3 ms·
This is a well researched article, my main disagreement in this field is the hubris necessary to even think greater tax receipts are the goal, and this is refle
by yieldcrv 2y ago
This is a well researched article, my main disagreement in this field is the hubris necessary to even think greater tax receipts are the goal, and this is reflected in the language choice.
I think this is a blind spot as it seems the only people interested would be those hoping for some kind of "tax justice" which taps into a popular sentiment: people choosing to wonder why we aren't being screwed equally, instead of wondering why we are being screwed at all.
I get it, your tax bill comes and is inconvenient, someone else in a seemingly higher tax bracket seems to leverage a card or chess move that you don't have the ability to pursue.
But this is all a red herring. To the Supreme Court, choosing to go to a gas station in a neighboring town for lower tax rates is just as valid as doing what some multinational does for lower tax rates by having a nominal structure in another country. (And that's from the Supreme Court you actually liked!)
The aggregate priority of the US government is velocity within the economy. The speed that money moves within the economy, not the revenue collection from [ostensibly] facilitating it.
And even detractors to this reality can never reach agreement on what a "fair share" is. A completely arbitrary and undefined sentiment, based on a misunderstanding of the world and that individual's own socioeconomic status or outright mediocrity.
What is the most interesting is that these multinationals are sometimes paying tax somewhere else. Like the article mentions about how they are currently paying Denmark at 22% and have an inability to deduct enough. Ultimately, the state needs to figure out their revenues, taxing earnings is not the only way to do that and its only controversial to say that because some states can't balance their budget without it, and yet, others can by providing a good or service people are willing to pay for.
- like_any_other 2y agoCan you explain why you think wanting everyone to comply with the spirit of the (tax) law is "hubris"?
- yieldcrv 2y agoI wound say the reaction when people don’t meet an observer’s understanding of “spirit” is where the hubris arises And I explained that earlier: people want others to suffer as much as them. But it doesn't make any sense. The government isn't entitled to your productivity, assuming otherwise is where the hubris arises. I mean look at the name of the regulation that was passed for using offshore entities: GILTI (“guilty”). And now it is ironically being used to nullify tax receipts. But the United States isnt entitled to be the recipient of all capital and productivity. No state is. It doesn't matter that they offer some semblance of stability and infrastructure, that doesnt justify any particular percentage. Their funding problem doesnt justify any particular percentage. Thats where the hubris becomes apparent.
- like_any_other 2y ago> And I explained that earlier: people want others to suffer as much as them. Or perhaps they want others to also contribute to the shared government services that they benefit from. I.e. the free rider problem that taxes address.
- parineum 2y agoCorporations aren't taking nearly as much money from the government as the people they employ and your employer pays half if your social security tax already. It's not like corporations are collecting social security and medicaid.
- FireBeyond 2y agoNo, just hundreds of billions in grants, tax offsets, and other government largesse.
- parineum 2y agoThose are things we, as people, choose to incentivize with our tax dollars. Why would we incentivize corporations to do a thing and then tax them on it too?
- yieldcrv 2y agoa) inability to define an amount of percent undermines that desire b) the employees, traders, financial intermediaries, do contribute to the state coffers via taxes c) velocity of money and asset movement within the economy accomplishes that the corporation itself is just a conduit
- watwut 2y agoFree riders are now destroying useful goverment services. They really don't care about anything like that.
- parineum 2y agoThe spirit of the law is that corporations only pay taxes on profits. The "fair share" crowd don't seem to ever consider that a corporate tax isn't a given. The money that passes through corporations gets taxed through many means. The economic activity they create creates tax revenue that would otherwise not be there, even without showing a profit. Because of that, there's a very reasonable, non-corporatist argument that they could just not pay taxes at all and it would generate just as much tax revenue. It's not a given that they should.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoYeah -- if the government pays for individuals' food, housing, and health care, then that money also stimulates the economy and gives people a good base to stay out of trouble, get a job, raise their family, or whatever. Likewise, if you invite a company to set up in a given town or region, then they're creating jobs, they're purchasing assets, goods and services, and their employees are eating lunch and shopping nearby, they're moving into town, and paying their income tax where they're at. It was interesting for me to watch Downton Abbey and learn how a manor house operated, you know, like a corporation. It wasn't such rich snobs just living on a huge piece of land, they were really stewards of a huge workforce, and the farmers and animal husbrandry that went on were sources of income for the whole common good there. Even McMansion owners need to command a cadre of service workers, handymen, repair pros, to keep the house running when they own it. Not everyone hangs out at the hardware store every weekend.