3 ms·

~0% is what many pay right now because various mechanisms are used to pay the tax of the lowest country tax rate. So if you enforce a minimum then likely they w

~0% is what many pay right now because various mechanisms are used to pay the tax of the lowest country tax rate. So if you enforce a minimum then likely they will pay ~min%. This is a game theory problem not an economic or political one.

handrous 5y ago
Ah, so you'd propose that 0% is the current de facto minimum and maximum, and that raising the minimum is bad per se? I took your original post to mean that states would not, practically speaking, have the liberty to impose even higher rates if a de jure minimum were imposed, while currently they do, but... rather you seem to disagree with the direct point of the move itself, which is to prevent under-cutting some minimum above 0%? Or am I misunderstanding you?
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  If the point is for every country to have the same tax rate then yes this solves that problem. Each country cannot impose a higher rate de jure for the same reason why now the effective rate is 0%.
  - handrous 5y ago
    ... but they all have (effectively) the same rate either way, no? The point isn't for them all to have the same rate, it's for that existing same rate to be higher, right? That it would be, in effect, the same, isn't an outcome of this move. That that same rate would be non-zero is the outcome.
    - petermcneeley 5y ago
      Well no they dont need to have the same rate they just need to implement tariffs. With tariffs one could choose to tax with prejudice. You could tax specific corporations higher or lower or specific industries (gas/coal). Or even give tax breaks to specific industries. This move is a move towards uniformity and specifically uniformity with the USA. I dont think the USA is the model of fiscal governance that much of the world wants to emulate. If one really cared to one could probably find the various loopholes of the powerful in this new minimum as well. However this is just investing time and effort into thinking about a bad idea.
8note 5y ago
What many pay isn't a maximum. If somebody can't afford the shenanigans to dodge taxes, they'll pay a higher rate.

handrous 5y ago

Ah, so you'd propose that 0% is the current de facto minimum and maximum, and that raising the minimum is bad per se? I took your original post to mean that states would not, practically speaking, have the liberty to impose even higher rates if a de jure minimum were imposed, while currently they do, but... rather you seem to disagree with the direct point of the move itself, which is to prevent under-cutting some minimum above 0%? Or am I misunderstanding you?

petermcneeley 5y ago
If the point is for every country to have the same tax rate then yes this solves that problem. Each country cannot impose a higher rate de jure for the same reason why now the effective rate is 0%.
- handrous 5y ago
  ... but they all have (effectively) the same rate either way, no? The point isn't for them all to have the same rate, it's for that existing same rate to be higher, right? That it would be, in effect, the same, isn't an outcome of this move. That that same rate would be non-zero is the outcome.
  - petermcneeley 5y ago
    Well no they dont need to have the same rate they just need to implement tariffs. With tariffs one could choose to tax with prejudice. You could tax specific corporations higher or lower or specific industries (gas/coal). Or even give tax breaks to specific industries. This move is a move towards uniformity and specifically uniformity with the USA. I dont think the USA is the model of fiscal governance that much of the world wants to emulate. If one really cared to one could probably find the various loopholes of the powerful in this new minimum as well. However this is just investing time and effort into thinking about a bad idea.

8note 5y ago

What many pay isn't a maximum. If somebody can't afford the shenanigans to dodge taxes, they'll pay a higher rate.