4 ms·

>For example, what if corporate income tax were tied to the logarithm of the number of employees+contractors? Unemployment would increase. >What if the corpor

>For example, what if corporate income tax were tied to the logarithm of the number of employees+contractors? Unemployment would increase. >What if the corporate income tax increased with the market share in markets served? More companies would register in Panama or some other tax haven. I would be wary of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

azemetre 2y ago
You're making it sound as if registering in Panama is some "gotcha" that can't also be easily closed via legislation.
- medvezhenok 2y ago
  Indeed. Change from corporate tax to VAT, and then no such trickery is possible (tax charged at point of sale)
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    VAT is a much better tax. Tax the flow of money, not the intermediate holding of money by a company.
    - psd1 2y ago
      VAT is regressive. Poor people spend a higher fraction of their income on vat-applicable goods. I'm against it on that basis.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Not all goods are VAT-qualified for that reason. We have that safety valve already.
        psd1 2y ago
        That sounds a bit like "VAT can't be too bad because we can just not apply it", which I don't find convincing. I agree that it's an easy tax to collect, and I think that's very important. I fundamentally disagree with the grandparent that holds that we should tax flow rather than holding. That's a handbrake on activity. But I suspect we won't reach agreement as it's a question of personal values. If you think that billionaires are great and we need more of them, then I can see how you'd be in favour of vat.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Most of the US already has sales tax (it varies by State, county, and city; some have no sales tax).
efitz 2y ago
Uh, I doubt it. At the companies that would be affected, they would simply divest. Shareholders would not tolerate the destruction of value so new companies would be created, spinning off parts of the original company (products and employees) into new companies. In fact employment might increase as these new companies would need administrative functions that were previously shared in the larger original company (HR, accounting, etc)

azemetre 2y ago

You're making it sound as if registering in Panama is some "gotcha" that can't also be easily closed via legislation.

medvezhenok 2y ago
Indeed. Change from corporate tax to VAT, and then no such trickery is possible (tax charged at point of sale)
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  VAT is a much better tax. Tax the flow of money, not the intermediate holding of money by a company.
  - psd1 2y ago
    VAT is regressive. Poor people spend a higher fraction of their income on vat-applicable goods. I'm against it on that basis.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Not all goods are VAT-qualified for that reason. We have that safety valve already.
      - psd1 2y ago
        That sounds a bit like "VAT can't be too bad because we can just not apply it", which I don't find convincing. I agree that it's an easy tax to collect, and I think that's very important. I fundamentally disagree with the grandparent that holds that we should tax flow rather than holding. That's a handbrake on activity. But I suspect we won't reach agreement as it's a question of personal values. If you think that billionaires are great and we need more of them, then I can see how you'd be in favour of vat.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Most of the US already has sales tax (it varies by State, county, and city; some have no sales tax).

efitz 2y ago

Uh, I doubt it. At the companies that would be affected, they would simply divest. Shareholders would not tolerate the destruction of value so new companies would be created, spinning off parts of the original company (products and employees) into new companies. In fact employment might increase as these new companies would need administrative functions that were previously shared in the larger original company (HR, accounting, etc)