3 ms·
You say this >A corporate income tax would not generate meaningful revenue for most countries. Then you say this > And such that it does, it only generates r
by dv_dt 3y ago
You say this
>A corporate income tax would not generate meaningful revenue for most countries.
Then you say this
> And such that it does, it only generates revenue by cannibalizing other taxes (income, sales, capital gains, etc) at the cost of a deadweight loss of investments.
If it's not meaningful revenue, how is it a meaningful loss of investments? This also seems to ignore if it's a minimum among a wide swath of nations, what investment loss would it incur?
- legitster 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss There are a lot of theoretical tax schemes for which the amount of collected tax could be $0 and there would be a market reaction. If the government put a $100 tax on pencils, everyone would buy fewer pencils and the government would get a lot less than they calculate. Keep in mind there are a lot of things investors could be doing with their money besides parking them in stocks. So if corporations lose 10% of their income off the top from a change in the tax code, investments like real estate or t-bills or securities are going to pick up the slack in comparison.
- dv_dt 3y ago> There are a lot of theoretical tax schemes for which the amount of collected tax could be $0 and there would be a market reaction. Well markets can be irrational, that doesn't mean we need to cater to the irrationality.