International taxation - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15060762
"Since the early twentieth century, countries have largely agreed on how to tax income earned by multinational corporations that conduct business across borders. But this long-standing regime is coming apart, imperiling the broader international economic order... The regime rests on the norms set in domestic tax laws as well as a patchwork of almost 4,000 bilateral treaties.

The Internet and advances in telecommunications have smoothed the way for businesses to participate meaningfully in the economic lives of countries where they have no physical presence...As a result, a century-old consensus on how to manage international taxation has eroded, with potentially far-reaching consequences.

As the leading multilateral institution in international corporate tax matters, the OECD has convened 135 countries in an attempt to defy the global economic zeitgeist by reaching a multilateral agreement that would renovate the international tax regime."

The last time we had a big wave of protectionism, it resulted in a world war.

Just sayin'..


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-17/looming-tax-war
#15060965
late wrote:"Since the early twentieth century, countries have largely agreed on how to tax income earned by multinational corporations that conduct business across borders. But this long-standing regime is coming apart, imperiling the broader international economic order... The regime rests on the norms set in domestic tax laws as well as a patchwork of almost 4,000 bilateral treaties.

The Internet and advances in telecommunications have smoothed the way for businesses to participate meaningfully in the economic lives of countries where they have no physical presence...As a result, a century-old consensus on how to manage international taxation has eroded, with potentially far-reaching consequences.

As the leading multilateral institution in international corporate tax matters, the OECD has convened 135 countries in an attempt to defy the global economic zeitgeist by reaching a multilateral agreement that would renovate the international tax regime."

The last time we had a big wave of protectionism, it resulted in a world war.

Just sayin'..

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-17/looming-tax-war

The solution has been known for centuries: tax land rent. Land can't hide, and it can't move, and its rent is created by government and the community, not the owner. But they'll do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege.
By late
#15060966
Truth To Power wrote:
The solution has been known for centuries: tax land rent. Land can't hide, and it can't move, and its rent is created by government and the community, not the owner. But they'll do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege.



That's not workable.

Taxing the land of a multinational? Doesn't make sense.

We need a new system, and it's going to be a pisser trying to gin one up.
#15060970
late wrote:That's not workable.

It's obviously workable.
Taxing the land of a multinational? Doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. They pay property taxes, don't they?
We need a new system, and it's going to be a pisser trying to gin one up.

No, we just need to find a willingness to know facts, to do justice, and to not be evil.
By late
#15060971
Truth To Power wrote:
It's obviously workable.

It makes perfect sense. They pay property taxes, don't they?

No, we just need to find a willingness to know facts, to do justice, and to not be evil.



You would have to set the rate for each company, and adjust it every year.

You'd live in court.
#15060976
late wrote:You would have to set the rate for each company, and adjust it every year.

Nope. Just charge them for what they take: 100% of the land rent.
You'd live in court.

Nope. They would have no grounds for suit.
By late
#15060983
Truth To Power wrote:
Nope. Just charge them for what they take: 100% of the land rent.

Nope. They would have no grounds for suit.



You could have two companies on the same size land, and one makes a hundred times what the other does.

Let's make it more interesting, the more profitable company does 90% of it's business internationally, and the other does 10% of it's business internationally.

So how do you set the rate...
#15061191
late wrote:You could have two companies on the same size land, and one makes a hundred times what the other does.

It is what they TAKE that they should be taxed for, not what they MAKE. Why should they be taxed on activities that are not depriving anyone else of anything? Why should they be taxed for what they CONTRIBUTE to total wealth rather than for costs they impose on the community?
Let's make it more interesting, the more profitable company does 90% of it's business internationally, and the other does 10% of it's business internationally.

So how do you set the rate...

The rate is 100% of what they take from the local community through their exclusive land tenure. Their tax liability should have nothing whatever to do with where they do most of their business or how profitable they are. Why should it?
By late
#15061201
Truth To Power wrote:
It is what they TAKE that they should be taxed for, not what they MAKE. Why should they be taxed on activities that are not depriving anyone else of anything? Why should they be taxed for what they CONTRIBUTE to total wealth rather than for costs they impose on the community?

The rate is 100% of what they take from the local community through their exclusive land tenure. Their tax liability should have nothing whatever to do with where they do most of their business or how profitable they are. Why should it?



This is about international taxation, which is not what you are talking about.
#15061207
late wrote:This is about international taxation, which is not what you are talking about.

Right. As I said in my first comment: they'll do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege.
By late
#15061209
Truth To Power wrote:
Right. As I said in my first comment: they'll do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege.



Looks more like you are trying to do the opposite of that.

More to the point, if we want to avoid a global trade war, we need to update international taxation.
#15061211
late wrote:Looks more like you are trying to do the opposite of that.

I definitely want to do justice and inconvenience privilege.
More to the point, if we want to avoid a global trade war, we need to update international taxation.

The only reason international taxation would be needed is to compensate for international privilege, like IP. But it would be far better to just abolish such privileges.
By late
#15061213
Truth To Power wrote:
I definitely want to do justice and inconvenience privilege.

The only reason international taxation would be needed is to compensate for international privilege, like IP. But it would be far better to just abolish such privileges.



Build a time machine, the 1800s want you back.
By late
#15061219
Truth To Power wrote:
You cannot offer any factual or logical arguments, so you resort to the intellectual coward's way out and make up a smear.



Lazy, not afraid.

There are two problems here. The first is this is religion to you. The second is that this means you have no interest in escaping your goofiness.

Since you couldn't wrap your head around the problems of international taxation, I added a link to some modern thinking about productivity.

Let me guess, you didn't read it.
#15061231
late wrote:There are two problems here.

No, there is only one: evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. You have chosen to advocate and justify evil, therefore you have to lie. Watch:
The first is this is religion to you.

See? That is nothing but another smear with no basis in fact. Try to come up with a definition of religion that you can defend consistently, and that includes the facts of economics I am most concerned with. I won't hold my breath.
The second is that this means you have no interest in escaping your goofiness.

Another typical smear lacking either content or factual basis. Disgraceful.
Since you couldn't wrap your head around the problems of international taxation,

No, YOU couldn't. Or more likely, refused to.
I added a link to some modern thinking about productivity.

Let me guess, you didn't read it.

I had already read it. His objection to neoclassical productivity theory is valid, but not for the reasons he thinks.
#15061246
Truth To Power wrote:The solution has been known for centuries: tax land rent. Land can't hide, and it can't move, and its rent is created by government and the community, not the owner. But they'll do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege.


I have three questions.

1. Who will do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege?
2. To whom justice ought to be done and privilege inconvenienced?
3. Why would the said party I asked for in question 1 do the said "avoid" thing?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#15061304
Tax revenue not profit. Then they can't pretend all the profit went to a subsidiary in The Caribbean.
#15061440
Patrickov wrote:1. Who will do anything to avoid doing justice or inconveniencing privilege?

Governments of capitalist countries that want to tax international trade and the neoclassical economists who advise them.
2. To whom justice ought to be done

Everyone.
and privilege inconvenienced?

The privileged.
3. Why would the said party I asked for in question 1 do the said "avoid" thing?

Greed.

And this is why complacency is not an option; Fl[…]

I said above that there are no cachectic or emaci[…]

@Atlantis 's elk https://upload.wikimed[…]

Election 2020

I love the "Biden is in trouble" meme th[…]