3 ms·
I think what we're arguing about is whether or not this distinction should remain meaningless, since one player in this game clearly does not see it that way.
by remarkEon 6y ago
I think what we're arguing about is whether or not this distinction should remain meaningless, since one player in this game clearly does not see it that way.
- munk-a 6y agoI think that's one side of the discussion, yes. But I think that it's impossible to force corporate citizenship without either 1. A voluntary international accord (that could be broken by any dissenting voices) 2. A single country setting the rules for corporate residency and enforcing them (i.e. the unilateral we don't need no diplomacy approach). Instead I think the whole idea of primary residence for corporations is utterly unenforceable - I think what countries need to start doing is levying appropriate VAT taxes on added value to companies and possibly force all domestic activity to be executed by domestic labour only. I think, if we actually fixed the loopholes around international tax dodging, we'd be in a position where countries would be quite aware of how much value they have over a given company (i.e. Apple might derive 60% of their value from the US) and then use that proportionality to leverage political pressure on companies as needed. And, just to clarify, this is essentially the road the CCP has taken and precisely why they seem to have such an outsized amount of control over companies - every country other than China is voluntarily declining to flex their muscles.
- remarkEon 6y agoI like this idea a lot. It would force an explicit decision from these companies to formalize their (today implicit) relationships with nation-states.