|
|
|
|
|
|
by CryptoPunk
1904 days ago
|
|
|
>>The key problem is that corporations can avail themselves of the public goods (infrastructure, public education, public order) and then use accounting maneuvers to shift profits to jurisdictions that will not tax them. Countries can easily tax income generated by foreign corporations within their jurisdiction. What you and Yellen are advocating risks imposing on the entire world an economic and tax system that may be far from optimal, to address a risk that can be mitigated through numerous other methods. |
|
|
Why would e.g. an integrated software/hardware business pay significant taxes in the US if their value chain isn't strictly bound to it?
Sure, if developers live and work there you can tax their income to a certain degree before they leave and work remotely. Hardware is built abroad anyway (and probably taxed there), you can only levy import taxes at your own detriment. But if the business is successful most of the added value comes from the integration of these aspects and that can happen wherever because it's an idea not bound to a place to be executed. If something doesn't require physical presence taxing it becomes very hard and morally dubious (on what grounds would you tax it all if e.g. only 10% of your profits need physical infrastructure that is funded through these taxes?).
Globalization means that a society's most successful people aren't stuck with it any longer. They can go where they aren't seen as subjects to milk to keep the less productive happy. I don't owe my country of origin anything, they need to be competitive to keep me as I can take my business everywhere. In that sense directly investing in your population's higher education might be misguided to some degree because it creates more people capable enough to leave with the acquired knowledge, increasing the tax burden, making the country less competitive.