4 ms·

> E.g. they could simply prohibit countries incorporated/owning/owned by countries in tax havens from selling in the US. Yea, I don't think there would be anyt

> E.g. they could simply prohibit countries incorporated/owning/owned by countries in tax havens from selling in the US. Yea, I don't think there would be anything "simple" about this, for all of the reasons listed in my reply above. > Seems to work well for China. We have very different definitions of "work well." I assume you are referring to the recent tariffs, in which case we gave China an ultimatum, and they said go for it, and are imposing retaliatory tariffs. If China had actually changed any of their trade policies to be more fair, I would have considered that to have "worked well." What we got instead was a trade war, which was to be expected. Basically ultimatums are always an ineffective negotiating tactic as they force politicians in the receiving country to reject the offer, no matter how reasonable.

tomp 8y ago
> I assume you are referring to the recent tariffs, in which case we gave China an ultimatum No, I'm referring to the fact that foreign (Western) companies cannot sell in China unless part of the products are made there, and can't own Chinese companies without Chinese co-ownership. It all resulted in a massive transfer of IP to China, simply because for most companies, the tradeoff still made sense (short-term at least) (Google is a notable exception).
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Interesting. Comment makes more sense now. The amount of law and international agreements that would be overturned by such a change is truly staggering, so I’d still say this is the antithesis of simple. Further, I’m not sure China’s model, and protectionism in general, is a better strategy. No way to know, but I expect China’s economy would be stronger if it didn’t have these protections. Like I said, there are a hundred things we can tax; why do we only want to tax the one that’s easy to evade?
  - tomp 8y ago
    I’d apply the same logic to everything. I’d also forbid money transfers to/from tax havens and ownership of property/companies by entities in tax havens or other countries that don’t reveal beneficial owners... There’s a lot of abuse happening, and it mostly involves the same few countries. The rest of us (i.e. employees and small business owners) end up paying so much more. (By “forbid” I of course mean “tax so heavily it just doesn’t make any economic sense”.)

tomp 8y ago

> I assume you are referring to the recent tariffs, in which case we gave China an ultimatum No, I'm referring to the fact that foreign (Western) companies cannot sell in China unless part of the products are made there, and can't own Chinese companies without Chinese co-ownership. It all resulted in a massive transfer of IP to China, simply because for most companies, the tradeoff still made sense (short-term at least) (Google is a notable exception).

jaredklewis 8y ago
Interesting. Comment makes more sense now. The amount of law and international agreements that would be overturned by such a change is truly staggering, so I’d still say this is the antithesis of simple. Further, I’m not sure China’s model, and protectionism in general, is a better strategy. No way to know, but I expect China’s economy would be stronger if it didn’t have these protections. Like I said, there are a hundred things we can tax; why do we only want to tax the one that’s easy to evade?
- tomp 8y ago
  I’d apply the same logic to everything. I’d also forbid money transfers to/from tax havens and ownership of property/companies by entities in tax havens or other countries that don’t reveal beneficial owners... There’s a lot of abuse happening, and it mostly involves the same few countries. The rest of us (i.e. employees and small business owners) end up paying so much more. (By “forbid” I of course mean “tax so heavily it just doesn’t make any economic sense”.)