3 ms·
I agree about the consequences about governments competing on taxes. The problem is that this: "It ought to be a level playing field by federal law." would darn
by travisjungroth 6y ago
I agree about the consequences about governments competing on taxes. The problem is that this: "It ought to be a level playing field by federal law." would darn near mean we wouldn't have states. One of the defining things about a government is they set their own tax rates.
Doing it federally wouldn't even mean a level playing field. Countries compete on tax rates, too.
- staticman2 6y agoI wouldn't mind seeing the federal government say if a business gets a better tax deal than any other business in the locality, the federal government raises taxes to wipe out the difference. (That said I don't know in practice if this can be implemented) This wouldn't prevent states from competing on tax rates, but they couldn't compete on special tax incentived to large businesses.
- trentnix 6y agoCountries competing on tax rates is exactly why Janet Yellen has floated the idea of a 'Global Minimum Tax'. Countries competing gets in the way of the grand vision she and her ilk share for how they want to organize society.
- fallingfrog 6y agoThe difference is that on the national level you can use tariffs and other such tools to make things more fair, but there are no state level tariffs.
- nrmitchi 6y agoBut this isn't really about setting tax rates, is it? This discussion seems more about states purposely going around their existing tax rates and structures in order to create sweetheart deals for corporation.
- travisjungroth 6y agoYou could change what I said to governments setting their own tax laws.