281–290 of 931 posts
Tying tax rate to profit margin sounds like a loophole. For example - Hollywood Accounting[1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re going down this route, many will argue that all forms of income tax are equally “wrong”. Henry George - a 19th century political economist - proposed exactly this, and suggested the only thing that should be taxed should be land: impossible to hide from a tax inspector, potentially a waste to the public commons if useful land that could be exploited isn’t and you can even protect land you wish to keep prist…
The deadweight loss of taxation is much lower for a land tax than an income tax. The deadweight loss is the economic resources allocated to complying with the tax. The armies of tax lawyers would be able to perform other economically productive activities if they weren't pouring over the tax code. Pigovian taxation is even better. Taxing gas is a great example. Gas consumers emit carbon which has a cost for society.…
I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…
If you’re going down this route, many will argue that all forms of income tax are equally “wrong”. Henry George - a 19th century political economist - proposed exactly this, and suggested the only thing that should be taxed should be land: impossible to hide from a tax inspector, potentially a waste to the public commons if useful land that could be exploited isn’t and you can even protect land you wish to keep prist…
I frequently come to a conclusion personal income tax should be abolished as it punishes work.
CIT, VAT, capital gains and inheritance taxes should be enough to sustain a budget. These are all unrelated to performed work.
"The rules on making multinationals pay taxes where they operate - known as "pillar one" of the agreement - would apply to global companies with at least a 10% profit margin. " Tying tax rate to profit margin sounds like a loophole. For example - Hollywood Accounting[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Still, this would catch them.
This sounds like it will be hell for small software companies with customers all over the world. Paying taxes differently for each country of the customer you sell to is a ridiculous hardship. It only benefits the large multinationals to reduce their competition. These sorts of rules centralize markets to fewer and fewer companies able to spend the resources to fulfill more and more complex rules. The end result is h…
I suspect this is just some kind of scam in good cosmetics (as with other globalism policies)
It's always about protecting the bread of the powerful.
The side effects, such as what you raise are just collateral damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re going down this route, many will argue that all forms of income tax are equally “wrong”. Henry George - a 19th century political economist - proposed exactly this, and suggested the only thing that should be taxed should be land: impossible to hide from a tax inspector, potentially a waste to the public commons if useful land that could be exploited isn’t and you can even protect land you wish to keep prist…
> Henry George - a 19th century political economist - proposed exactly this, and suggested the only thing that should be taxed should be land That may have made sense in the 19th century when agriculture dominated the economy, but it’s irrelevant today. At scale it becomes a tax on how space-inefficient your business is. Bad news for farmers, great news for the business running a 1000-person operation out of a skyscr…
Land taxes are highly progressive.
Note that land taxes are only assessed on the value of the land, not the value of any buildings on the land. This incentivizes land owners to put the land to its highest and best use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's complicated. "Money they made in their country" is hard to define. Large companies abuse intangible assets to shift profits around, but it's hard to say at what point abuse starts. For example, Google USA sells advertising to its clients. But, the assets it is selling are actually owned by Google Ireland. Google Ireland charges Google USA a license fee of 100% of the revenue they made. Suddenly, Google USA has n…
> Probably the best solution is a minimum tax worldwide. Wouldn't that make companies pay taxes in countries they are based in (as opposed to where they make money)? Anyway this could be the push that the EU needed to start their own Silicon Valley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't paying taxes on revenue, you pay tax on profit
That’s a choice, and one we could change. My company is taxed on revenue (under the Washington State B&O tax scheme, and similar local tax schemes). Taxing based on revenue is viable, it just needs to be done with a little more care up front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations pass the tax expenses on to consumers as higher prices of produced goods, lower wages to employees, and lower returns to owners that supply capital. These taxes are all paid by us but they are largely invisible and justified to the voters as making corporations “pay their fair share”.
These taxes are paid by various stakeholders and entities around the business. The public gets the tax income and uses it for services to allow the business to operate. Do you feel the cost/value of having the ability to a call a number and have a well trained team put out a fire in minutes that could ruin your business is 0 or free? What about rules/services that allows your business to have an advantage over anothe…
No, of course not. (Why the insulting tone of your rhetorical question?)
> Corporations use more services than you would think ...
How many publicly traded companies have you started?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's complicated. "Money they made in their country" is hard to define. Large companies abuse intangible assets to shift profits around, but it's hard to say at what point abuse starts. For example, Google USA sells advertising to its clients. But, the assets it is selling are actually owned by Google Ireland. Google Ireland charges Google USA a license fee of 100% of the revenue they made. Suddenly, Google USA has n…
What you're describing is a method of deferring taxation, not avoiding taxation. Google is a US publicly traded company so its profits ultimately belong to its shareholders, and it can only pay that out via the US.