4 ms·
It's profits that get taxed, not revenues. By the way, Starbucks had an effective tax rate of close to 35% in 2014. So it's not like they aren't paying any taxe
by fauigerzigerk 11y ago
It's profits that get taxed, not revenues. By the way, Starbucks had an effective tax rate of close to 35% in 2014. So it's not like they aren't paying any taxes. The whole issue is about that mythical concept of a "fair share" of taxes.
My idea of "fair" would be to make taxes porportionate to the extent to which public infrastructures of a country are used. That may be easier to achieve through fees than through taxes, which would come closer to your idea of taxing revenues.
- datashovel 11y agoI'd posit that a far better way to judge tax contributions would be to compare them to a company's market cap. That's where we'll likely see stark realization that multi-national corporations are living the good life.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoThat doesn't solve the problem of which country should get what share of the taxes.
- xixi77 11y agoThe problem with that is that changes in market cap don't directly translate to taxable income -- and when they do, they do already get taxed through capital gains.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoCapital gains tax is paid by the owners of the company when they dispose of shares, not by the corporation itself. But I agree that using market cap is not a good basis for taxation. Most companies don't even have a market cap as they are not publicly traded. And among those that do it would hurt the most innovative companies disproportionatly. Companies would start paying dividends way too early to keep the share price low instead of investing and growing the business. Tesla has a market cap of $27bn. They would pay more than half of what GM pays in taxes if market cap was used as a basis. I'd rather they use that money to keep innovating and tax them later on when they make a real profit and use a greater share of public infrastructures.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- datashovel 11y agoI'm definitely not suggesting it's necessarily the correct way to approach taxation. I think it's probably a "more fair" alternative to the current state of things. And perhaps worthy of being part of the discussion.
- dnautics 11y agoShould people living entirely on public assistance then pay 100% tax?
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoPeople don't pay corporation tax.
- xixi77 11y agoI would say that fees would be more fair, yes -- I don't see why the amount a company pays for using public resources should vary with its profitability: even if they don't make any money, or shift profits to a subsidiary abroad, the resources are being used anyway.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>It's profits that get taxed, not revenues. Can I get taxed on my profits and not just revenues? It would be nice if I wasn't paying so many taxes just for having a place to live.