreement). If the terms need the force of congressional legislation to implement, it can be ratified on a regular legislative vote of both houses of congress (executive-legislative agreement).

The ones that require a Senate supermajority are the ones that "legislate" in areas outside of Congress's normal jurisdiction. e.g. the US Congress probably can't pass a law prohibiting states from using the death penalty, but with a 2/3 Senate vote it could sign a treaty banning it.

(Another advantage of going "up" a level is that repealing or withdrawing from a treaty is more difficult the higher you go, generally requiring a similar authority to withdraw as was used to ratify.)

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#918

Post by nomoreplease » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

bodono wrote: post #160

nomoreplease wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you mean by loop holes. In the US, you can deduct R&D or capital costs like building a factory. That can make your tax bill nearly zero. I wouldn’t call that a loop hope. It’s something out there to incentivize capital spending and job creation. Other countries have the same

Right, so the question is will those 'deductions' still be allowed or not? If so, then get ready for endless deductions from countries that want lower tax rates than 15%.

I would hope they're still allowed, wouldn't you? Incentivizing new factories incentivizes new job creation. The income from these jobs are taxed perpetually. Otherwise, companies will sit on the cash or distribute it to shareholders in the form of dividends, which increases the wealthy shareholder's wealth, with only a one-time 15% going to taxes.

This isn't to say that I don't want businesses taxed, but if a business had 10B in profits, but deducts 5B for capital improvements, then the 5B in remainder can be taxed at 15%

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#919

Post by bumby » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #911

bumby wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would -prefer- is to pay no taxes at all, while benefiting from all tax paid services they can. I think you could probably preface the above with the word “citizens” and it would still be true. But both citizens and corporations have the right to lobby their representatives in their own interest. It’s the politicians job to try and create policy that balances the interests of all their constituents.

I addressed citizens in the very first sentence. I, personally, would happily pay -more- in taxes, if it meant that, for instance, we stopped all fundraising for elections (and instead candidates had a set amount to spend per race), and also if we provided healthcare to everyone.

Ah, ok I didn’t realize context of “all over the place” meant in terms of reasons for taxation. I do think there is a growing movement in business to have a multi-dimensional focus. B-Corps are one example.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#920

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #369

mjmahone17 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bad news for farmers that are farming in the middle of a city, yes. But farms in rural areas will hardly get taxed at all, because the land couldn’t be used for much else, so has very little intrinsic value. Land value taxes adjust based on how desirable a plot is: basically, you get to keep any value you generate above and beyond the value the society surrounding the land gave it. If you leave a plot of land em…

I’m wondering how this is supposed to interact with zoning? There is a lot of agriculturally-zoned land in California that would turn into housing developments pretty quick if it weren’t illegal. It’s typically in a nice-looking area near some water or a park, not in the middle of a city. If you keep the zoning then maybe the land isn’t worth that much, but if property taxes were based on the “true” land value then i…

The only reasonable way to account for zoning would be to require the zoning board to actually buy the property and pay the associated taxes. Then they can lease out their own property with whatever restrictions they want. Without the benefit of subsidies or eminent domain, naturally—if they want to expand their reach they'll need to raise that money through the revenues from leases (less income tax and other overhead), with restrictive zoning rules limiting their revenues.