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

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#441

Post by sneak » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #2

Summary: > Firstly, the G7 want a global minimum tax rate so as to avoid a "race to the bottom" where countries can undercut each other with low tax rates. > Secondly, the rules will aim to make companies pay tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits. Good. It’s a shame that Biden had to back down from the initial 28% because of do…

> Good. It’s a shame that Biden had to back down from the initial 28% because of domestic opposition.

This presupposes that maximizing revenue to the state is itself beneficial.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#442

Post by ahallock » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #316

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

Exactly this. Imagine a company that has makes X dollars and spends X dollars. So the company pays no tax. What that means is that all the other tax payers pay for all the infrastructure. And that's fine, but if such a company ever needs to call the police and go to court, etc., they then would have to pay all of that out of their pockets (i.e. the work of the police, the lawyers and judges, and so on).

I agree. Just charge everyone a monthly fee for essential gov services. And do I mean essential. If you want extra programs from the gov, you need to pay voluntarily.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#443

Post by milesward » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

Ericson2314 wrote: post #329

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

But then it's highly unfair to tax humans on revenue , but corporations on profit . I think the right answer is VAT + externalities taxes (LVT, Cabon tax, etc.) + UBI, which is both very easy to enforce and perhaps net progressive enough. Re "progressive enough": I don't so much care if BWM owners are screwed over relative to private jet owners on paper, I think reducing work hours and propping up demand at the botto…

DING DING DING

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#444

Post by jejones3141 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

briane80 wrote: post #389

gambiting wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Would I be correct in suspecting that you don't get interest on overpaying, but get charged serious fees for having to pay too much on tax day?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#445

Post by bumby » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #413

njovin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I agree, but like you mentioned, the externalities on innocent parties would be too great. Also a lot of companies do not issue dividends, so focusing on them would do no good in a lot of cases.…

>Maybe such people could be shared a per-share fine based on shares held at a particular date?

I think it’s nearly impossible to expect most shareholders to understand the business underpinnings to this degree within the existing system. Think of pensioners with mutual funds, do you think most even understand all the businesses in those funds let alone the operations of those businesses?

To me, this is akin at employees being punished as well. Both benefit from the business operations but it’s hard to expect employees to have knowledge and be responsible for the decisions of the C-suite.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#446

Post by cheche07 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

Not convinced, they may appear to be taxing them more, to the public eye But the offset from new "grants" and "funding initiatives" will result in the same outlay for these corporations Basically all politics and double speak

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#447

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #424

closeparen wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Middle class families in single family homes are hoarding a scarce and essential resource. Billionaires in high rises aren’t. The idea is to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior, not to cut down the tall poppies.

In urban area's sure, but I don't think it's fair to call it hoarding in suburban or rural areas. There's tons of land in the US, it's just that there are no homes _right_ next to jobs and restaurants and the culture people want to live in. Now that I'm remote, I plan to move to a rural area and grow some of my own food in a single family home. I don't think that should be considered hoarding.

Where there’s tons of land, it’s not that valuable. LVT would be low. It would only be punitive to people with a lot of land (per person) in those spots that are valuable because of those restaurants, culture, jobs, etc. nearby.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#448

Post by throwaway34241 » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #435

throwaway34241 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are taxed on their income. Corporations are taxed on their profits (they deduct their expenses). Corporations can be taxed on the money coming in, that would look like a sales tax or VAT. The problem with that tax is it falls on the consumer (since what really matters is which transaction you tax, not which side pays the tax). But this brings me to a solution to the corporate tax avoidance issue that has alrea…

Is this similar to a gross receipts tax?

No, a gross receipts tax is on sales and not profits.

If I understand it correctly (I don't know the details for every state), a gross receipts tax doesn't even adjust for value added (the VA in VAT).

For example say a few companies are involved in producing a good (starting from raw materials) so the supply chain looks like this:

$7 (raw materials) -> $8 (components) - > $9 (finished good wholesale) -> $10 (store price)

With a VAT, the total taxed amount is $10, which is divided up among the companies based on how much value they added (so if they move from $8->$9, they pay tax on $1).

With a gross receipts tax, the total taxed amount is $7+$8+$9+$10=$34. Goods that are produced by many small companies working together will pay a lot more taxes than those produced by huge vertically-integrated ones.

There's some good reasons to use a VAT if you want to tax revenue, and one of them is to avoid problems like this.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#449

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:58 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…

> ...dividends and buybacks create income for individuals who will pay tax on that income)

This is an important point people miss. The owners of those companies eventually pay taxes on the profits, so a corporate tax is a double tax.

There are a lot of things that get taxed: property, income, sales, corporate profits. You can vary these rates and still come up with a viable government revenue model. Oregon doesn't have a sales tax; Washington state doesn't have income tax. The only problem, and it's what this deal is about, is when these varying policies interact, or one jurisdiction does something very different from others.

What you end up taxing is a social policy lever, but it's otherwise not all that important. The important part is getting some degree of alignment so you don't encourage people to live in Vancouver, WA, but buy everything in Portland.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#450

Post by larsiusprime » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #350

claudiulodro wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of the land that Google uses is tremendous because the Google offices are located on it!

But an LVT isn’t a tax on the infrastructure it is a tax on the value of the underlying land.

It's the proximity to Google's economic activity that makes the land valuable. A plot of land right next to the Googleplex that has nothing on it is immensely more valuable than an equally sized plot of land in the middle of the Nevada desert.