6 ms·

A level playing field makes sense, and domestic companies are at a disadvantage if their local profits are taxed while foreign companies' "local profits" are ta

A level playing field makes sense, and domestic companies are at a disadvantage if their local profits are taxed while foreign companies' "local profits" are taxed offshore at a lower rate. That said, this doesn't level the playing field, it tips it towards local companies. The tax on business revenues should apply to domestic companies as well, and it should apply to businesses of all sizes. If it has to be netted against taxes on earnings ("tax is the larger of...") to make it not punish local businesses then they should do that. Anything else harms the consumer by distorting the market.

nurino 8y ago
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a government tipping the playing field towards local companies.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  There’s totally something wrong with favouring local businesses owners at the expense of local consumers. The benefits accrue mostly to people with incomes far in excess of the average.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    Local business owners hire local employees.
- module0000 8y ago
  Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product. That's the government taking (additional) money away from you, and handing it to a local company. If that doesn't make sense, an example could help when you want to buy a hypothetical WidgetBox. Amazon WidgetBox: $100.00 Local WidgetBox: $102.00 After the added tax on Amazon, now you have no choice but to pay $102.00 for something you could previously pay $100.00 for. In business speak, it's call "screwing you" - in the article it's dressed up as "helping local businesses (screw you)".
  - mattmanser 8y ago
    Apart from the local company's payroll makes up $50 of that cost, of which $20 goes to taxes, so society is still up $18. It's far more complicated than you make it seem.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product. I don't see why ever-decreasing prices seems to be your metric for good here. I voluntarily pay more for certain things because it is a more ethical choice in those cases.
philjohn 8y ago
2% does not tip it, it's actually a pretty low, but still sane, figure IMHO.

nurino 8y ago

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a government tipping the playing field towards local companies.

mr_toad 8y ago
There’s totally something wrong with favouring local businesses owners at the expense of local consumers. The benefits accrue mostly to people with incomes far in excess of the average.
- djrogers 8y ago
  Local business owners hire local employees.
module0000 8y ago
Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product. That's the government taking (additional) money away from you, and handing it to a local company. If that doesn't make sense, an example could help when you want to buy a hypothetical WidgetBox. Amazon WidgetBox: $100.00 Local WidgetBox: $102.00 After the added tax on Amazon, now you have no choice but to pay $102.00 for something you could previously pay $100.00 for. In business speak, it's call "screwing you" - in the article it's dressed up as "helping local businesses (screw you)".
- mattmanser 8y ago
  Apart from the local company's payroll makes up $50 of that cost, of which $20 goes to taxes, so society is still up $18. It's far more complicated than you make it seem.
- ionised 8y ago
  > Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product. I don't see why ever-decreasing prices seems to be your metric for good here. I voluntarily pay more for certain things because it is a more ethical choice in those cases.

philjohn 8y ago

2% does not tip it, it's actually a pretty low, but still sane, figure IMHO.