Mmmm... I'd say it could have been, yes. IIRC the main purpose was to raise revenue though (https://www.bis.org/publ/confp01s.pdf), while a Tobin is mainly aimed at curbing speculation. They have very similar effects though.
>I'd say you'd probably fit into the archetypal libertarianish techie mould
For sure. I see no sense in denying it.
>I see on HN people might be more receptive to something to rein in large corporations
I can also agree with this. I try not to absorb myself in political philosophy but more or less, that's why I can't say I would ever be 100% one thing or the other (yea, tired trope but see no reason it isn't valid) . Ask anyone that knows me, I _hate_ TikTok and a lot of actions taken by big corporations as of late.
>What will likely happen is the same thing that happened when Sweden implemented their own financial transaction tax
I'm not going to argue for the efficacy of the tax your talking about, but the differences in Sweden and the US are too large to make a valid comparison.
The US is the largest economy in the world, a small tax that pushes people out of Swedish markets may not do the same here--US markets may be relatively more attractive.
>Your comment asserts that corporate tax has zero impact on corporate profit.
I didn't intend to "assert" that, and I think it's fair to ask you to elaborate, as I believe there are assumptions embedded in your interpretation of what I wrote.
edit: Grammar.
edit1: Do you think Apple incorporates the cost of the tax burden into the price of an iPhone? I think it really comes down to whether you think Apple would reduce their unit price if it would ultimately result in gross profit increases. It's like taking VC financing, "Do you want to own 100% of a $500K/yr revenue company or 49% of a $3M/yr revenue company?"
> This is not about the US. Those of us who live in the rest of the world and pay taxes would also like companies like Google and Apple to pay tax in the countries they operate in.
Hang on a minute. Maybe I am a little naive but I don't understand what all this hub bub is all about. Are you saying that people in country X (not the US) pay Corporation A real money but Corporation A legally does not pay taxes in country X? If that's the case, I think the fault is with your tax code than with corporation A.
I am sorry but if I could get away with paying less in taxes, I absolutely would. There is no shame in trying to pay as little tax as one legally can.
> Personally, high capital gains tax gives me a lot of hesitation, as you actually want to encourage people to invest and not dissuade them from doing it.
Interesting. I hold the opposite position as I would rather make company re-investments more attractive.
> ...Switzerland appears to be taxing total networth.
This is a wonderful idea! Though I could imagine the games that could be played with valuations.
> in my opinion, we should probably not tax corporations at all. ultimately all corporate revenue turns into either income for employees or capital gains for investors, so just tax these (progressively) and hike the rates.
This sounds reasonable to me As long as the money doesn’t disappear to another country.
> If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels.
This has never seemed like a strong argument or an accurate description of what actually happens to me.
If it's true that businesses just pass along taxes, then:
1) I'd think businesses wouldn't be so concerned with minimizing/fighting taxes. What we seem to see instead is that businesses seem to be concerned they will be carrying the cost and investors seem to be worried it will cut into profits.
2) I assume that's true for me, too, of course -- presumably, I don't pay income/payroll taxes either, I just pass along the cost of those taxes to my employer. My employer, as given, just passes those costs along to consumers. Consumer just figures in the costs of goods/services and calculates their asking price for their market offerings accordingly...
So nobody pays taxes?
It seems more likely to me that rather than people "just" passing costs along whole is that everybody pays the tax by finding some economic balance between what they can/must pass on and what they can/must absorb. How much is passed along probably depends on how competitive the market for each exchange is along every cascade and how price sensitive buyers are.
> Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money
I don't think anybody really thinks it does. The idea is to distribute the load, which taxes (passed along or not) do.
>> Maybe this is a silly question, but why don't we just lower the corporate tax rate significantly (maybe 10 or 15%), and make the use of tax havens illegal?
We should do only one of those things.
Every person should incorporate themselves and do what the big guys do.
> Personally, I would say it matters because that scenario is BS.
Which scenario?
To be clear, I agree that the IRS’s guessing game system is ridiculous. I’d much prefer the Scandinavian system. But I’m not clear on what that has to do with double taxation, seeing how those countries do it as well (via VAT or any discretionary tax.) No country can accurately tax you ahead of time on discretionary spending, and I don’t believe any does.
> I think we should eliminate the corporate income tax . . . and tax income once, when it hits a person.
LOL what? Can't have it both ways, pal.
I've seen this line of thought expressed a few times before, and it strikes me as disingenuous to hold that a corporation is a person... right up until the moment that idea puts slightly less money in your pocket.
Not sure why you posted this, it has nothing to do with the favourable tax-regime for placing your HQ in the Netherlands which I specifically spoke about (liquidatieverliesregeling).
The royalties you mention have nothing to do with whether you have your HQ in the Netherlands. Second, it's the American company (Nike) that ultimately profits, due to a Bermuda company which actually has a zero corporate tax rate policy, not the Netherlands. The US can change its laws to tax the IP created there. All that happens for the Netherlands is that it's missing out on tax income that'd otherwise be generated locally here. We shouldn't pretend as if there's this one country that unilaterally decides and profits. Instead, these structures are based on mutual tax treaties, and in this case the US agreed, the US company Nike profits, and the Netherlands is missing out on tax revenue.
Second, that situation has already been rectified due to the new tax on royalties in the Netherlands.
I haven't seen any change in public opinion, it's always stated that large companies pay too little, small companies and employees pay too much. And that's pretty much true in all countries.
It's certainly not perfect here but I find the discussions are often misguided and lacking nuance. I also find that many journalists just don't get it right.
>Ignoring for a moment that this rationale can support any tax policy at all (including 100% tax rates)...
Isn't that true for any rationale for tax? I mean, I wasn't talking about tax rates, that's a completely separate discussion...
>This holds for all businesses, not just large tech companies. So why is the tax focused on the latter?
Because other businesses are already effectively taxed by existing laws. Overseas tech giants are targeted because they were legally avoiding existing taxes.
> Regardless, corporate tax avoidance is well documented.
Yes. But taxing the revenue is a) already sort of done through VAT (if selling to public etc) and b) not a very good idea in general - it will make prices of everything higher for everyone. If a company is a low-margin mass-producer, their prices will be immediately +Tax%. This, to be popular, would mean the revenue tax would have to be low, which sort of defeats the original purpose.
The reward is being top of the budget per capita: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_... The goverment has $48K to spend per capita, as opposed to e.g the UK which has $18K. Off course that means little if the gov does not spend it well. But from my experience, it was though not perfect.
> I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there.
High salaries is an issue, as well as few VCs, especially angel investors. But one can also take risks with the safety net of a well funded wellfare to fall back on.
> Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away.
Capital tax is far from losing, just an annoyance, that I wish they could forgo.
> Do you somehow think that taxes will encourage innovation ?
I think that taxing large companies more than small ones might. The bedrock of capitalism is competition, and that is significantly stifled if big players with large amounts of capital can simply buy out anything innovative.
Mmmm... I'd say it could have been, yes. IIRC the main purpose was to raise revenue though (https://www.bis.org/publ/confp01s.pdf), while a Tobin is mainly aimed at curbing speculation. They have very similar effects though.
>I'd say you'd probably fit into the archetypal libertarianish techie mould
For sure. I see no sense in denying it.
>I see on HN people might be more receptive to something to rein in large corporations
I can also agree with this. I try not to absorb myself in political philosophy but more or less, that's why I can't say I would ever be 100% one thing or the other (yea, tired trope but see no reason it isn't valid) . Ask anyone that knows me, I _hate_ TikTok and a lot of actions taken by big corporations as of late.
reply