8 ms·

Are you confusing profit with revenue? The revenue is in France - easy. Profit is revenue - cost, which costs do you factor in?

mywittyname 4y ago
At some point, I think governments are going to need to break down and start taxing revenue instead of profits. A 3% tax on total revenue is the same as a 15% tax on the profits of a product with 20% profit margins.
- nickff 4y ago
  This would benefit large and established companies with stable margins, while penalizing smaller businesses and startups. I don’t think this is the intended result. It also discourages long-term investments, and further rewards short-termism (which everyone seems to dislike).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    you can apply a rule only to companies with over 10 billion in revenue
    - twoodfin 4y ago
      And now you have companies inefficiently splitting themselves up into <$10B chunks, and paying lawyers and accountants lots of dead-weight costs to ensure their degree of coordination (think “Amazon West Virginia Ltd.”) doesn’t cross some ill-defined legislative or judicial threshold.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  Taxing revenue has turned out to be a terrible idea every time it has been tried. It creates perverse incentives that encourage companies to be inefficient and wasteful. One of the biggest policy problems with revenue taxes is that the effective tax rate is much higher on smaller companies than larger companies. A large vertically integrated company like Apple would pay a lower effective tax rate on an iPhone than any of their competitors, giving them a natural advantage. These are pretty dis-economic policy outcomes and the main reason no one seriously considers revenue taxes.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    Quite the opposite. You can't fake revenue nearly as much as you can fake profits. Examples are legion - look at any company in the US that pays 0% (or negative) corporate tax rate.
    - jandrewrogers 4y ago
      You are not understanding the issue. Revenue can be trivially made to disappear, and this is what actually happens when governments tax revenue. Revenue is recognized as the size of a sales transaction. The number of sales transactions required to build and sell a given product can vary enormously based on the structure of the business, usually as a product of optimizing for efficiency and specialization. When you tax revenue, businesses have a large incentive to restructure their business to optimize for minimizing the number of sales transactions in the course of building the product, because revenue taxes essentially compound as a function of the number of transactions which is then a cost of business. The compounding is why revenue taxes are so low, usually around 1%. Being tax efficient lowers your costs more than being business efficient, leading to bloated and non-competitive companies. I've operated a business under one of the few revenue tax regimes. The perverse incentives to verticalize the business structure are very real. Revenue taxes add up quickly.
      - CHY872 4y ago
        To make sure I understand your point, is the argument that without a revenue tax, you're incentivised to sell as much of your stuff as possible, whereas with a revenue tax you're incentivised to maximise your margin, and this makes things inefficient for everyone downstream of you?
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    What about only taxing B2C revenue? Then the degree of vertical integration wouldn't matter.
    - twoodfin 4y ago
- rr888 4y ago
  Its one of the reasons Value Added taxes are popular everywhere. (except USA)
  - dantheman 4y ago
    I wouldn't say they're popular ... BA-DUM TSH! I'm here all year, tip the waitress!
mpweiher 4y ago
> Are you confusing profit with revenue? Don't think so. Profit only happens when there is revenue. Cost is a negative influence on profit, revenue is the positive influence. If you have zero cost, you still have profit (provided you have non-zero revenue). If you have zero revenue, you don't have profit. So it is obvious that the profit is where the revenue is, even though revenue ≠ profit.

mywittyname 4y ago

At some point, I think governments are going to need to break down and start taxing revenue instead of profits. A 3% tax on total revenue is the same as a 15% tax on the profits of a product with 20% profit margins.

nickff 4y ago
This would benefit large and established companies with stable margins, while penalizing smaller businesses and startups. I don’t think this is the intended result. It also discourages long-term investments, and further rewards short-termism (which everyone seems to dislike).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  you can apply a rule only to companies with over 10 billion in revenue
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    And now you have companies inefficiently splitting themselves up into <$10B chunks, and paying lawyers and accountants lots of dead-weight costs to ensure their degree of coordination (think “Amazon West Virginia Ltd.”) doesn’t cross some ill-defined legislative or judicial threshold.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
Taxing revenue has turned out to be a terrible idea every time it has been tried. It creates perverse incentives that encourage companies to be inefficient and wasteful. One of the biggest policy problems with revenue taxes is that the effective tax rate is much higher on smaller companies than larger companies. A large vertically integrated company like Apple would pay a lower effective tax rate on an iPhone than any of their competitors, giving them a natural advantage. These are pretty dis-economic policy outcomes and the main reason no one seriously considers revenue taxes.
- r00fus 4y ago
  Quite the opposite. You can't fake revenue nearly as much as you can fake profits. Examples are legion - look at any company in the US that pays 0% (or negative) corporate tax rate.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    You are not understanding the issue. Revenue can be trivially made to disappear, and this is what actually happens when governments tax revenue. Revenue is recognized as the size of a sales transaction. The number of sales transactions required to build and sell a given product can vary enormously based on the structure of the business, usually as a product of optimizing for efficiency and specialization. When you tax revenue, businesses have a large incentive to restructure their business to optimize for minimizing the number of sales transactions in the course of building the product, because revenue taxes essentially compound as a function of the number of transactions which is then a cost of business. The compounding is why revenue taxes are so low, usually around 1%. Being tax efficient lowers your costs more than being business efficient, leading to bloated and non-competitive companies. I've operated a business under one of the few revenue tax regimes. The perverse incentives to verticalize the business structure are very real. Revenue taxes add up quickly.
    - CHY872 4y ago
      To make sure I understand your point, is the argument that without a revenue tax, you're incentivised to sell as much of your stuff as possible, whereas with a revenue tax you're incentivised to maximise your margin, and this makes things inefficient for everyone downstream of you?
- im3w1l 4y ago
  What about only taxing B2C revenue? Then the degree of vertical integration wouldn't matter.
  - twoodfin 4y ago
rr888 4y ago
Its one of the reasons Value Added taxes are popular everywhere. (except USA)
- dantheman 4y ago
  I wouldn't say they're popular ... BA-DUM TSH! I'm here all year, tip the waitress!

mpweiher 4y ago

> Are you confusing profit with revenue? Don't think so. Profit only happens when there is revenue. Cost is a negative influence on profit, revenue is the positive influence. If you have zero cost, you still have profit (provided you have non-zero revenue). If you have zero revenue, you don't have profit. So it is obvious that the profit is where the revenue is, even though revenue ≠ profit.