3 ms·

> What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate. I am not even anno

by chx 9y ago

> What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate. I am not even annoyed by that. I am an immigrant into Canada. We sort of made a deal: you let me into a place where I can live a safe and free life and I will pay my taxes leading to that. I stand by that deal. I had a company in Gibraltar (which, by the way, was completely legal, I am a citizen of the EU and I exercised my right to establish a company wherever I in the EU pleased) which I closed down and moved my affairs into Canada and I am a proud Canadian taxpayer (and now even a citizen but that came much later). But gosh. I am a very small fish here. I only make a few hundred thousands a year. Could we please implement a system where I report my earnings (not my profits), slap a flat tax on it and that's it? No bookkeepers. No complexity. No exceptions. Just a friendly, flat small business tax.

dalore 9y ago
A tax on earnings? Do you mean revenue? I think that's a bit insane and lot's of business wouldn't be able to survive. If I buy something for $100 and sell it for $110 I now have to pay tax on the $110 amount rather then the $10 amount, increasing my tax tremendously. For businesses with lot's of inventory that would be murder.
- gwenzek 9y ago
  I think it would be the only solution, because it will always be easier to manipulate your benefits than earnings. Although we could imagine something more complex: pay taxes on (revenue - expenses to compagnies that also pay taxes). So now if you buy a product $100 to a company paying 25% taxes and sell it $110, you pay taxes on the $10, but if you buy your product to a company in some island, you pay taxes on the $110. Smarter: if you buy to a company that pays a 20% tax while in your country you should pay a 30% tax, then you pay taxes on ($110 - $100*(30%-20%) = $20). Everything get more complex but it's just a bit more CPU time.
- chx 9y ago
  Wherever this is implemented it's an option. It's never mandatory. There are tons of knowledge based operations where expenses are way too few. Obviously if you are a traditional buy stuff, add value, sell stuff business then you want to bother with bookkeeping sure.

by chx 9y ago

dalore 9y ago

A tax on earnings? Do you mean revenue? I think that's a bit insane and lot's of business wouldn't be able to survive. If I buy something for $100 and sell it for $110 I now have to pay tax on the $110 amount rather then the $10 amount, increasing my tax tremendously. For businesses with lot's of inventory that would be murder.

gwenzek 9y ago
I think it would be the only solution, because it will always be easier to manipulate your benefits than earnings. Although we could imagine something more complex: pay taxes on (revenue - expenses to compagnies that also pay taxes). So now if you buy a product $100 to a company paying 25% taxes and sell it $110, you pay taxes on the $10, but if you buy your product to a company in some island, you pay taxes on the $110. Smarter: if you buy to a company that pays a 20% tax while in your country you should pay a 30% tax, then you pay taxes on ($110 - $100*(30%-20%) = $20). Everything get more complex but it's just a bit more CPU time.
chx 9y ago
Wherever this is implemented it's an option. It's never mandatory. There are tons of knowledge based operations where expenses are way too few. Obviously if you are a traditional buy stuff, add value, sell stuff business then you want to bother with bookkeeping sure.