4 ms·

As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.

ucaetano 9y ago
> As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right. That's perfectly right, unless you're suggesting that every country should have only local companies and should block every foreign company from operating there. Not only it is right, it is very, very good for society. In the past 60 years, poverty went from 60% to 9% dues to that.
- downunderman 9y ago
  I'm not against foreign companies operating where ever they want but tax comes as a cost of business. If a company won't contribute to a nation it whether through taxes or investment it has no right to be there. It's effectively a parasite.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. If your product costs 100 to make in country a and you sell it for 100 in country b, you're not having any profits. But if you want to ignore that and charge non-existing profits in your imaginary country, go ahead, you're dooming your imaginary country to failure for not understanding basic economics.
    - downunderman 9y ago
      Yes you are. Look I know you want to seen the big picture but that's not how it should work. If you spend money in country A that shouldn't give you the right to write of revenue in country B. From the perspective of country B you were profitable. If you want to write off revenue in country B then invest, pay taxes or don't do business there. Countries don't need parasitic businesses like that. All they will do is undermine the economy and local competition.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all from a global economics perspective. You seem to want completely isolated countries with no international trade. There's no such things as parasitic businesses, "right of revenue" or anything like that. You're not even wrong.

ucaetano 9y ago

> As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right. That's perfectly right, unless you're suggesting that every country should have only local companies and should block every foreign company from operating there. Not only it is right, it is very, very good for society. In the past 60 years, poverty went from 60% to 9% dues to that.

downunderman 9y ago
I'm not against foreign companies operating where ever they want but tax comes as a cost of business. If a company won't contribute to a nation it whether through taxes or investment it has no right to be there. It's effectively a parasite.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. If your product costs 100 to make in country a and you sell it for 100 in country b, you're not having any profits. But if you want to ignore that and charge non-existing profits in your imaginary country, go ahead, you're dooming your imaginary country to failure for not understanding basic economics.
  - downunderman 9y ago
    Yes you are. Look I know you want to seen the big picture but that's not how it should work. If you spend money in country A that shouldn't give you the right to write of revenue in country B. From the perspective of country B you were profitable. If you want to write off revenue in country B then invest, pay taxes or don't do business there. Countries don't need parasitic businesses like that. All they will do is undermine the economy and local competition.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all from a global economics perspective. You seem to want completely isolated countries with no international trade. There's no such things as parasitic businesses, "right of revenue" or anything like that. You're not even wrong.