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

291–300 of 362 posts

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

#291

Post by clusterfish »

8note wrote: post #271
clusterfish wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When was the last time US used gunboat diplomacy to pressure a country into a multilateral agreement it didn't want to be part of?

Dollar & "cheap credit" diplomacy is more of a thing nowadays, and other powerful countries are doing it too (notably China)

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

#292

Post by systoll »

jcrites wrote: post #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 high…

> 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.

Isn’t this a good thing? The core reason for incorporation is to have limited liability, leading owners to have a limited potential downside, and unlimited potential upsides.

But the downside is still there, it’s just externalised.

Corporate tax seems to be a fairly reasonable approach to paying for this liability insurance.

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

#294

Post by pope_meat »

sokoloff wrote: post #281
pope_meat wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 botto…

sigh. I feel so much more financially secure these days now that my pay is $1 more than 5 years ago, shame my cost of housing doubled.

this is why I think it will be hilarious when the kids start revolting, and burning shit down folks like you will be looking at graphs and going "how can they be upset, look at this graph! these gig economy renters should be jumping up and down with joy according to my statistics...ungrateful bunch!"

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

#295

Post by opo »

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.

>This is kind of all over the place and riddled with non-sequiters;

Blanket dismissals aren't helpful. As the guidelines state: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

>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.

Well Google was founded in 1998. In 1998 the long term capital gains rates were 20% for those in the highest bracket and if held for over 5 years went down to 18%. Today's long term rates are 23.8% for those in the highest bracket. Where are you getting your numbers?

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-19...

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

#296

Post by coryrc »

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

Eventually you must realize the assets, either you spend them or you die with them. We let the ultra-wealthy "spend" them in ways they don't have to pay tax, and we let them pass then on untaxed after death through tax-sheltered trusts.

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

#297

Post by coryrc »

derefr wrote: post #105
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.

That’s what taxing corporate income (or more targeted, corporate assets ) attempts to do: tax the wealthy. Because by-and-large, wealthy people don’t accomplish the things they want to do by drawing an income and then spending it; but rather by setting up corporate vehicles that have their goal as the corporate mission statement, and then getting other corporations to fund its treasury (as negotiated compensation in…

"then they rent the house from that PMC."

They'll pay tax on that realized income. And if they build up all that wealth in stock value, then if we don't tax it while they are alive we'll take it when they die, so we'd take away the incentive to hoard all the wealth with those schemes.

"That’s what taxing corporate income (or more targeted, corporate assets)"

Incorrect. Targeting corporate assets hurts heavy industry. Targeting income hurts low-margin business like grocery. And we already have a tax on corporate profits: capital gains tax on dividends and stock appreciation! It mostly affects people who are doing well and less so people and companies doing poorly. It automatically compensates for market changes (sector doing great paid more, a whole sector slumping pays less).

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

#298

Post by coryrc »

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…

"The correct goal is not to take money from the rich ... but to get rid of poverty."

I mostly agree with you on this point. However, we can't do that without reforming the tax system. For example, Seattle is one of the most regressive places to live in the country, people in the lowest brackets pay 30%+ in local taxes but people over six figures pay 2.8%. People in single-family zones (wealthy) are slowing the supply increase in apartments which is allowing prices to rise. You can't get rid of poverty without going through the wealthy.

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

#299

Post by asteroidbelt »

pope_meat wrote: post #294
sokoloff wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 botto…

sigh. I feel so much more financially secure these days now that my pay is $1 more than 5 years ago, shame my cost of housing doubled. this is why I think it will be hilarious when the kids start revolting, and burning shit down folks like you will be looking at graphs and going "how can they be upset, look at this graph! these gig economy renters should be jumping up and down with joy according to my statistics...un…

> my cost of housing doubled

If you live in a good neighbourhood (like San Mateo) and all your neighs income doubled but yours increased by only $1, then it's probably time to find another place to live.

> why I think it will be hilarious when the kids start revolting

They will end up in jail. And it won't be hilarious. As revolting is not hilarious.

> burning shit down

Instead of learning a trade and taking a well paid job.

> ungrateful bunch

They have endless opportunities ahead of them, and if they spend time doing nothing and rioting instead of working, it's only them to blame.

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

#300

Post by asteroidbelt »

coryrc wrote: post #298
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…

"The correct goal is not to take money from the rich ... but to get rid of poverty." I mostly agree with you on this point. However, we can't do that without reforming the tax system. For example, Seattle is one of the most regressive places to live in the country, people in the lowest brackets pay 30%+ in local taxes but people over six figures pay 2.8%. People in single-family zones (wealthy) are slowing the supply…

> People in single-family zones (wealthy) are slowing the supply increase in apartments which is allowing prices to rise.

Seattle has not enough homes? Just build them. Give tax credits to construction companies, give tax credits to construction workers, give land for free to construction companies, ease regulations, reroute budget to transportation, and you will have a lot of new homes quickly.

If you rob the rich to punish them for their hard work, you won't have more homes. You will have fewer rich people.

(Also, it is rich people who drive construction of new homes, not poor people.)

> You can't get rid of poverty without going through the wealthy.

Yes you can, and there is a ton of ways to do that.

For example, medical insurance is expensive. Increasing the taxes for the rich won't make it cheap. But better regulations (anti-monopolies, easier licenses, transparent prices etc) will make it cheaper.

What else is too expensive? It can be fixed similarly.

Post reply on HN