4 ms·

The underlying problem is that companies take advantage of "globalization". Companies can legally move not only their production abroad but also the profit. So

The underlying problem is that companies take advantage of "globalization". Companies can legally move not only their production abroad but also the profit. So companies naturally — with the blessing of American business inteligensia — avoid taxes. I think national control of the economy is eminent and is the only way forward if you want to realize and spread some of the tremendous opportunities and benefits that automatization and digitalization brings us.

microcolonel 9y ago
Fundamentally the "problem" lies in the fact that the nominal tax rate they can expect to pay in the United States is the highest among all the developed nations. Ireland is prudent and wise enough to be the better home for their revenues. Globalization means that nations, provinces, and municipalities compete for the patronage of businesses. If you want a global economy, but you also want to be the legal home of Google and Microsoft, you will need to compete globally to offer better ROI: both in the cost of doing business, and in the proportion of the return which they get to keep. This is also why we keep piling on exceptions and deductions in order to stop the bleeding and keep at least some major firms from migrating all of their capital out of the country.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  Fundamently the problem lies in the fact that civilised countries forget how much more social security a corporation gets from operating a business in there: no hostile takeovers, police coming in time, medical insurance for their employees, functional legal systems. Take all of this away and a corporation is going to be killed instantly (you're a victim of fraud on a massive scale? you haven't payed your taxes this year, so no retribution for you). So no, I don't think the fundamental issue is just the ROI.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > Fundamently the problem lies in the fact that civilised countries forget how much more social security a corporation gets from operating a business in there: no hostile takeovers, police coming in time, medical insurance for their employees, functional legal systems. Wouldn't this all impact ROI?
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      It would, but it does not since it is provided essentially for free.
- Faark 9y ago
  That's not "competition" between countries. You talking about shitty tax law that doesn't take into account bad acting countries (even within the EU). I don't care about a companies legal home. If they want to make business with consumers in my country those deals should yield taxes to my country. That seems to be the intend of the article's proposal. But the EU also wants to make it easy for companies to offer their products in all member states without making tax dealings to complicated. Having a different set of rules once the company exceeds some revenue doesn't feel like a perfect solution, but way better than them not contributing.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > bad acting countries In what way is Ireland a bad actor? Locally operated businesses get a good deal too. What about Poland? Those shipyards aren't moving to your tax hell any time soon, but that doesn't make Poland a "bad actor". It may surprise you, but no country has the obligation to exploit and screw over businesses as much as yours would like to.
- l5870uoo9y 9y ago
  You can't complete with a country like Singapore, which literally asked foreign hedge fund managers to help write their tax laws. You can setup a company in Singapore for 1000$ per year and you pay no tax on all income outside Singapore.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Why can't you compete with a country like Singapore? Aside from very strict regulations on social taboos (being visibly naked through a window, chewing gum, drugs [a superset of each major religious group's preferences]), Singapore functions quite well. They have less than 2% unemployment, they are highly developed, GDP per capita is only slightly lower than the United States, income inequality is fairly high, but absolute poverty is exceedingly rare and mobility is good. Of course, there are cultural differences which would probably get in the way of the U.S. reaching goals like this with such efficiency, but surely Singapore proves that it's possible.

microcolonel 9y ago

Fundamentally the "problem" lies in the fact that the nominal tax rate they can expect to pay in the United States is the highest among all the developed nations. Ireland is prudent and wise enough to be the better home for their revenues. Globalization means that nations, provinces, and municipalities compete for the patronage of businesses. If you want a global economy, but you also want to be the legal home of Google and Microsoft, you will need to compete globally to offer better ROI: both in the cost of doing business, and in the proportion of the return which they get to keep. This is also why we keep piling on exceptions and deductions in order to stop the bleeding and keep at least some major firms from migrating all of their capital out of the country.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
Fundamently the problem lies in the fact that civilised countries forget how much more social security a corporation gets from operating a business in there: no hostile takeovers, police coming in time, medical insurance for their employees, functional legal systems. Take all of this away and a corporation is going to be killed instantly (you're a victim of fraud on a massive scale? you haven't payed your taxes this year, so no retribution for you). So no, I don't think the fundamental issue is just the ROI.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Fundamently the problem lies in the fact that civilised countries forget how much more social security a corporation gets from operating a business in there: no hostile takeovers, police coming in time, medical insurance for their employees, functional legal systems. Wouldn't this all impact ROI?
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    It would, but it does not since it is provided essentially for free.
Faark 9y ago
That's not "competition" between countries. You talking about shitty tax law that doesn't take into account bad acting countries (even within the EU). I don't care about a companies legal home. If they want to make business with consumers in my country those deals should yield taxes to my country. That seems to be the intend of the article's proposal. But the EU also wants to make it easy for companies to offer their products in all member states without making tax dealings to complicated. Having a different set of rules once the company exceeds some revenue doesn't feel like a perfect solution, but way better than them not contributing.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > bad acting countries In what way is Ireland a bad actor? Locally operated businesses get a good deal too. What about Poland? Those shipyards aren't moving to your tax hell any time soon, but that doesn't make Poland a "bad actor". It may surprise you, but no country has the obligation to exploit and screw over businesses as much as yours would like to.
l5870uoo9y 9y ago
You can't complete with a country like Singapore, which literally asked foreign hedge fund managers to help write their tax laws. You can setup a company in Singapore for 1000$ per year and you pay no tax on all income outside Singapore.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Why can't you compete with a country like Singapore? Aside from very strict regulations on social taboos (being visibly naked through a window, chewing gum, drugs [a superset of each major religious group's preferences]), Singapore functions quite well. They have less than 2% unemployment, they are highly developed, GDP per capita is only slightly lower than the United States, income inequality is fairly high, but absolute poverty is exceedingly rare and mobility is good. Of course, there are cultural differences which would probably get in the way of the U.S. reaching goals like this with such efficiency, but surely Singapore proves that it's possible.