6 ms·

That seems untrue. If the margin of benefit to non-shareholders is so small as to be negligable, one can very reasonably not want to "reward" these companies f

That seems untrue. If the margin of benefit to non-shareholders is so small as to be negligable, one can very reasonably not want to "reward" these companies for tax-dodging business practices, and seek reconciliation that actually ensures some sort of effective outcome instead of just hoping; especially given past repatriations as the parent poster notes. To suggest otherwise seems to lead that Trickle Down can be effective, which I believe history has well and truly laid to rest. As a holder of invested capital, I will still speak out against efforts that I think would exclusively benefit that class and not the core participants of the working economy. The latter historically seems to motivate much better long term trends.

rayiner 9y ago
> That seems untrue. If the margin of benefit to non-shareholders is so small as to be negligable, one can very reasonably not want to "reward" these companies for tax-dodging business practices, and seek reconciliation that actually ensures some sort of effective outcome instead of just hoping; especially given past repatriations as the parent poster notes. There is no effective outcome. Countries are engaged in a race to the bottom where it comes to favorable tax treatment for international corporations. We either bring the money back here, or it'll just stay over there.
- existencebox 9y ago
  By that logic we set corporate tax rate to 0 and throw our hands in the air. Having missed out on some percent of corporate tax revenue does not mean to me that our entire regimen is worth discarding, but could be adapted.
  - harryh 9y ago
    That's exactly what we should do. All taxes are taxes on people. Corporate taxes are an inefficient and not especially progressive tax on people. We'd be better off without them.
    - existencebox 9y ago
      Convince me, why should I buy that argument? I've not seen any compelling justification that reducing the corporate tax would do anything but create a further deficit which would need to be filled with a much more direct tax on people less able to pay. What precedent is there for this sort of strategy actually showing long term benefit across the broad economic spectrum, and not just to the upper percentile? (This is fantastic, I can't even get 2 seconds into asking for discussion without being in the negative. This is not the HN I normally applaud. I'd hope readers recognize that I'm actually looking to have my opinion changed here and not just spark an unproductive argument, and am saddened that I have to clarify this.)
      - harryh 9y ago
        Yes, if we eliminated corporate taxes we would need to raise individual taxes in order to maintain government revenue. But we could do so in a way that was: A) Far more efficient - The deadweight loss of corporate taxes is higher than individual taxes. Corporate taxes are crazy complicated by necessity and lead to all sorts of crazy behaviors. B) More fair - A millionaire should pay higher taxes on his profits from stock ownership than a middle class person. When a corporation pays its taxes those two people are taxed at the same rate.
        existencebox 9y ago
        A sister poster suggests offsetting with higher cap gains, which could be a component of what you're suggesting and I could see how that would work as a concept, but I have issue with pragmatism within the US. As far as I understand it, didn't both the prior tax holiday come essentially in isolation of balancing factors, alongside a broader tax plan that de-emphesized the higher tax brackets and cap gains? (and from a brief reading, seems to have added a significant amount to the national debt via lost tax revenue, during a period of drastically increasing inequality) This was my original concern when posting earlier, that I haven't seen a history of positive outcomes, or strategies that offset like you're suggesting.
        9y ago

rayiner 9y ago

> That seems untrue. If the margin of benefit to non-shareholders is so small as to be negligable, one can very reasonably not want to "reward" these companies for tax-dodging business practices, and seek reconciliation that actually ensures some sort of effective outcome instead of just hoping; especially given past repatriations as the parent poster notes. There is no effective outcome. Countries are engaged in a race to the bottom where it comes to favorable tax treatment for international corporations. We either bring the money back here, or it'll just stay over there.

existencebox 9y ago
By that logic we set corporate tax rate to 0 and throw our hands in the air. Having missed out on some percent of corporate tax revenue does not mean to me that our entire regimen is worth discarding, but could be adapted.
- harryh 9y ago
  That's exactly what we should do. All taxes are taxes on people. Corporate taxes are an inefficient and not especially progressive tax on people. We'd be better off without them.
  - existencebox 9y ago
    Convince me, why should I buy that argument? I've not seen any compelling justification that reducing the corporate tax would do anything but create a further deficit which would need to be filled with a much more direct tax on people less able to pay. What precedent is there for this sort of strategy actually showing long term benefit across the broad economic spectrum, and not just to the upper percentile? (This is fantastic, I can't even get 2 seconds into asking for discussion without being in the negative. This is not the HN I normally applaud. I'd hope readers recognize that I'm actually looking to have my opinion changed here and not just spark an unproductive argument, and am saddened that I have to clarify this.)
    - harryh 9y ago
      Yes, if we eliminated corporate taxes we would need to raise individual taxes in order to maintain government revenue. But we could do so in a way that was: A) Far more efficient - The deadweight loss of corporate taxes is higher than individual taxes. Corporate taxes are crazy complicated by necessity and lead to all sorts of crazy behaviors. B) More fair - A millionaire should pay higher taxes on his profits from stock ownership than a middle class person. When a corporation pays its taxes those two people are taxed at the same rate.
      - existencebox 9y ago
        A sister poster suggests offsetting with higher cap gains, which could be a component of what you're suggesting and I could see how that would work as a concept, but I have issue with pragmatism within the US. As far as I understand it, didn't both the prior tax holiday come essentially in isolation of balancing factors, alongside a broader tax plan that de-emphesized the higher tax brackets and cap gains? (and from a brief reading, seems to have added a significant amount to the national debt via lost tax revenue, during a period of drastically increasing inequality) This was my original concern when posting earlier, that I haven't seen a history of positive outcomes, or strategies that offset like you're suggesting.
        9y ago