5 ms·

That’s just the natural way of capitalism if you allow companies to get bigger and bigger. They can buy up any upcoming competition for good money so most start

That’s just the natural way of capitalism if you allow companies to get bigger and bigger. They can buy up any upcoming competition for good money so most startups are being built to be bought and not as standalone businesses. You see that and also in medical devices where I work. Seems most industries will evolve into a state where you have 2-4 competitors that suppress all competition by building up regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy small companies. I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies. I just don’t see the value of them beyond a certain size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much power in their hands.

LogonType10 5y ago
>I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies Say goodbye to electric cars.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > As of December 2020, China had the largest stock of highway legal plug-in passenger cars with over 4.5 million units, 42% of the global plug-in car fleet in use.[10][20] China also dominates the plug-in light commercial vehicle and electric bus deployment, with its stock reaching over 500,000 buses in 2019, 98% of the global stock, and 247,500 electric light commercial vehicles, 65% of the global fleet.[21] Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China The difference isn't on taxation but investment; China invests way more in infrastructure and development. > Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups. Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-201...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Taxations is definitely different. Please check what Chinese tax rates are, and costs of doing business in China. In short, for those who don't want to lookup it themselves, it's way, way more, probably higher than even most highly taxed EU countries. I just 5 something years, Chinese manufacturing economy became completely unrecognisable. It's a hot money game now in a way US stock market will look rather decent, and logical.
  - archibaldJ 5y ago
    Taxation in China (at least by law) is quite comparable to Germany's (40+% when you reach ~$144k) but without all the social benefits. Unlike Germany, there are gray areas in the Chinese system where people find ways to pay less tax. But there are also other cost-inducing things than tax. In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system is. And much won't be achieved had there not been Deng's economic reforms and the tax indulgence that followed. More than anything, high taxation stifles innovations in China. What you see in China is not real innovation (in the sense of inventing new things), but social-mobility [1] as a consequence of authoritarianism which can result in mass adoption of technologies, etc. Also, considering the recent Tang Ping (躺平) movement, I don't think China's social-economy is currently in a healthy state. [1] https://andrewbatson.com/2021/10/13/mobilization-and-modules-whats-changing-in-china/ https://andrewbatson.com/2021/10/13/mobilization-and-modules...
    - fabianhjr 5y ago
      > recent Tang Ping (躺平) movement, I don't think China's social-economy is currently in a healthy state. Well, it is not like an antiwork movement has been forming on the US and is gaining mainstream traction. ( https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/ https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/ ) > In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system is. How is a private developer that overleveraged itself the fault of a state that is investing in _public infrastructure_ like high speed rail, nuclear reactors, and tech in general? Since anything vital is public property they can do what self-called capitalists in the US cannot: let evergrande fail. (No private company in China is "too big to fail")
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Tesla didn’t need a trillion dollar valuation to have an impact on the car market. When Apple, Google or Microsoft made their biggest contributions to innovation they also were much smaller. Now they are just milking their market position for profit without generating much innovation.
thisisfine84 5y ago
[dead]
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Seems most industries will evolve into a state where you have 2-4 competitors that suppress all competition by building up regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy small companies. This isn't a natural law, it's the point at which antitrust stops letting them buy each other. If it wasn't for that they would merge to monopoly. And that few competitors is enough for them to implicitly or explicitly collude instead of actually competing. But it only works if barriers to entry are high. Otherwise investors would see profit in going into competition with the cartel. Which is why they lobby for regulatory barriers to prevent that from happening. > I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies. I just don’t see the value of them beyond a certain size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much power in their hands. What causes this is really the opposite, and what you're suggesting would make it worse. Corporate expansion is a tax deduction to corporations because corporate income tax is a tax on profit and building new factories etc. to expand vertical integration is a cost. So they'd have more incentive to reinvest all their revenues instead of paying the tax. That's how you get Amazon. The real problem there is that we double tax corporations. So Ian invests in Apple and his share of Apple's profits are $1000. If Apple pays the money to Ian so he can go invest it in a company that makes electric cars, he has to pay tax on it right away, and then he has less to invest. If he leaves the money inside of Apple and Apple expands into making electric cars, he doesn't have to pay the tax until he sells his shares and gets to earn returns on the money in the meantime. So then investors have a preference for share price appreciation over dividends, which is equivalent to preferring conglomeration over returning profits to the investor to invest in independent companies. Then we get more and ever-expanding huge conglomerates and less independent companies that do one thing and do it well. The solution is to make dividends a tax deduction to the corporation. Then corporations with money they don't know what to do with will do that for the tax deduction.
- specialist 5y ago
  I'm fine with returning to the system of high corporate income taxes, disbursing surplus to investors via dividends, high corporate R&D budgets, pensions, living wages, typical executive to janitor compensation ratio somewhere around 40:1, sustained productivity booms, and whatever other beneficial outcomes we got from the the last keynesian regime. I'm ambivalent about capital gains taxes on individual investors. The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever) and ratchet the tax rate as necessary. I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation. Squint and it looks like a VAT. It makes perfect sense to me that most every transaction should be taxed. That's kinda the point.

LogonType10 5y ago

>I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies Say goodbye to electric cars.

fabianhjr 5y ago
> As of December 2020, China had the largest stock of highway legal plug-in passenger cars with over 4.5 million units, 42% of the global plug-in car fleet in use.[10][20] China also dominates the plug-in light commercial vehicle and electric bus deployment, with its stock reaching over 500,000 buses in 2019, 98% of the global stock, and 247,500 electric light commercial vehicles, 65% of the global fleet.[21] Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China The difference isn't on taxation but investment; China invests way more in infrastructure and development. > Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups. Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-201...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- baybal2 5y ago
  Taxations is definitely different. Please check what Chinese tax rates are, and costs of doing business in China. In short, for those who don't want to lookup it themselves, it's way, way more, probably higher than even most highly taxed EU countries. I just 5 something years, Chinese manufacturing economy became completely unrecognisable. It's a hot money game now in a way US stock market will look rather decent, and logical.
- archibaldJ 5y ago
  Taxation in China (at least by law) is quite comparable to Germany's (40+% when you reach ~$144k) but without all the social benefits. Unlike Germany, there are gray areas in the Chinese system where people find ways to pay less tax. But there are also other cost-inducing things than tax. In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system is. And much won't be achieved had there not been Deng's economic reforms and the tax indulgence that followed. More than anything, high taxation stifles innovations in China. What you see in China is not real innovation (in the sense of inventing new things), but social-mobility [1] as a consequence of authoritarianism which can result in mass adoption of technologies, etc. Also, considering the recent Tang Ping (躺平) movement, I don't think China's social-economy is currently in a healthy state. [1] https://andrewbatson.com/2021/10/13/mobilization-and-modules-whats-changing-in-china/ https://andrewbatson.com/2021/10/13/mobilization-and-modules...
  - fabianhjr 5y ago
    > recent Tang Ping (躺平) movement, I don't think China's social-economy is currently in a healthy state. Well, it is not like an antiwork movement has been forming on the US and is gaining mainstream traction. ( https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/ https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/ ) > In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system is. How is a private developer that overleveraged itself the fault of a state that is investing in _public infrastructure_ like high speed rail, nuclear reactors, and tech in general? Since anything vital is public property they can do what self-called capitalists in the US cannot: let evergrande fail. (No private company in China is "too big to fail")
spaetzleesser 5y ago
Tesla didn’t need a trillion dollar valuation to have an impact on the car market. When Apple, Google or Microsoft made their biggest contributions to innovation they also were much smaller. Now they are just milking their market position for profit without generating much innovation.

thisisfine84 5y ago

[dead]

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Seems most industries will evolve into a state where you have 2-4 competitors that suppress all competition by building up regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy small companies. This isn't a natural law, it's the point at which antitrust stops letting them buy each other. If it wasn't for that they would merge to monopoly. And that few competitors is enough for them to implicitly or explicitly collude instead of actually competing. But it only works if barriers to entry are high. Otherwise investors would see profit in going into competition with the cartel. Which is why they lobby for regulatory barriers to prevent that from happening. > I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies. I just don’t see the value of them beyond a certain size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much power in their hands. What causes this is really the opposite, and what you're suggesting would make it worse. Corporate expansion is a tax deduction to corporations because corporate income tax is a tax on profit and building new factories etc. to expand vertical integration is a cost. So they'd have more incentive to reinvest all their revenues instead of paying the tax. That's how you get Amazon. The real problem there is that we double tax corporations. So Ian invests in Apple and his share of Apple's profits are $1000. If Apple pays the money to Ian so he can go invest it in a company that makes electric cars, he has to pay tax on it right away, and then he has less to invest. If he leaves the money inside of Apple and Apple expands into making electric cars, he doesn't have to pay the tax until he sells his shares and gets to earn returns on the money in the meantime. So then investors have a preference for share price appreciation over dividends, which is equivalent to preferring conglomeration over returning profits to the investor to invest in independent companies. Then we get more and ever-expanding huge conglomerates and less independent companies that do one thing and do it well. The solution is to make dividends a tax deduction to the corporation. Then corporations with money they don't know what to do with will do that for the tax deduction.

specialist 5y ago
I'm fine with returning to the system of high corporate income taxes, disbursing surplus to investors via dividends, high corporate R&D budgets, pensions, living wages, typical executive to janitor compensation ratio somewhere around 40:1, sustained productivity booms, and whatever other beneficial outcomes we got from the the last keynesian regime. I'm ambivalent about capital gains taxes on individual investors. The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever) and ratchet the tax rate as necessary. I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation. Squint and it looks like a VAT. It makes perfect sense to me that most every transaction should be taxed. That's kinda the point.