3 ms·

You mean theoretical and uncertain like the experiment they're doing on a global scale now? When did we ever have 130 nations all agree on the same corporate t

You mean theoretical and uncertain like the experiment they're doing on a global scale now? When did we ever have 130 nations all agree on the same corporate tax rate? Not that I think it's necessarily bad, it's probably better than the current system which is very broken. But can you explain how and why that is actually a better idea than introducing a BAT system? Again, both are theoretical and have never been tried, so you should have very good research to back up a claim that the global flat rate tax is the better idea.

zizee 5y ago
> But can you explain how and why that is actually a better idea... > ...so you should have very good research to back up a claim that the global flat rate tax is the better idea. Should I presume the "you" in these sentences is me? Or is it some hypothetical future person making such claims? If you did mean me, I don't understand what part of what I wrote was me making any claims of superiority of one system over the other? My comment was pointing out that the grandparents comments should not be written so definitively, where much doubt exists.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  Yes, I understand your comment perfectly and just tried to explain it's not a rational argument in this case. BAT has never been tried, same as the global minimum tax. The situation is we have a tax system that's broken. Apart from the multinational corporations practically everyone agrees on this part. Now we have to find a way to fix it in an ever more globalized world, a situation which we never had to deal with and for which there is no proven solution for that reason. Whatever we do will be untested. The question is which is the better idea and why?
  - zizee 5y ago
    > I understand your comment perfectly and just tried to explain it's not a rational argument in this case. I don't know how you can say you understand my comment perfectly when you then tell me my "argument" is not rational. I am not making any "argument" about different tax systems. My original comment was a metacomment about the original comment being too strongly worded. I agree with you that the current situation is broken, and a fresh look is required to solve it.

zizee 5y ago

> But can you explain how and why that is actually a better idea... > ...so you should have very good research to back up a claim that the global flat rate tax is the better idea. Should I presume the "you" in these sentences is me? Or is it some hypothetical future person making such claims? If you did mean me, I don't understand what part of what I wrote was me making any claims of superiority of one system over the other? My comment was pointing out that the grandparents comments should not be written so definitively, where much doubt exists.

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
Yes, I understand your comment perfectly and just tried to explain it's not a rational argument in this case. BAT has never been tried, same as the global minimum tax. The situation is we have a tax system that's broken. Apart from the multinational corporations practically everyone agrees on this part. Now we have to find a way to fix it in an ever more globalized world, a situation which we never had to deal with and for which there is no proven solution for that reason. Whatever we do will be untested. The question is which is the better idea and why?
- zizee 5y ago
  > I understand your comment perfectly and just tried to explain it's not a rational argument in this case. I don't know how you can say you understand my comment perfectly when you then tell me my "argument" is not rational. I am not making any "argument" about different tax systems. My original comment was a metacomment about the original comment being too strongly worded. I agree with you that the current situation is broken, and a fresh look is required to solve it.