Live data from Hacker News

Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

cnbc.com

161–170 of 362 posts

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this put downward pressure on the maximum corporate tax? The current minimum is 0%. Why isn't 0% also the de facto maximum, right now? Why would raising the minimum force it to (tend to) equal the maximum?

~0% is what many pay right now because various mechanisms are used to pay the tax of the lowest country tax rate. So if you enforce a minimum then likely they will pay ~min%. This is a game theory problem not an economic or political one.

Ah, so you'd propose that 0% is the current de facto minimum and maximum, and that raising the minimum is bad per se? I took your original post to mean that states would not, practically speaking, have the liberty to impose even higher rates if a de jure minimum were imposed, while currently they do, but... rather you seem to disagree with the direct point of the move itself, which is to prevent under-cutting some minimum above 0%? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#162

Apparently it's also possible to address the issue of shifting corporate profits to tax-havens even without a large scale international agreement. Basically, corporations have one place money comes in and two places it comes out, like so: sales = expenses + profits If you tax the sales, then deduct the expenses, that leaves the incidence of the tax on the profits. But importantly, unlike profits, it's usually clear t…

An agreed upon international base tax rate is the wrong solution. This becomes a minimum wage for nations and removes the incentive to compete to be the home of corporate headquarters. Border adjustment tax removes the tax shelter loophole and strengthens the incentive to be a good place to headquarter a corporation.

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#163
OECD original blogpost :

https://oecdecoscope.blog/2020/10/20/tax-challenges-from-dig...

Actually Pillar 2, which makes corporations pay taxes where they actually make money, is more interesting. Because if you sell my data to say swiss corporations, why would you pay taxes in switzerland and not in my country? In other words why not pay taxes where you extract resources ?

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#164
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is it good that a company can make profit through a business activity in some country, but instead of paying the tax there, it pays it somewhere else?

Competition in economics is the incentive that has brought the majority of westerners from Companies compete for shareholders by satisfying as many customers as possible. If states can compete for the best deal for international business, companies can better serve people, and those states can house centres of international trade. It’s not just abstract talk, but incentives that drive us to live different everyday li…

> serve people

You wanted to write “shareholders”, right?

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#165

Did a quick cross ref for the non-signatories ranked by GDP: https://pastebin.com/YyYTV65i I'd predict corporations to move to countries on this list that are non-sanctioned, high rule of law index, and easy to do business in. Ireland and Estonia in particular come to mind.

I'm surprised %0 taxes on everything UAE is implicitly a signatory! The list of countries: https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-m...

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tax the wealthy. Please don't tax the wealthy. I have a couple friends who are in top 0.1%. They have enough money for the rest of their lives. If you start taking money from them, they will simply stop working and start spending more time with friends and family. The correct goal is not to take money from the rich (which can be achieved by taxing them; this is what Bolsheviks did and it resulted in millions of dea…

Tell your 0.1 friends to focus on all those points you made, and quick, because they will be the scapegoat for the mob. Things are getting bad enough to where "cutting ones nose to spite the face" starts to make sense, redistributing the misery the rich have insulated themselves from. Just my feeling on the situation.

> Tell your 0.1 friends to focus on all those points you made

They know it already, most of my friends are classical liberals/conservatives.

> they will be the scapegoat for the mob

You are probably in the top 10% (as most people here on HN), so a lot of people here might become the same scapegoat.

> Things are getting bad enough to where "cutting ones nose to spite the face"

I'm not sure things are getting bad. Poorest people now are more rich than poorest people 30 years ago.

Like in the US now average electrician makes 70K a year. That's a lot of money. And anyone can be electrician.

They say income inequality raises, which is bad, but it might be not that bad, because common inequality measures do not includes the costs of free stuff given to poorest people from the government, like better free hospitals which they can use in case of emergency.

> starts to make sense redistributing the misery the rich have insulated themselves from.

As I said, taxing the wealthiest (especially with extremely high taxes like proposed by certain "liberal" activists) will not make poor people more rich. It will make poor people even more poor because of economic recession.

Different measures are needed.

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#168
Honest question: what is the reason for there to be a corporate tax at all? When corporations distribute profit to their owners/shareholders, those people must pay income tax on it. Why not have the government get its share from income tax?

Corporate tax seems like double taxation, and its existence seemingly means that all companies have a lower margin than they would otherwise, meaning that they need to charge higher prices to be equally profitable. For companies that sell products to consumers, one would presume this would result in higher prices for everyday items.

In other words, isn't a corporate tax ultimately regressive because it causes companies that sell products to consumers to have higher prices? Companies that sell everyday items like food and essentials will pass on that corporate tax through higher prices to consumers. Meanwhile, any business owners/shareholders who receive substantial income pay income tax in the highest tax bracket for any income received from the company.

Corporate taxes just seem to hurt margins, resulting in a regressive effect on the economy through higher prices, and discourage companies from conducting research and development, by again hurting their margins. Why not eliminate corporate tax and rely on income tax, or better yet a model like sales tax/VAT?

There will be exceptions like business owners who start a business from nothing, see the net value of their shares rise into a billion dollar valuation, yet pay little in taxes -- however they haven't necessarily sold those shares to receive income yet, and when they do they'll be taxed at the capital gains rate.

You could argue that the capital gains tax (or qualified dividend tax) should be higher, which is an entirely separate matter from the corporate tax, but if you raise that rate then you discourage prospective business owners from starting businesses, and you discourage investors from investing and holding shares in companies for the long term.

The top 1% of people by income already pay 40% of all taxes. Meanwhile, the top 2-5% pay the next 20% of all taxes; so the top 5% of earners collectively pay 60% of income tax. Given this fact it surprises me that people say that the rich need to pay their "fair share". https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t... (Note that this is considering income, not wealth. We don't tax wealth, and I don't personally think we should while people live, beyond generally taxing real estate to pay for the services provided near that real estate, such as roads, police, schools, etc. I have mixed feelings about the estate tax i.e. taxes paid on inheritances at death).

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#169
post #29

When the benefits of creating a new country outweigh the costs (to shareholders), does it fall within the fiduciary duty of corporate leaders to form a new country?

How many days until I'm a tax-paying citizen of Amazon.com Inc.?

The many perks of a Prime membership!

Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...until a poorer country adopts a lower rate, and the corporation leaves. That's the trap this avoids.

It's not a trap. The money will just never go to those countries now.

Joseph Stiglitz has written some interesting books on corporate behaviour in developing countries, such as "Globalization and its Discontents".

The argument is, is that poorer countries, especially those with natural resources, would do better nurturing their own corporations, rather than creating policies to attract foreign corporations.

The end result of preferring foreign corporations is a race-to-the-bottom where the end result is that corporations become a law unto themselves, operating as if they miniature states within the host state.

Post reply on HN