30 ms·

> In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Isn’t that point precisely addressed by the Biden administrations of settin

> In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Isn’t that point precisely addressed by the Biden administrations of setting a global minimum tax rate? If every country, or at least every country without signify the trade barriers (who cares what happens in North Korea) has the same tax rate than there’s no incentive for companies to move their profits - or the entire company - abroad to save on taxes.

zapdrive 5y ago
That's what the OP is saying. If the US had 0 corporate tax, no company would ever have to move out.
robomartin 5y ago
If you think China and others will abide by this nonsense you might need to review how business is supported by government in China. Did you know they can export products at cost and still make up to 15% on their international sales? The world is not a level playing field. Did you know it costs them darn near zero dollars to ship products within the US, while US companies have to pay full fare? The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Either we are a nation of pro-business entrepreneurs to the core or we resign ourselves to living in outsourced utopia. That’s how bad it has gotten. Pick any product and try to source all of its components and manufacturing in the US or Europe. You won’t get far. In most cases it is simply impossible. If we want a solid future we need to stop vilifying business. The 65% who don’t have a clue will learn this only when it is too late to do anything about it. Perspective: We couldn’t make PPE, the materials they require and the machines we would need to make them.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  It seems to me China would generally be in favour of this. They're a large country with large internal consumption, and they would rather some of this money goes into their coffers than somewhere else. Generally, fiscal paradise are small countries which have little to lose by lowering taxes (to local business), and a lot to gain by attracting revenues from bigger countries. China's corporate taxes are much higher than 15%, so it's not like they would be directly affected by this. They might oppose the plan (I have no idea), but it's unlikely to be on an economical aspect of that's the case.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    You need to understand the business equation of a Chinese export company in order to understand what I am talking about. Books have been written on the subject. I can't do it justice here. Let's just say things don't run like they do in the US and Europe. Not even close.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Or you just introduce CO2 tariffs and use them to wreck China in the process of building a CO2 neutral economy.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    CO2 tariffs do not create jobs. The idea of a CO2 neutral economy is another utopia fantasy sold to the ignorant voters by politicians. Easy to sell. Easy to form voting groups around it. Who doesn't want to be for "saving the planet". And yet, we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we cannot do a thing about atmospheric CO2 accumulation and the climate effects surrounding it. Not a thing. This is what we know --scientifically, not guessing here: If humanity left the planet today and all of our technology simply shut down, it would take somewhere around 50,000 and 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down 100 ppm. This leads to a very simple conclusion: If such an extreme measure produces a rate of change of 100 ppm / 100K years, a partial measure will not improve on that rate at all. So, no, a carbon neutral economy will do nothing. Neither will switching to electric cars, full solar and wind power, etc. All fantasies. Sorry. We are being lied to and we are deceiving ourselves.
kelnos 5y ago
I don't really see the point to all of this. There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains? And the US already has a personal tax system where it doesn't matter where you earn income: if you're a US citizen, you have to consider US income taxes, period. So the problem where people try to push their personal income out of the country to avoid tax just doesn't crop up as much.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  > There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. There will always be loopholes, but these loopholes will be harder to exploit, so while the solution is not perfect, it is (probably) better than what we have now. > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero I said probably, because there's an argument that it is good that large corporations pay zero taxes: it allows them to grow faster and sell goods worldwide, while the US still profits profits from high skilled workers income/shareholders income and generally faster economy growth. > instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains Or maybe not raise taxes at all, but cut government spendings instead.
- jlokier 5y ago
  > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a company that buys components for $100 and assembles them into a widget they sell for $105 to shops. (Who sell it for $110.) Let's ignore other costs. Corporation tax at 20% would charge the company $1 per widget. Income (as revenue) tax at 20% would charge the company $20 per widget, and the company would immediately have to stop producing widgets altogether, or substantially raise the price of widgets. It wouldn't have a choice. You as the end user would see the prices of everything in shops shoot up, and many things would disappear from the shelves. If you used a lower tax rate, say 1% so that companies like this can continue, it will be far too low for companies that pay $50 for components and sell their widget for $100. Those would be charged only $1 on their profit of $50, keeping $49. You want to incentivise (and indeed help) the former type of company. It's selling widgets at close to the cost of making them, and if it is so minded, it may use the highest quality materials it can afford. But you have designed a tax that strongly incentivises, even requires, the latter type of company: Only pursuing opportunities that use the cheapest possible materials while selling at high prices. Never doing anything that brings in just a small profit.

zapdrive 5y ago

That's what the OP is saying. If the US had 0 corporate tax, no company would ever have to move out.

robomartin 5y ago

If you think China and others will abide by this nonsense you might need to review how business is supported by government in China. Did you know they can export products at cost and still make up to 15% on their international sales? The world is not a level playing field. Did you know it costs them darn near zero dollars to ship products within the US, while US companies have to pay full fare? The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Either we are a nation of pro-business entrepreneurs to the core or we resign ourselves to living in outsourced utopia. That’s how bad it has gotten. Pick any product and try to source all of its components and manufacturing in the US or Europe. You won’t get far. In most cases it is simply impossible. If we want a solid future we need to stop vilifying business. The 65% who don’t have a clue will learn this only when it is too late to do anything about it. Perspective: We couldn’t make PPE, the materials they require and the machines we would need to make them.

Leherenn 5y ago
It seems to me China would generally be in favour of this. They're a large country with large internal consumption, and they would rather some of this money goes into their coffers than somewhere else. Generally, fiscal paradise are small countries which have little to lose by lowering taxes (to local business), and a lot to gain by attracting revenues from bigger countries. China's corporate taxes are much higher than 15%, so it's not like they would be directly affected by this. They might oppose the plan (I have no idea), but it's unlikely to be on an economical aspect of that's the case.
- robomartin 5y ago
  You need to understand the business equation of a Chinese export company in order to understand what I am talking about. Books have been written on the subject. I can't do it justice here. Let's just say things don't run like they do in the US and Europe. Not even close.
imtringued 5y ago
>The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Or you just introduce CO2 tariffs and use them to wreck China in the process of building a CO2 neutral economy.
- robomartin 5y ago
  CO2 tariffs do not create jobs. The idea of a CO2 neutral economy is another utopia fantasy sold to the ignorant voters by politicians. Easy to sell. Easy to form voting groups around it. Who doesn't want to be for "saving the planet". And yet, we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we cannot do a thing about atmospheric CO2 accumulation and the climate effects surrounding it. Not a thing. This is what we know --scientifically, not guessing here: If humanity left the planet today and all of our technology simply shut down, it would take somewhere around 50,000 and 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down 100 ppm. This leads to a very simple conclusion: If such an extreme measure produces a rate of change of 100 ppm / 100K years, a partial measure will not improve on that rate at all. So, no, a carbon neutral economy will do nothing. Neither will switching to electric cars, full solar and wind power, etc. All fantasies. Sorry. We are being lied to and we are deceiving ourselves.

kelnos 5y ago

I don't really see the point to all of this. There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains? And the US already has a personal tax system where it doesn't matter where you earn income: if you're a US citizen, you have to consider US income taxes, period. So the problem where people try to push their personal income out of the country to avoid tax just doesn't crop up as much.

asteroidbelt 5y ago
> There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. There will always be loopholes, but these loopholes will be harder to exploit, so while the solution is not perfect, it is (probably) better than what we have now. > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero I said probably, because there's an argument that it is good that large corporations pay zero taxes: it allows them to grow faster and sell goods worldwide, while the US still profits profits from high skilled workers income/shareholders income and generally faster economy growth. > instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains Or maybe not raise taxes at all, but cut government spendings instead.
jlokier 5y ago
> Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a company that buys components for $100 and assembles them into a widget they sell for $105 to shops. (Who sell it for $110.) Let's ignore other costs. Corporation tax at 20% would charge the company $1 per widget. Income (as revenue) tax at 20% would charge the company $20 per widget, and the company would immediately have to stop producing widgets altogether, or substantially raise the price of widgets. It wouldn't have a choice. You as the end user would see the prices of everything in shops shoot up, and many things would disappear from the shelves. If you used a lower tax rate, say 1% so that companies like this can continue, it will be far too low for companies that pay $50 for components and sell their widget for $100. Those would be charged only $1 on their profit of $50, keeping $49. You want to incentivise (and indeed help) the former type of company. It's selling widgets at close to the cost of making them, and if it is so minded, it may use the highest quality materials it can afford. But you have designed a tax that strongly incentivises, even requires, the latter type of company: Only pursuing opportunities that use the cheapest possible materials while selling at high prices. Never doing anything that brings in just a small profit.