Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by dantheman » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #155

jbaudanza wrote: post #26

Imposing taxes on a legal entity always seemed fishy to me. Politically, it sounds great to say, "Make the corporations pay their share!", but who exactly are we targeting with these taxes? Is it the rich executives? Why not just raise taxes on the rich directly? I suspect in most cases the tax burden is just shifted onto the lower-income workers or the customers somehow.

> Politically, it sounds great to say, "Make the corporations pay their share!", but who exactly are we targeting with these taxes? Is it the rich executives? Why not just raise taxes on the rich directly? Pretty basic megarich person accounting: You realize zero income, you just hold a lot of valuable assets, and you pay no taxes. "But surely they must have some income to live on!" you argue. Nope, you get a $10 mil…

Except that doesn't happen?

Bezos paid 973 Million in taxes [1], note that article conflates income and wealth in a truly economic illiterate way.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/irs-records-show-wealt...

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

#192

Post by asteroidbelt » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #177

asteroidbelt wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Poor…

I'm in the bottom 50% of the population money wise, but you're right, HN is definitely full of people in the top 10%, and so literally shortwire in their brains when I say something like "it's bad enough to where cutting ones nose to spite the face is starting to make sense" Because from your position it seems absurd. From mine it seems like the only move left to make.

> it's bad enough to where cutting ones nose to spite the face is starting to make sense

What is the evidence that now is worse than say 30 years ago for the bottom 50%?

It is perceived that it is worse now. But is it objectively worse?

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

#193

Post by reeealloc » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #40

This is a new kind of imperialism. The G7 makes up the rules, under the guise of fighting tax evasion or financing of terrorist activities. Then they make all the less powerful countries comply to those rules. If they do not, they get greylisted or blacklisted by some "international" watchdog, making it much harder for those countries to participate in the global economy. Of course only the poorer less influential co…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

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

#194

Post by petermcneeley » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

handrous wrote: post #161

petermcneeley wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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…

If the point is for every country to have the same tax rate then yes this solves that problem. Each country cannot impose a higher rate de jure for the same reason why now the effective rate is 0%.

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

#195

Post by magila » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #171

magila wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different from having money invested in stocks/real estate/etc today? Unrealized capital gains aren't taxed regardless of whether the asset is held by a corp or individual. In any case it's when the person realizes the gains that a taxable event is triggered.

The difference is it can be a realised gain that you'd then not pay tax on. Eg the Corp makes 100 in profits but at zero it doesn't pay out anything. For unrealised gains you're right, there's no difference.

Ok, but corp owner still can't benefit from the gain without generating a taxable event. Either they pull the money out directly or receive a benefit in kind. In either case it gets taxed as regular income so in that sense the person would actually be in a worse tax situation assuming capital gains is taxed at a reduced rate.

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

#196

Post by collaborative » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

tastyfreeze wrote: post #162

throwaway34241 wrote: post #143

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.

Nations can still compete. Stability, rule of law, infrastructure investment, etc. Everything except letting companies use the country as a pirate's cave

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

#197

Post by amznthrwaway » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #157

CrazyStat wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raising corporate taxes is generally popular, not "wildly unpopular." For example, in a recent poll 65% of Americans support raising corporate taxes [1]. This number has been fairly steady over time. It's even higher when you ask about closing loopholes that allow international tax havens, as this 15% minimum tax agreement is trying to do--70-85% support [2]. The only terrible shame here is you laundering your opinio…

65% of Americans have no clue what it takes to run a business of any scale. They can barely calculate a tip at the restaurant, yet they think they are qualified to make decisions on taxation. The flavor of democracy we practice has been good. However, we must be honest enough to admit it can degenerate into mob rule, which generally means decisions are made by the most gullible and ignorant among us on any specific t…

[dead]

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

#198

Post by Jammub » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

tastyfreeze wrote: post #162

throwaway34241 wrote: post #143

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.

The “incentive to compete” is currently “who has the lowest number and the least attentive auditors”

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

#199

Post by zapdrive » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

realityking wrote: post #175

robomartin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

65% of Americans have no clue what it takes to run a business of any scale. They can barely calculate a tip at the restaurant, yet they think they are qualified to make decisions on taxation. The flavor of democracy we practice has been good. However, we must be honest enough to admit it can degenerate into mob rule, which generally means decisions are made by the most gullible and ignorant among us on any specific t…

> In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Isn’t that point precisely addressed by the Biden administrations of setting a global minimum tax rate? If every country, or at least every country without signify the trade barriers (who cares what happens in North Korea) has the same tax rate than there’s no incentive for companies to move their profits - or the entire company - abr…

That's what the OP is saying. If the US had 0 corporate tax, no company would ever have to move out.

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

#200

Post by handrous » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #194

handrous wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the point is for every country to have the same tax rate then yes this solves that problem. Each country cannot impose a higher rate de jure for the same reason why now the effective rate is 0%.

... but they all have (effectively) the same rate either way, no? The point isn't for them all to have the same rate, it's for that existing same rate to be higher, right? That it would be, in effect, the same, isn't an outcome of this move. That that same rate would be non-zero is the outcome.