Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 362 posts

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

#281

Post by sokoloff »

pope_meat wrote: post #273
twoodfin wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That graph is showing share of income (thus the y-axis is labeled in percentage [of total income]).

That graph makes no statement whatsoever about whether real income in the bottom 50% has gone down, stayed flat, or risen over the 30-year period under discussion. For that, you’d look at a real income chart over the 30 year period, which would show that real income has increased over that span.

If incomes at the bottom rise by 20% vs 10% inflation and incomes at the top rise by by 100%, the income at the bottom went up in real terms, though the share of income at the bottom will have gone down.

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

#282

Post by 8note »

runarberg wrote: post #103
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.

I think you’ll find hints of the answer in the fact that most countries are pretty bad at collecting taxes from the rich already. It is fairly easy if you are rich to hide your wealth and evade taxes. I suspect it might be a little more difficult for a publicly traded company to hide its wealth the same way.

Apple would be an example.

Rather than pay taxes, they get a tax free date to onshore their money every so often

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

#283

Post by 8note »

akvadrako wrote: post #187
patrickaljord wrote: post #173

Next year the US will spend $715 billion on military budget alone, a $10 billion increase from last year. Shouldn't the government try to cut spending before thinking of how it could increase tax revenue? It's like an obese person wanting to lose weight while eating more each year and thinking of increasing time spent at the gym to make up for it, shouldn't they try eating less if they want to lose weight?

The military budget is a red herring. If the budget was reduced to zero it would barely effect the deficit, yet over the long term it would probably cost more, since a weak nation invites war.

With a strong military, the US has been involved in numerous wars.

Having a strong military seems to invite war just as much

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

#284

Post by Retric »

jacobr1 wrote: post #69
Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a common misunderstanding, restaurants are low margin due to competition. As long as the industry moves in lockstep with cost increases the margins stay the same. Sales taxes for example vary widely yet have minimal impact on low margin business. Lower them and customers save money but restaurants margins stay the same.

For the same reason though, complementary goods don't necessarily have the same tax burden or margins. So the distribution of purchases might shift. Restaurant-goers might just eat at home more, or maybe even just go out to more expensive places that can operate with lower margins.

The important bit is the number of restaurants may change, but their margins don’t. The classic Starbucks at all four corners of an intersection is predicted on the total number of customers in that area. Cut them by 25% and 1 of those 4 locations but close 1 location and the the three remaining have identical numbers of customers as before the change. Cut by 75% and your down to one location, but again it ends up seeing the same number of customers before and after the transition.

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

#285

Post by 8note »

dantheman wrote: post #186
standardUser wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about increasing tax revenue it is about preventing multinationals from evading taxes. It's similar in concept to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to prevent an ever-increasing web of exemptions and loopholes from allowing some people to pay little-to-no taxes.

Taxes aren't a virtue - they're a necessary evil. They're coercion, only paid on the threat of violence. We should be aiming to minimize taxes and fund programs through other voluntary means. So where the money is being spent should be considered when talking about how much should be raised, since it the cause.

Voluntary mechanisms only fill the needs of the wealthy, who also operate largely on coercive means(all that private property only exists by force of the government). At least taxes are by consensus, both in the amount, and what they find.

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

#286

Post by 8note »

petermcneeley wrote: post #149
handrous wrote: post #122

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.

What many pay isn't a maximum. If somebody can't afford the shenanigans to dodge taxes, they'll pay a higher rate.

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

#287

Post by asteroidbelt »

8note wrote: post #277
asteroidbelt wrote: post #139

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…

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

> 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.

Not exactly. The work is not just to paint the walls, but also organize the work of people who paint the walls, and that's much complex work (I'll avoid saying "hard").

I have worked with many talented managers directly and indirectly (some of them had income much higher than mine), and I know for sure that if I was swapped with them, I would screw it up. Thanks to them I and a lot of other people have the work. They deserve their pay.

It is akin saying airline pilots do not deserve their high pay because without people cleaning the planes it wouldn't be possible to operate an airline.

Or as the anecdote says: tapping with the hammer: $2. Knowing where to tap: $9998.

Or let me put it another way. If you think you can do the work of people who get 0.1% income, why don't you do go and do their work, what stops you?

> More likely, you've inherited that wealth from somebody who's not working anymore.

That's not true. Quick google-fact: among people with $30 or more of wealth, 67.7% were self-made, 23.7% had a combination of inherited and self-created wealth, and only 8.5% completely inherited their wealth.

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

#289

Post by refurb »

8note wrote: post #279
refurb wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are taxes other than income taxes

Enough to offset the EITC? Most low income folks pay a negative tax rate.

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #224
collaborative wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Nations can still compete. Stability, rule of law, infrastructure investment, etc. don't forget tax incentives. Sure, every country has to charge 15% tax, but if you domicile your country here we'll give you tax credits!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN