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

#271

Post by 8note » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

clusterfish wrote: post #82

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…

Is the whole concept of international agreements offensive to you? I don't see how this one is special. Bigger countries always have more influence, such is life. Sovereignty goes both ways. No country is obligated to deal (allow trade or capital flows) with any other country they don't want to. If this agreement will even have such enforcement.

Countries are obligated to do business with the us.

Its called gunboat diplomacy

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

#272

Post by asteroidbelt » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

jlokier wrote: post #263

asteroidbelt wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not bad as long as you own stocks, which you can exchange into material goods. Like some of my friends can afford a decent house, but prefer renting because it gives greater flexibility (they can rent a small flat in the center of the city in a walking distance to the office and meet with friends often while they don't have children instead of investing into big house in the suburbs with empty rooms they wouldn…

> even irresponsible people will have some savings at retirement age Ah, there are enough loopholes that a lot of people still won't end up with any savings at retirement age. There are a lot of self-employed people in the UK, at the low end of pay (gig workers, freelance cleaners, graphic designers, etc) and high end (consultants, IT contractors etc), and bootstrapping entrepreneurs (pay all over the place). The pen…

> high end

They will do fine.

> The pension 8% doesn't apply to any of them.

If this scheme solves 90% of problem it it still better than nothing.

If in 30 years UK will be in deep recession because of economic downturn and aging population, it is better if 10% of old people people will be in deep poverty than if 80% old people in deep poverty. (Also, 90% of old people getting at least some private pension income would also help the economy to recover.)

8% contribution would give you about 20% of your average income if you are low earner, so you can't afford a lavish lifestyle on your 8% pension contributions. So this 8% contributions is rather a safety net than a proper retirement planning. And that's why I think it need to be gradually increased.

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

#273

Post by pope_meat » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #257

pope_meat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/income-share-of-bottom-50-...

Do you understand the difference between “income” and “income share”?

The graph defines what it charts very well at the bottom. You can read it, and then if I am somehow still very wrong about the fact that income in the bottom 50% has gone down, or hasn't kept up if you'd prefer, then you can really stick it to me on this public forum about how I am wrong, and you are right, the only thing that matters on the internet.

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

#274

Post by 8note » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:58 AM UTC

jlokier wrote: post #267

kelnos wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see the point to all of this. There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains? And the US already has a personal tax system where it doesn't matter where you earn income: if you're a US citizen, you have to consider US incom…

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a…

The heavily profitable company still wins in a profit based taxation.

They're making a lot of profit.

Its competition that reduces profits

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

#275

Post by asteroidbelt » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:59 AM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #264

asteroidbelt wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People rich enough to be included in "tax the rich" mostly get their money from capital gains OK, so we are talking now not about income tax, but about capital gains tax? That's quite a different topic. But, also, no, capital gains tax should not be increased. Because you cannot become rich by investing into index. You become rich by founding a company while working 16 hours a day and getting a large share of it. A…

This is kind of all over the place and riddled with non-sequiters; by way of response I will simply point out that we could raise the capital gains rate 5% tomorrow, and it would still be lower than it was when Amazon and Google were founded.

Yes, increase by 5 percentage points (I guess you meant pp, not 5%) will hurt a litte, and will increase income insignificantly.

But if capital gains is raised to 43% as proposed by Biden, it will be higher than when it was when Amazon and Google were founded.

And if it is raised to 90% for gains above 10M as certain people including here on HN proposed, it will be way way higher than when Amazon and Google was founded.

Please show me where I'm "non-sequiter".

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

#276

Post by 8note » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 1:04 AM UTC

disposekinetics wrote: post #55

cinntaile wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it may be a cowardly way to divert responsibility I don't agree that this is so bad. This problem can only be solved by cooperating, otherwise companies can just shop around for the cheapest taxation rate.

But isn't it good that companies shop around for the cheapest tax rate?

Good for who? The shareholders? The country that's creating the profits? The country where the company is based?

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

#277

Post by 8note » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 1:10 AM UTC

asteroidbelt wrote: post #139

coryrc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, it's almost like taxing corporate profits twice has caused massive distortions everywhere: biggest stock price bubble, tax residency shopping, etc Tax the wealthy. Don't let them take "charitable" deductions or use tax-exempt IRAs. 100% inheritance tax above $4 million.

> 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…

If you're rich enough to be in the 0.1%, it's not your work that's making you wealthy, it's other people's. More likely, you've inherited that wealth from somebody who's not working anymore.

All the same, if they're still working when they don't have to, they're doing it for something other than money, so I'd bet that they would stay on anyways

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

#278

Post by hungryforcodes » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 1:11 AM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #154

robertlagrant wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"trap" in this context means "coordination trap" which is a scenario in which competition forces individual actors to adopt policies they don't want, but can't avoid. Imagine you and I are neighboring farmers who irrigate our fields from the same river. Our farms grow, as does our water use, until we're each using half the water. I buy a bigger water pump and start sucking up most of the water, leaving you with dying…

No, this is another kind of US enforcement regime. It starts with setting a global minimum tax rate, and ends with the US pursuing and punishing developing nations to its advantage.

Also once the US can manage to get 130 countries to agree to its tax regime in one area, guaranteed it won't stop there.

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

#279

Post by 8note » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 1:15 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #265

axlee wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people pay a lot more taxes overall in relation to their wealth and income than the extra-rich. We have a regressive tax system.

How do you pay more when the rate is 0% for the bottom 40%?

There are taxes other than income taxes

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

#280

Post by jlokier » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

8note wrote: post #274

jlokier wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a…

The heavily profitable company still wins in a profit based taxation. They're making a lot of profit. Its competition that reduces profits

There's a huge difference between "the heavily profitable company wins in competition" (which isn't true in all domains anyway) and "we have banned all companies except heavily profitable ones".

> Its competition that reduces profits

The revenue tax scheme sets a minimum profit level that every company is required to make. Competition can't reduce it below that level.

It's also set things up so where many companies build things in a chain of specialised companies, for example manufacturing components, assembling devices then selling those, and shipping them, the minimum profit percentage is legally required at each step, compounding.

Currently, supply chains consist of hundreds of companies working together. That won't be possible any more, as the new system forces every supply chain to merge into a self-contained conglomerate that does everything in one company.

Companies in that system will be forced to merge into giants or die, and in the end most will be giants. It's probably not the intended consquence of the policy.