G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals • Hacker News Board

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#381

Post by sologoub » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #292

rjknight wrote: post #162

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 to legally treat corporations the same as actual humans - then tax them the same. We pay taxes for services we expect from governments, defence, policing, justice, water, sewers etc etc I don;t see why corporations that use all these things shouldn't pay their share

1 through 6 already lead to taxes being paid - sales/VAT taxes in most places, individual income taxes, employee social security/retirement contributions and so on.

Share buybacks lead to greater stock value and therefore income when sold for the owners, who in term are taxed as individuals.

You theoretically could have a hold Corp that never paid out anything and instead funded the lifestyle of the owners/employees, but I’m sure there are ways to close that and the current 15% min is a far cry from what most people pay.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#382

Post by alien_ » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

njovin wrote: post #321

Taniwha wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to legally treat corporations the same as actual humans - then tax them the same. We pay taxes for services we expect from governments, defence, policing, justice, water, sewers etc etc I don;t see why corporations that use all these things shouldn't pay their share

I look forward to the day that we punish corporations by removing their freedom (ability to operate) instead of fining them laughably small percentages of their yearly revenue for serious violations of laws and regulations. In reality I understand that this would harm the employees and the public to an unacceptable degree so maybe some form of “jail time” whereby all profits go directly to non-executive employees and…

Confiscating profits wouldn't work, many companies are reinvesting their profits. Probably the best way would be to just make the fines hurt more, by using a fixed and non-negligible percentage of the monthly/yearly revenue, much like Finland does for traffic fines.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#383

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #257

acomjean wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US at least companies have many rights like they’re people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_la...

To the point that we call the bundle of rights corporations get “corporate personhood”. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood ) Frankly, if OP doesn’t want me to anthropomorphize corporations for tax purposes, they’ll need to go back in time and stop the courts from anthropomorphizing them for various rights. If a company gets 1A rights under citizens united, then it can have tax obligations as well.…

The anthropomorphizing I speculate about goes something like this:

"I work hard and pay my taxes, Ford makes billions and pay much less tax!"

But Ford is an abstract entity that is not a person and doesn't have a better life than you.

All those billions are eventually paid to living humans, who do pay taxes on that income.

This is the economist perspective, but it requires a level of analysis not compatible with rage.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#384

Post by estebarb » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

I'm thinking that this will be a entry barrier for new global startups. How are a self funded entrepreneur supposed to support any country tax at day zero?

Taxes where business takes place is nice, but an easy way to pay taxes globally would be better.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#385

Post by klipt » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #361

MrPowers wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land taxes are based on the value of the land, not the size of the land. The property tax system already performs land value assessments. 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.

> 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. Doesn't it incentivize them to put land to the use that generates the most revenue? I don't see how that is necessarily the "best" use. There will almost always be a way that a yard or garden could make more revenue, for example, such…

Do you think that's a problem with existing property taxes?

The main difference between property and land tax is that with a land tax, the structure isn't taxed. So you can build up "for free" wrt taxes, which encourages more density on the most valuable land.

E.g. land in the middle of downtown San Francisco that's currently rented out as a flat parking lot, could instead be built up into multi level parking or housing instead. Whereas the current tax structure would punish such developments by increasing the tax (which is why it's still a flat parking lot).

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#386

Post by burlesona » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #361

MrPowers wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land taxes are based on the value of the land, not the size of the land. The property tax system already performs land value assessments. 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.

> 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. Doesn't it incentivize them to put land to the use that generates the most revenue? I don't see how that is necessarily the "best" use. There will almost always be a way that a yard or garden could make more revenue, for example, such…

Most serious study on this suggests it would have the opposite effect: make it harder for the wealthy to horde land in the form of low density residences in prime locations where townhomes and apartments would be a much better economic outcome enabling many more people to live affordably in close proximity to their jobs.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#387

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #369

mjmahone17 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bad news for farmers that are farming in the middle of a city, yes. But farms in rural areas will hardly get taxed at all, because the land couldn’t be used for much else, so has very little intrinsic value. Land value taxes adjust based on how desirable a plot is: basically, you get to keep any value you generate above and beyond the value the society surrounding the land gave it. If you leave a plot of land em…

I’m wondering how this is supposed to interact with zoning? There is a lot of agriculturally-zoned land in California that would turn into housing developments pretty quick if it weren’t illegal. It’s typically in a nice-looking area near some water or a park, not in the middle of a city. If you keep the zoning then maybe the land isn’t worth that much, but if property taxes were based on the “true” land value then i…

Agricultural-zoned land would be cheaper.

I would rip up urban zoning with an LVT to ensure density, but keep the agricultural zoning because we can't eat skyscrapers.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#388

Post by ericjang » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #162

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…

I agree about the "corporate tax creates work in tax avoidance", but if corporate taxes are abolished, wouldn't it drive more individuals to incorporate their own businesses?

The tax avoidance industry now shifts to servicing individuals, and again we find ourselves with inequality between individuals who can afford those services and those who cannot.

An alternative way to tax would be to simply raise interest rates, and discourage capital from not being deployed productively.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#389

Post by briane80 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #343

lars512 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Australian who moved to Sweden, I was amazed at how efficient the Swedish income tax process was. The government already knew everything they needed to calculate your return, and gave it pre-filled. There were not endless exemptions. Nobody at my work used an accountant, most approved their tax with a few clicks and were done. So much more efficient than in Australia!

In the UK if you're in full time employment and only have one job, then there's literally nothing to do. Not even clicking somewhere to approve your tax return - your employer does it all for you. I know people who are literally unaware when the tax year ends because they never in their entire adult lives had to do anything with the tax return - it's just completely irrelevant to a normal working person. And on the o…

It's even better - they work out if you paid too much automaticallly and send you a check in the mail. Had 3 checks over the past decade or so from having time off between jobs but paying full rate for the remaining time. Nothing quite so satisfying as a £1000 check from HM Revenue and Customs!

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#390

Post by parineum » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #376

rjknight wrote: post #162

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…

I don't think corporate taxation has always been this bad, so there's no reason why is should be impossible to return. To something reasonable. And while 1-5 are good, they don't pay for the massive infrastructure and other investments that governments have made the enable corporations to do business in the first place. Those resources have to come from somewhere. I don't see it likely, for example, for dozens of cor…

>they don't pay for the massive infrastructure and other investments that governments have made the enable corporations to do business in the first place

Firstly, that infrastructure is for everyone to use and I think it's semi-useful to view private business as infrastructure as well. They exist to provide goods and services to the people.

Second, it seems obvious to me that you'd simply increase other taxes to make up the deficit. The impulse to create special taxes is a bad one, imo. It only serves to complicate the tax code, obfuscate how much we're actually paying in taxes and makes it more difficult to actually provide incentives when they are needed.