I will never understand why people think answers to things like this are simple and can be resolved with a single magic bullet sans unintended consequence. > T

I will never understand why people think answers to things like this are simple and can be resolved with a single magic bullet sans unintended consequence. > This policy needs to be enforced globally (E.g. a UN resolution/international treaty) to avoid flight of capital. The UN does not have the mandate to impose tax laws on independent nations. If it did, you have to re-write the entire legal framework countries to deal with pensions, trusts etc. Oh, and that's before you find interesting new kinds of charities being set up in various domiciles with different laws for qualification... So we now need to impose our version of those laws too. Basically your solution is to have a global dictatorship where everyone does what you say, which is for their own good anyway - because your vision of what is right and proper is the only valid one. We're going to impose these laws and we're going to back it up with this Gun borrowed from the UN. Democratic governments controlling their own tax laws? Psssh. Sod that eh? And since we have this power, let's get everyone on the same page in some other important things. Police powers, information gathering and sharing, biometrics, so on and so forth. It's for the best right? >But I think even with flight of capital factored in, countries that enforce this tax will be much better off economically due to the massive inefficiencies of large corporations. What inefficiencies are these? All you've now done is move all the money off shore, and agreed to collect less tax because the subsidiary in your country has no assets to tax. They're all leased. No profits are made due to IP costs going to offshore companies (or a million subsidiaries or some other soln that doesn't involve paying stupid tax rates).