4 ms·
TL;DR: corporate taxes can not be collected effectively due to off-shoring, and so should be replaced with taxes on private income or on consumption. It doesn'
by pfraze 10y ago
TL;DR: corporate taxes can not be collected effectively due to off-shoring, and so should be replaced with taxes on private income or on consumption.
It doesn't make a very compelling case. Consumption taxes slow spending, and private wealth can also evade taxation.
EDIT: corrected, thanks rectang
- pfraze 10y agoWhat the article doesn't do, is make the economic case that less corporate taxation will increase investment. Credit for that, I guess.
- 1_2__3 10y agoAlmost certainly because they assume the reader takes that as fait accompli.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Pica_soO 10y agoIt could be collected, by prohibiting company's unwilling to pay taxes to access the market of a state.
- pfraze 10y agoIm inclined to agree; the US market is too valuable for a corporation to ignore, and there's no simpler solution than rigorously pursuing collection.
- nicky0 10y agoIt's not so simple. How do you pursue collection of money that isn't owed?
- nicky0 10y agoIt's not like companies are point blank refusing. They simply take advantage of the rules as they stand.
- Pica_soO 10y agoThey are paying those who craft them with the money they gain by avoiding? The ultimate irony, the criminal paying the bail with parts of the bank robberys spoil.
- rectang 10y ago> and so should be replaced with taxes on private wealth or on consumption. The article notably does not make the case for a wealth tax. It proposes making up revenue with income and consumption taxes. The result would be a transfer of wealth towards the ultrarich.
- pfraze 10y agoThat's true I wrote imprecisely, thanks for the correction.