Remix.run Logo
jmyeet 6 days ago

The developed world is increasingly facing a funding crisis brought on by this propaganda that if we tax corporations and the very wealthy then they'll leave.

One of the most farcical examples of this is the decades-long race to the bottom on business taxes and incentives between Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas. For the non-Americans out there, this is basically one city but it sits at the border of two states. So the two states are constantly torching money to lure businesses that play this system and simply go back and forth.

I believe this situation will come to an end and there are several reasons for this:

1. For the EU in particular, reliance on US tech giants is increasingly becoming a security issue. The Eu will increasingly wants homegrown alternatives so the option of leaving will simply not exist because you could leave but then you lose the EU as a customer;

2. For a long time multinational companies used transfer pricing to avoid paying taxes. What's transfer pricing? Let's say you buy a sofa in China for @200, ship it to the US for another $200 and then sell it for $1000. You've made a gross profit of $600. What if instead you have a subsidiary in Vanuatu, which has no corporate income tax (AFAIK), and it buys the sofas for $400 and sell them to the US company for $950? Well, you've booked $550 in profit where there's no tax and only $50 profit where there is.

That's technically illegal. It's often-called transfer pricing manipulation.

So what do tech giants like Google do? They sell their IP to an Irish subsidiary. There's a nominal process to make sure this is done for a "fair" value (according to the IRS). Then they pay royalties to their own Irish subsidiary to shift profits to a lower tax regime. Previously, this created a problem because they couldn't repatriate the money without paying (then) 30%+ corporate taxes but this all changed in 2017 with a tax holiday and a change to how this kind of income was treated. The net result was way lower than 30% net tax however, even with Biden's 15% minimum tax (which was a good thing) that came later.

What's the difference between this kind of profit-shifting with IP and transfer pricing manipulation? Absolutely nothing, except one is illegal and one isn't.

3. Revenue will increasigly have to be taxed in the source country. For example, Google I believe books all UK ad contracts through Ireland such that the UK subsidiary has essentially zero income to tax. I believe governments will increasingly crack down on this such that if something is sold in the UK, it's taxed by the UK; and

4. While individuals may be able to notionally "leave", assets generally can't. Land can't be moved overseas. Natural resources that are mined or fished or logged can't be moved overseas. So it's really an empty threat.

I'm really sick of this "the businesses will leave" propaganda.

refurb 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm really sick of this "the businesses will leave" propaganda.

I don't think anything you've said convinces me it's propaganda.

Businesses are profit-seeking ventures. They will optimize their operations to maximize profits.

So I'm not sure why you'd call it "propaganda" to say that companies will leave. I think the evidence is that they will.

Of course, taxes are not the only variable in a profit-maximizing formula. US companies aren't going to flee in mass if Somalia decides to have zero corporate taxes. But you can't ignore that companies will optimize their operations and structure if they can lower taxes.

croes 6 days ago | parent [-]

The US have something similar just for citizens and greencard holders

https://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/knowledge-center/exit-t...

So should greencard holders flee the US before they become too rich

GardenLetter27 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why are taxes so high though? Like in Sweden I'd pay literally 80% tax on extra sole trader income - 30% employer tax, 30% income tax, 20% high income tax.

But there is no Swedish moon base, or ultra high speed rail, etc. - where does it all go? We have higher taxes but less infrastructure investment than a century ago.

ahoka 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, Sweden has the largest wealth inequality in Europe, so I guess it goes to the friends' pockets.

jmyeet 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because we don't tax the people with all the money. It's why someone making $100,000 a year loses probably half of it or more to federal, state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc and Warren Buffett pays 3%.

There is a persistent idea that we cannot or should not tax wealth because it's "unfair". We certainly can. We do it all the time. Property taxes, depending on your jurisdiction, are either taxed based on assessed value or whatever the assessment method is correlates strongly to property value.

I can't speak to the specifics of Sweden and its tax base but in general a key problem in the developed world is the skyrocketing cost of housing. Why is this a problem? Because it's an input into the cost of everything. It makes your labor more expensive, which in turns makes what they do more expensive. I have heard getting an apartment in Sweden is rather difficult. Stories of having to register at birth and waiting 20+ years. I could be wrong.

But everywhere in the developed world has high housing costs (in terms of real income) because we constrain supply, subsidize demand (particularly to the very rich) and allow people to hoard housing.

em500 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How much detail do you need? High level expenditure breakdowns are here: https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-f... and https://www.government.se/contentassets/5dc8d78159ee495fb5f3....

You can probably find more detailed breakdowns if you're really interested. But overall, most expenditures are probably in the categories healthcare, transfers to lower-incomes and education, like in most other European countries, and you probably won't find anything nefarious by looking into more detailed splits.

6 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
procaryote 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If "businesses will leave" was propaganda, you wouldn't need an exit tax, would you?

If there is an exit tax because companies would leave otherwise, why would someone rational start a new company in the country rather than leave first?

jmyeet 6 days ago | parent [-]

Governments have extraordinary powers to bring individuals and corporations to heel if necessary. Governments can:

- Charge exit taxes on people who "leave". As someone else pointed out, the US already does this with citizens who renounce citizenship (and it applies to long term permanent residents too);

- A lot of assets simply can't leave. Physical assets, land, etc;

- Assets and corporations can be nationalized;

- You can use tariffs and other legislative methods to punish those companies that "leave";

- You can also just deny access to a market for pretty much any reason you want. For example, Huawei is heavily restricted in use in American telecoms infrastructure for "national security" reasons; and

- You can generally impose cvarious levels of capital controls to limit the inflows and outflows of capital in pretty much any way you want. China does this heavily.

China is often criticized because the companies are an extension of the state. That's true. They are. But what we have instead is governments that are extensions of corporations. Can we really say that's working out better?

The US economy is rapidly becoming Russia. Russia has autocratic rule with oligarchs who pay fealty to Putin. In return they can do whatever they want. Do you really think we're different at this point?

Compare that to China. China isn't afraid to "disappear" their billionaires for awhile to bring them into line aka Jack Ma [1]. Exactly where he went and why and what happened is still unclear. China continues to crack down on tax evasion by so called "yin and yang" contracts (eg [2]). And China executed two for a scandal involing tainted baby formula [3].

What do we get? A world where governments can't punish companies for offshoring because that violates "free trade". Companies can take governments to a WTO court. And have.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56448688

[2]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202403/1309137.shtml

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...

procaryote 5 days ago | parent [-]

Oh, so you didn't mean "businesses will leave [is] propaganda" as in

  "it's not true"
but as in

  "the state has all the power it needs to practically prohibit that, if they were just more open to autocracy"
I can imagine other problems with that, but it's less worthwhile to discuss
lotsofpulp 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>3. Revenue will increasigly have to be taxed in the source country. For example, Google I believe books all UK ad contracts through Ireland such that the UK subsidiary has essentially zero income to tax. I believe governments will increasingly crack down on this such that if something is sold in the UK, it's taxed by the UK;

Wasn’t this only a thing while the UK was in the EU, because the EU expressly allowed it?

tomcam 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clear explanation, thanks. Seems that many companies have moved from California to Texas or Tennessee. Am I wrong?

jmyeet 6 days ago | parent [-]

You're not wrong. The reasons why come down to really one or more of these factors:

1. To lower labor costs. For example, the Big 3 auto makers are unionized. Tesla's manufacturing isn't. Guess who earns more? [1];

2. Deregulation. Some things (eg polluting) are way easier to get away with in Texas than, say, California;

3. To shift the tax burden from the owners to the workers. Texas famously has no state income tax. It does have sky high property taxes though. Property taxes are a super regressive tax;

4. For the politics of the owners; and

5. Other miscellaneous reasons. For example, Texas is about the absolute worst place to get divorced for a spouse who is a parent and isn't the primary income earner. Why? Texas courts won't let you move out of state with the children [2] and child support will be severely capped [3], even if, say, the other parent is a billionaire.

[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-pay-vs-ford-gm-uaw-uni...

[2]: https://www.thetxattorneys.com/child-custody/relocation

[3]: https://ondafamilylaw.com/what-is-the-maximum-child-support-...

ExpertAdvisor01 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not 2005 anymore . Stop spreading bs . There are many mechanisms against profit shifting and transfer pricing . BEPS 1.0 and 2.0 and many more.