Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#81

Post by cuspycode »

marcusverus wrote: post #73
cuspycode wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Instead of taxing the profit of a corporation, just tax the payment of dividends from that profit. The total tax burden can still remain the same if that's what people desire, but the end result will be more transparency as you say. I think Estonia has exactly this policy, or at least they did last time I checked. It also removes the incentive to mess around with stock buybacks, which is good because the extr…

> Instead of taxing the profit of a corporation, just tax the payment of dividends from that profit. This would be regressive, though. Why not tax the individual via a progressive cap gains tax? > It also removes the incentive to mess around with stock buybacks, which is good because the extra liquidity can be put to better use within the company. If a company can't think of a good use for their profits, do we really…

> This would be regressive, though. Why not tax the individual via a progressive cap gains tax?

How would it be regressive? According to Wikipedia[0], most corporate tax rates are proportional (i.e. "flat"). Just replace that with an equivalent rate on payout of dividends. Capital gains tax for the recipient is an entirely separate question.

> If a company can't think of a good use for their profits, do we really want to force them to keep the money within the organization?

In such situations they can pay dividends of course, which are taxed in my proposal. The point is that there is no point in buying back stocks instead of paying dividends.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax#International_co...

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#82

Post by godelski »

tootie wrote: post #72
godelski wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're just saying "pareto happens in any resource allocation scheme" which isn't specifically inherit to capitalism and is kinda just what happens when people have resources. I'm not convinced that people can live without resources. Sure, there are concerns when the distribution becomes too long tailed, but what you're describing is inherit to any system (we haven't seen a system where this hasn't hap…

I did not at any point imply that inequality was unique to Capitalism. And I'm not sure what you mean "live without resources". My point is that we have enough resources for everyone to live well even if some people have much more than others. I'm not trying to blame Capitalism for anything. I'm actually trying to say that we can achieve stability and social justice without having to abandon it. We just need a modicu…

In the current climate the way you phrased things comes off very similarly to the common "capitalism bad, socialism good" argument that lacks a lot of nuance between those opinions. The specificity of capitalism in your statement seems fairly irrelevant to what you have expanded upon, and this likely will just lead to fighting (and I suspect is the reason for your downvotes). It definitely comes off as if you are trying to blame capitalism for the problem, but that may not have been your intent and just that I (many of us?) am primed this way. So I'm trying to pull the conversation away from this "Capitalism v Socialism" argument because it is difficult to have a real conversation when we even approach this framing, even on HN these conversations divulge to a race to the bottom really quickly.

FWIW I don't think the majority of people reject the idea that we need some amounts of regulation, some amounts of social policy/protection, etc. The argument is how much, but we use bad terms to discuss this and definitions people refuse to agree on nor recognize that others are using different definitions.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#83

Post by dnautics »

adventured wrote: post #77
dnautics wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of the opposite. We should have 0% personal income tax and a minimum corporate income tax. A personal income tax incentivises the state to surveil the economic activity of individuals and play games with nudging people to do X or Y, and puts the burden of tax filing and the consequences of not reporting (which some people just can't do correctly). Contrariwise, a corporate income tax can be thought of as a "…

Corporations don't generate enough profit to float a nation's tax needs. Corporate profit in the US is generally somewhere around $2 trillion per quarter when times are very good. That's including all businesses, from mom & pop to Microsoft, and that includes all profit from global operations (not just domestic operations). A 50% tax would only pay for just over half the US tax revenue needs (assuming you make the mi…

> The only tax source large enough to support a nation

The US did quite well for a time without income taxes. If I recall correctly, the US even went from a nearly destroyed nation to global empire, building up several colonial territories, and constructing battleships that went around the world, in a time period where there was no personal income tax.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#84

Post by unethical_ban »

nightski wrote: post #62
unethical_ban wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting thought exercise, but you use the term "supplier" as if it isn't itself a business. And while I see what you're trying to get at, I think the idea is flawed. Taxed being "open and transparent" are good attributes, but not the reason, for taxes to exist. They exist to fund society. Corporations and businesses, as entities, utilize public services. They wear roads, they take up land, they pollute. They s…

They do pay a portion though, through payroll taxes and their employee's income taxes. They also pay property taxes and shareholders pay capital gains taxes. I'm sure there are even taxes I am forgetting about. This is only talking about the tax on corporate profits.

Okay, fair I overlooked that. I'm so used to seeing free-hand libertarians decry all taxes, I made assumptions.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#85

Post by fatbob »

nonameiguess wrote: post #20

We need a global maximum, of 0%. I don't want to sound like some kind of hardcore Austrian fundamentalist, because I'm not. Taxes are fine, but levying them on fictitious non-person entities is just a means of obscuring to voters where the tax burden ultimately lies. All taxes are paid by individuals, either directly, or by corporations raising or lowering the prices they charge and prices they pay, to suppliers, emp…

Is there anywhere that has tried this and what happened?

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#86

Post by ykevinator3 »

cutchin wrote: post #52
dnautics wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of the opposite. We should have 0% personal income tax and a minimum corporate income tax. A personal income tax incentivises the state to surveil the economic activity of individuals and play games with nudging people to do X or Y, and puts the burden of tax filing and the consequences of not reporting (which some people just can't do correctly). Contrariwise, a corporate income tax can be thought of as a "…

I don't understand how this would work. You would tax corporations based on actual income? So money-losing businesses would have to pay taxes on their income even though they operated at a net loss? And low-volume/high-revenue businesses would pay less in taxes than high-volume/low-revenue would?

One of the problems is that net loss is fictional. Companies use well meaning tax credits and deductions to offset income. His point is fair but the specifics need a little tweaking.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#87

Post by ykevinator3 »

dnautics wrote: post #83
adventured wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don't generate enough profit to float a nation's tax needs. Corporate profit in the US is generally somewhere around $2 trillion per quarter when times are very good. That's including all businesses, from mom & pop to Microsoft, and that includes all profit from global operations (not just domestic operations). A 50% tax would only pay for just over half the US tax revenue needs (assuming you make the mi…

> The only tax source large enough to support a nation The US did quite well for a time without income taxes. If I recall correctly, the US even went from a nearly destroyed nation to global empire, building up several colonial territories, and constructing battleships that went around the world, in a time period where there was no personal income tax.

Anyone who works a day in government (I've worked a decade) knows that it is over staffed by 50%. We can cut spending and cut taxes, we just need to be honest about it.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#88

Post by inter_netuser »

yonaguska wrote: post #74
dnautics wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am agnostic on if it should be based off of income or profit and leave those sorts of details up to congress.

> leave those sorts of details up to congress. Yep, let's leave it to the "experts". Policy "details" tend to have drastic unforeseen consequences, and our congress-critters tend to defer responsibility of those details to lobbyists. We the Constituents\People\Voters have a responsibility to do our own thorough research and not allow Congress to figure out the details. Precision matters and details can make all the d…

How can one possibly do this? The amount of regulations/laws produced is so enormous, it is impossible to keep up.

Re: Yellen calls for global minimum corporate tax rate

#89

Post by dnautics »

inter_netuser wrote: post #88
yonaguska wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leave those sorts of details up to congress. Yep, let's leave it to the "experts". Policy "details" tend to have drastic unforeseen consequences, and our congress-critters tend to defer responsibility of those details to lobbyists. We the Constituents\People\Voters have a responsibility to do our own thorough research and not allow Congress to figure out the details. Precision matters and details can make all the d…

How can one possibly do this? The amount of regulations/laws produced is so enormous, it is impossible to keep up.

The good news is that in my plan, you don't have to care. Unless you are the cfo of a company, or an accountant.
Post reply on HN