4 ms·

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you mean "they already pay a lot of tax!". I think things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrang

by lz400 9y ago

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you mean "they already pay a lot of tax!". I think things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement Point to the fact that global corporations spend a lot of effort making sure they get away with paying less than they should. If there was a fair taxation of corps at the level they should be taxed, they would be paying more. Obviously the corporations keep getting bigger and richer, and the 1% wealthier, yet we see countries struggling with welfare state. Doesn't seem right.

candiodari 9y ago
Nope, this is tax avoidance, not tax evasion. In practice, of course, the law across different countries effectively allows for different tax rates. This was decided and entered into law. Of course all of these tax rates are agreed to be what the corporation "should" pay. Corporations simply select the lowest of the choices available to them. Is that not what they "should" pay ? Not a problem: congress can vote laws that make these constructions impossible. They are not doing so. Don't blame corporations here, they're simply responding to incentives congress put there for them. Instead, blame congress. They can change the tax rate, even for international profits and revenues (in fact the US is infamous for doing that in several ways already), and they make the rules about what can be tax deferred and what can't. They're not changing those rules, and you can bet they know what they're doing. I think the bigger issue is that because states are paying for things that are unsustainable (ie. the welfare state, even in the US, is unsustainable) the tax level doesn't matter : it's too low. Changing the tax level simply changes the point in time where the system crashes, but fixing is not possible. We simply cannot put the current level of economic activity into elder care in the future.
- lz400 9y ago
  I agree that corporations behave rationally avoiding tax. I agree it's the government's (global gov not just US) fault. I agree it's a complex problem because it probably needs a global, not local/nation level solution. But yes basically those tax avoidance tricks loopholes should be closed. I disagree that a welfare state is unsustainable. I think it's not and if anything, seems most of the thinking of the future once automation and ML take over most of the world is that some type of UBI will be necessary. I don't know the exact form but I agree. The brutal increase in productivity and value added by technology will have to be offset with a redistribution of that wealth if we want a functioning society. We might start now and fix the welfare state.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    The problem is that you sidestep the obvious issue as if it doesn't exist. Money represents economic activity. Healthcare and elderly care currently consumes 20% of all economic activity. That is what's unsustainable. This is out of the question towards the future, since those people do not contribute 20% of GDP in the first place (and they'd need to contribute almost 40% to justify that). I guess the question I'm asking is simple: you want to increase this expenditure ... ok. What do you drop ? Please pick other parts of the economy that we can just drop ... Please don't just handwave "just automate it and save 50%" but ...
    - lz400 9y ago
      First, elderly healthcare is 34% of healthcare spending in the US (and healthcare is 16% of GDP) so it isn't be 20% of all economic activity in the US. And US healthcare is very expensive compared to other countries. Second, seems to work in Europe and Japan (Japan has a very old pop and total healthcare spending is 8% of GDP). Maybe the US has the wrong healthcare system? :) Third, the welfare state is not only healthcare for the elderly.

by lz400 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

Nope, this is tax avoidance, not tax evasion. In practice, of course, the law across different countries effectively allows for different tax rates. This was decided and entered into law. Of course all of these tax rates are agreed to be what the corporation "should" pay. Corporations simply select the lowest of the choices available to them. Is that not what they "should" pay ? Not a problem: congress can vote laws that make these constructions impossible. They are not doing so. Don't blame corporations here, they're simply responding to incentives congress put there for them. Instead, blame congress. They can change the tax rate, even for international profits and revenues (in fact the US is infamous for doing that in several ways already), and they make the rules about what can be tax deferred and what can't. They're not changing those rules, and you can bet they know what they're doing. I think the bigger issue is that because states are paying for things that are unsustainable (ie. the welfare state, even in the US, is unsustainable) the tax level doesn't matter : it's too low. Changing the tax level simply changes the point in time where the system crashes, but fixing is not possible. We simply cannot put the current level of economic activity into elder care in the future.

lz400 9y ago
I agree that corporations behave rationally avoiding tax. I agree it's the government's (global gov not just US) fault. I agree it's a complex problem because it probably needs a global, not local/nation level solution. But yes basically those tax avoidance tricks loopholes should be closed. I disagree that a welfare state is unsustainable. I think it's not and if anything, seems most of the thinking of the future once automation and ML take over most of the world is that some type of UBI will be necessary. I don't know the exact form but I agree. The brutal increase in productivity and value added by technology will have to be offset with a redistribution of that wealth if we want a functioning society. We might start now and fix the welfare state.
- candiodari 9y ago
  The problem is that you sidestep the obvious issue as if it doesn't exist. Money represents economic activity. Healthcare and elderly care currently consumes 20% of all economic activity. That is what's unsustainable. This is out of the question towards the future, since those people do not contribute 20% of GDP in the first place (and they'd need to contribute almost 40% to justify that). I guess the question I'm asking is simple: you want to increase this expenditure ... ok. What do you drop ? Please pick other parts of the economy that we can just drop ... Please don't just handwave "just automate it and save 50%" but ...
  - lz400 9y ago
    First, elderly healthcare is 34% of healthcare spending in the US (and healthcare is 16% of GDP) so it isn't be 20% of all economic activity in the US. And US healthcare is very expensive compared to other countries. Second, seems to work in Europe and Japan (Japan has a very old pop and total healthcare spending is 8% of GDP). Maybe the US has the wrong healthcare system? :) Third, the welfare state is not only healthcare for the elderly.