This idea is pretty clever, if it could be made workable. The main issue is that we have multiple tax jurisdictions. If a corporation is, say, based in the US,

This idea is pretty clever, if it could be made workable. The main issue is that we have multiple tax jurisdictions. If a corporation is, say, based in the US, but also sells to Europe, what should be the rate the US and Europe charge? Well, we can't split based on profits, since we already decided that profits are easy to game. Maybe equity ought to be allocated on the sales split, since sales are harder to manipulate? But let's pretend in this scenario the US has a higher rate than Europe. I'm a tech company, my staff is in SV, let's say for discussion that that is a big reason why my company is successful. Here, I have an incentive to not sell anything in the US. I get the best of both worlds: access to a great engineering team, and also a lower tax burden. And what if I'm a startup, and I don't have any sales yet, but my valuation keeps rising because I'm actually doing valuable engineering? Which countries get a claim? Maybe charge based on expenses? But we already saw that profits are easy to shift, which implies that expenses are easy to shift. Ultimately, a fair regime would allocate equity to governments based on the future economic value to the corporation due to that country existing, but I can't think of any easy way to measure that split. This is the key point. Does the book detail how to solve it? Also, you get weird effects, like clawbacks. Let's the US owns some large fraction of a company because it sells products there. A large recession hits the US, Americans buy fewer of its goods. Under this regime, the US should give up some of my equity stake because it's responsible for a smaller proportion of future profits.