4 ms·

"[Lower corporate taxes] have also benefited people in other countries by helping to check corporate tax hikes there." WTF? The writer just throws that in ther

by mriet 5y ago

"[Lower corporate taxes] have also benefited people in other countries by helping to check corporate tax hikes there." WTF? The writer just throws that in there, no justification whatsoever. It could be absolutely true -- or totally false -- but my BS alarm goes off when writers throw statements in without even attempting to explain or back them up.

mandmandam 5y ago
Yeah that jumped out at me too. The authors go on: > Politicians and tax collectors may grumble about it, but from the average citizen’s perspective, tax competition is more like a “race to the top.” That's patently absurd, to put it politely. To continue somewhat less politely: that this corporate arse-licking drivel is published on their webpage has permanently damaged beyond repair my opinion of this "Foundation for Economic Education". I have absolutely no interest in anything else they may have to say.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  What is absurd about that? Taxes are necessary to run society, but it's no secret that they function the same way as rent seeking. It's dead weight loss, which is bad for the economy. That's not controversial.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Sorry; what? Taxes function the same as rent seeking? Taxes pay for schools, roads, environmental protections; common good stuff. Rent seeking further enriches the wealthiest by 'virute' of them being wealthy. How are you confusing the two? ... It is absurd for highly profitable - and in many cases, highly exploitative - corporations to be subsidised and supported by requiring they pay less tax than the average worker. It's utterly and completely absurd that a "foundation for economic education" would spin tax havens as a "good thing" for the countries who have been robbed - much less a "win win"! There are many sources you can explore for why tax havens are lose-lose. That this "article" doesn't mention any of those reasons might clue you in as to it's level of argument. For example: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-global-tax-havens-shaxon.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-...
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Rent seeking describes an economic situation where existing wealth is taken without creating new wealth in exchange for it, such as offering a competitively priced product or service. This is what happens when taxation occurs. It doesn't matter what the money is spent on after it is taken; that doesn't change that fact that rent seeking occurred. If a monopoly company raises prices 50% and then gives all of the proceeds to Doctors Without Borders, or heck the government itself, it doesn't suddenly make it not rent seeking.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        > It doesn't matter what the money is spent on after it is taken; that doesn't change that fact that rent seeking occurred. It does matter. It matters a whole lot. Saying it doesn't reduces your argument to a purely semantic one; and a very stretched, very pointless argument it is.
        missedthecue 5y ago
        It's not pointless. The point is that competition is healthy, whether it's in regard to the cost of milk or the cost of taxes. Monopolies are economically inefficient and make us poorer on net.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Ok, then tax the rent seeking instead of productive work. Land value taxes have a negative deadweight loss. It also applies to every tax on other monopolies or externalities.
  - PostThisTooFast 5y ago
    "rent seeking" Just as informative as "zero day." We have lots of words that mean stuff. Use them.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Taxes pay for the essential infrastructure for economies to flourish. Eg. Ocean based trade all depends on american tax dollars paying to secure ocean shipping routes Or, contract dispute resolution. Property ownership on the other hand is pure deadweight. That's not controversial whatsoever
  - anemoiac 5y ago
    I think the controversy here lies in assuming that "the economy" == society and that, therefore, anything that is "bad for the economy" is also bad for society. I'm not claiming this is your perspective, but the quote provided by the comment you responded to seems to suggest it is the article's.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Anything bad for the economy makes society poorer on net, which is why line going up is seen as good, while line going down is seen as bad.
      - anemoiac 5y ago
        Of course, but that’s a simplistic perspective. Economics textbooks may presume that growth is always good, but growth must be balanced with its social and environmental impacts in the real world.
Proven 5y ago
Why should they justify common sense statements? Your lack of basic understanding of economics doesn't justify your complaints. "Low taxes good". In your expert opinion, what kind of justification would be needed to justify this statement? Globalists and socialists, if you like your high taxes you can keep your high taxes. Kudos to Ireland!

by mriet 5y ago

mandmandam 5y ago

Yeah that jumped out at me too. The authors go on: > Politicians and tax collectors may grumble about it, but from the average citizen’s perspective, tax competition is more like a “race to the top.” That's patently absurd, to put it politely. To continue somewhat less politely: that this corporate arse-licking drivel is published on their webpage has permanently damaged beyond repair my opinion of this "Foundation for Economic Education". I have absolutely no interest in anything else they may have to say.

missedthecue 5y ago
What is absurd about that? Taxes are necessary to run society, but it's no secret that they function the same way as rent seeking. It's dead weight loss, which is bad for the economy. That's not controversial.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Sorry; what? Taxes function the same as rent seeking? Taxes pay for schools, roads, environmental protections; common good stuff. Rent seeking further enriches the wealthiest by 'virute' of them being wealthy. How are you confusing the two? ... It is absurd for highly profitable - and in many cases, highly exploitative - corporations to be subsidised and supported by requiring they pay less tax than the average worker. It's utterly and completely absurd that a "foundation for economic education" would spin tax havens as a "good thing" for the countries who have been robbed - much less a "win win"! There are many sources you can explore for why tax havens are lose-lose. That this "article" doesn't mention any of those reasons might clue you in as to it's level of argument. For example: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-global-tax-havens-shaxon.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-...
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Rent seeking describes an economic situation where existing wealth is taken without creating new wealth in exchange for it, such as offering a competitively priced product or service. This is what happens when taxation occurs. It doesn't matter what the money is spent on after it is taken; that doesn't change that fact that rent seeking occurred. If a monopoly company raises prices 50% and then gives all of the proceeds to Doctors Without Borders, or heck the government itself, it doesn't suddenly make it not rent seeking.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      > It doesn't matter what the money is spent on after it is taken; that doesn't change that fact that rent seeking occurred. It does matter. It matters a whole lot. Saying it doesn't reduces your argument to a purely semantic one; and a very stretched, very pointless argument it is.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        It's not pointless. The point is that competition is healthy, whether it's in regard to the cost of milk or the cost of taxes. Monopolies are economically inefficient and make us poorer on net.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Ok, then tax the rent seeking instead of productive work. Land value taxes have a negative deadweight loss. It also applies to every tax on other monopolies or externalities.
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  "rent seeking" Just as informative as "zero day." We have lots of words that mean stuff. Use them.
- 8note 5y ago
  Taxes pay for the essential infrastructure for economies to flourish. Eg. Ocean based trade all depends on american tax dollars paying to secure ocean shipping routes Or, contract dispute resolution. Property ownership on the other hand is pure deadweight. That's not controversial whatsoever
- anemoiac 5y ago
  I think the controversy here lies in assuming that "the economy" == society and that, therefore, anything that is "bad for the economy" is also bad for society. I'm not claiming this is your perspective, but the quote provided by the comment you responded to seems to suggest it is the article's.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Anything bad for the economy makes society poorer on net, which is why line going up is seen as good, while line going down is seen as bad.
    - anemoiac 5y ago
      Of course, but that’s a simplistic perspective. Economics textbooks may presume that growth is always good, but growth must be balanced with its social and environmental impacts in the real world.

Proven 5y ago

Why should they justify common sense statements? Your lack of basic understanding of economics doesn't justify your complaints. "Low taxes good". In your expert opinion, what kind of justification would be needed to justify this statement? Globalists and socialists, if you like your high taxes you can keep your high taxes. Kudos to Ireland!