Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any resources for how in-dispute the (eventual) currency adjustment part is? As you probably know, there is never 100% agreement among economists on anything, and no matter how narrow the opposition is you can often count on politically-motivated groups to find and promote it relentlessly. The main data I have is both Mankiw and Krugman (both highly eminent economists from different sides of the aisle) se…
My comment was not arguing one way or another. Instead I was pointing out that the original wording of your top level comment might mislead people as it sounded like there was little doubt to the effectiveness of a Border Adjustment Tax, when in truth it has never been tried. Rereading your original post it now seems more reasonable. I don't know if that is because it has been edited, or because I am reading it in a…
Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
351–360 of 362 posts
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notably absent from the list: Ireland.
Low corpate tax countries not on the list: Ireland 12.5%, Kuwait 0%, Hungary 9%, Kosovo 10%, kyrgystan 10%, Lichtenstein 12.5%, Moldova12%, Sark 0%(UK related but only had 1 active bank so perhaps they did not need it on the list ) I am surprised that they managed to get most of the typical island states on the list to convert. And it will be super interesting if Kuwait and Sark can stay strong or if new companies wi…
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.…
> 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. I don't think you quite understood the scheme here: they never own the PMC. They don't gain the appreciation value of the house or anything like that. It's not an investment…
>make arrangements with other billionaires to 1. start non-profits
Which is why they (and corporations) should not get tax deductions for donating money!
[0] i.e. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/business-insig...
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment was not arguing one way or another. Instead I was pointing out that the original wording of your top level comment might mislead people as it sounded like there was little doubt to the effectiveness of a Border Adjustment Tax, when in truth it has never been tried. Rereading your original post it now seems more reasonable. I don't know if that is because it has been edited, or because I am reading it in a…
NP, FWIW I didn't make any edits that should change the tone (although I think I did make one trivial change in the first 60 seconds or so before any replies).
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More businesses will go to China if they are able to. So let them go, other business would fill up that place.
Please think this through. Businesses don't go to China because they want to. They do so because they have no other choice. When the combination of regulatory, tax and labor regulations makes it so it is impossible to compete you are left with two choices: Embrace China or close the doors. While "other business would fill up that place" might sound like a nice heart-warming idea, it is a fantasy. The only businesses…
So dont allow those business to sell in the US
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't own, rent everything. How will you handle that?
How's that relevant? I'm not weighing in on the broader wisdom of the parent post, but I don't see how that affects anything.
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#357This alone: >>The deal also reportedly includes a framework to eliminate digital services taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies. >>In their place, officials agreed to a new tax plan that would be linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered. Was enough to address this concern: >>If widely enacted, the GMT would effectively end the…
Corporate tax has only been evolving recently to the benefit of the largest companies primarily benefit the richest individuals in the world. It's fine if you want it to continue evolving, but I don't.
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m neither a lawyer nor an accountant but I’d expect it to run counter to all existing double taxation agreements. All those agreement would have to be cancelled or renegotiated - that’s a lot of work.
Why? The parent suggested to discount the tax paid abroad from the taxes to be paid in the US. It is the double-taxation prevention agreement. Me being a cynical bastard will expect countries rallying to offer themselves to the US and reduce their cut to buy political favor.
With your proposal you do end up taxing it twice, just at a reduced rate. As I understand it, that would require changes to double taxation agreements.
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I don't think you quite understood the scheme here: they never own the PMC. They don't gain the appreciation value of the house or anything like that. It's not an investment…
I don't think you grasp the level of wealth we are talking about. $100B == $3.5M/day over 80 years. Using company property for personal use is a taxable fringe benefit. [0] Maybe you can get a free hotel room under the table but good luck laundering $3.5M/day. >make arrangements with other billionaires to 1. start non-profits Which is why they (and corporations) should not get tax deductions for donating money! [0] i…
Sure, if you’re one of the fifty people in the world who personally have hundreds of billions in liquid assets, you’ve “escaped” needing to do this sort of thing. But much of the reason that there are so few people who’ve “escaped” this, is that most millionaires don’t aim to just keep getting more liquid assets until they enter this category, because they feel like all the taxation they’d be hit with in the process is “leaving power on the table.” They rather aim to “control” or “leverage” as much money/power as possible at a remove, by minimizing the amount of that that ever personally becomes part of their portfolio. This usually mostly caps their personal net worth (as they’re directing deals to pay into companies they control, rather than ever profiting personally from said deals) but their “social multiplier” on their net worth continues to grow over time.
If you’ve ever seen the net-worth curve for some very-obviously-capitalist entrepreneur/VC/investor, and noticed that it plateaus over time — this is what they’re doing. They haven’t quit making money (unless they’ve declared an intent to “switch modes” and spend all their time on spending their money on improving things they care about, like John D. Rockefeller, or Bill Gates.) People who’ve managed to make huge sums of money, tend to love making money; making money is in their blood. They just find, eventually, that making that money personally is no longer a very efficient way of gaining control over ever-larger sums of wealth.
> Using company property for personal use is a taxable fringe benefit.
Again, the point is to make all “personal use” into business use, by setting up your life so that everything you do is claimable as a business expense by the business, rather than an asset transfer. Sleeping? Managing your hotel. Eating? Managing your restaurant. Getting driven around in a limo? It’s a mobile meeting room where you’re having business meetings!
But, to be clear, on the levels that UHNWI people spend money on, these sort of personal expenses aren’t really what I mean by “arranging to control company resources to personal ends.” They’re cute tricks, but they’re not the “big stuff.”
The “big stuff” is more like: directing where a corporation will spend its lobbying dollars (business expense), to get petty municipal-planning bills you want passed, so you can have the house you want in the place you want, with the NIMBY rules you want in place (personal end). Or directing a property development company to work with a city to get a certain nascent greenfield area zoned and infrastructure put in (business expense), so that you can then build a house in that area (personal end).
Note that in those cases, you don’t gain any asset from the business expense in any legible way. You’re just leveraging your corporate soft power to enable you to do the things you want to do with your own money — to make purchases that would have been impossible, possible.
If you’re Jeff Bezos, you can do this out of your own pocket. But most people would find it a lot more efficient to just have those lobbying / property development dollars never go through their bank account.
Re: Global minimum corporate tax: 130 nations to support U.S. proposal
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that most of the problems with wealthy people not paying their "fair" share (what ever that might be) is the fact that people are taxed on income and corporations are taxed on profit. Many wealthy people do what they want to do with companies (taxed only on profits) or non-profits (not taxed at all!), while the average Joe is taxed on their income. It would be a good idea to have both people and companies…
Why not just consider every person a corporation? If it make 100K and it costs you 90K to run your family (yes there will be special rules) you pay tax on the 10K. If you make 1M and it costs you 400K to run your family, you pay on the 600K. If you spend more than you earn, you carry forward the loss. Land value tax makes sense on paper, but implementation is a huge question. Who decides the price, how often is it re…
I have thought that valuating your own land could possibly work, but people would have to have a more detached sense of land/home ownership for that to work. People get emotionally attached to where they live, but maybe encouraging people to be less attached would help many current problems in society cause by NIMBY issues.