3 ms·
Correct. That's why 0% is preferable to 8%, and Schumer-Portman should be thought of as a medium term stop-gap measure. 0% is the only stable rate. Eventually
by pzone 11y ago
Correct. That's why 0% is preferable to 8%, and Schumer-Portman should be thought of as a medium term stop-gap measure. 0% is the only stable rate. Eventually that will happen, but for the time being 8% will work as other revenue adjustments are made.
- adventured 11y ago0% is only the stable rate in theory (and only if you ignore every other business consideration in the theory). It will never work like that in reality, where countries often have dramatic benefits to offer that compensate for paying more than 0%. All nations would have to go to zero in the category of what other benefits they have to offer (their sum value proposition outside of their tax rate). That's not going to happen. Those benefits add up to being worth a certain amount of tax depending on the nation and the corporation's specific context. If this wasn't true, every relevant corporation would have flooded out of the US (or Germany) long ago, seeking much lower rates.
- pzone 11y agoI agree to an extent, but nations are also competing on all of these other factors that make them more attractive places to do business. Some costly health care surcharge in France could be reduced as easily as the foreign profit taxation in the US. Also, it only takes one Ireland to drive the entire world toward 0%.