FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Global Corporation Tax - a level playing field?
Global Corporation Tax - a level playing field?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *bernath OP Couple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
Does the idea of a fixed rate global corporation tax rate a good idea to ensure a level playing field or a bad idea to make countries not set lower rate to make them more competitive in the short term? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Does the idea of a fixed rate global corporation tax rate a good idea to ensure a level playing field or a bad idea to make countries not set lower rate to make them more competitive in the short term?"
This is a very ambitious concept that is being floated by the Biden Administration.
The sense in it is obvious as long as the major players can work together to maintain a United front.
It will make life so much easier for all countries to know that they are internationally bound with one aspect of their tax policy.
Then again, you might get some flag waving Neanderthals objecting to being “ruled over” by foreigners making decisions for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sounds good on paper, but wouldn't work in reality. For starters, it would hit the same problem that the climate change accord faced. Developing countries which are multiple steps behind developed countries would feel like their hands are forced and it will provide unfair advantage to developed countries. Developing countries these days can still pull industries by promising reduced spending and taxes. You take away that leverage by forcing equal taxes.
Then, there is this matter of sovereignty. Every country's economy is different. If a crisis similar to the one in Greece were to happen in a country, it is important that the country's government has the ability to modify taxes and economic drivers to fix it. It is important that countries have control over own economies. I don't think anyone will compromise on that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
If the US and Europe adopt the rates then others will follow.
Carbon benefits could be used to help developing countries get investment.
Remember tax is avoided and evaded but mostly kept in the G20 areas of influence for safety.
No one will hide their ill gotten gains in a country that may decide to help themselves to your cash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Does the idea of a fixed rate global corporation tax rate a good idea to ensure a level playing field or a bad idea to make countries not set lower rate to make them more competitive in the short term?"
Think I seen this floated by America recently but seems very ambitious and places like republic of Ireland are not so keen. The one size fits all does not always pan out like promised but its an interesting thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the US and Europe adopt the rates then others will follow.
Carbon benefits could be used to help developing countries get investment.
Remember tax is avoided and evaded but mostly kept in the G20 areas of influence for safety.
No one will hide their ill gotten gains in a country that may decide to help themselves to your cash. "
Guess where most businesses have their head quarters? USA. .. hence it will benefit them most which is why they like the idea, it will mean there is no benefit to moving regards tax, so rich country stays rich poor country stays poor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"If the US and Europe adopt the rates then others will follow.
Carbon benefits could be used to help developing countries get investment.
Remember tax is avoided and evaded but mostly kept in the G20 areas of influence for safety.
No one will hide their ill gotten gains in a country that may decide to help themselves to your cash.
Guess where most businesses have their head quarters? USA. .. hence it will benefit them most which is why they like the idea, it will mean there is no benefit to moving regards tax, so rich country stays rich poor country stays poor."
That is true to some degree, but having a level playing field on CT will enable companies to operate efficiently as autonomous entities on a country by country basis.
It is inefficient and complicated funnelling owned entities back to a parent and if autonomous entities can be equally taxed, this would be a cost benefit to most multi-nationals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Sounds good on paper, but wouldn't work in reality. For starters, it would hit the same problem that the climate change accord faced. Developing countries which are multiple steps behind developed countries would feel like their hands are forced and it will provide unfair advantage to developed countries. Developing countries these days can still pull industries by promising reduced spending and taxes. You take away that leverage by forcing equal taxes.
Then, there is this matter of sovereignty. Every country's economy is different. If a crisis similar to the one in Greece were to happen in a country, it is important that the country's government has the ability to modify taxes and economic drivers to fix it. It is important that countries have control over own economies. I don't think anyone will compromise on that."
Yes, and no.
When you agree your mortgage deal and you know that your major outgoing is set in stone for the next 25 years, you still have innumerable alternatives to cut your cloth with other outgoings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"If the US and Europe adopt the rates then others will follow.
Carbon benefits could be used to help developing countries get investment.
Remember tax is avoided and evaded but mostly kept in the G20 areas of influence for safety.
No one will hide their ill gotten gains in a country that may decide to help themselves to your cash.
Guess where most businesses have their head quarters? USA. .. hence it will benefit them most which is why they like the idea, it will mean there is no benefit to moving regards tax, so rich country stays rich poor country stays poor.
That is true to some degree, but having a level playing field on CT will enable companies to operate efficiently as autonomous entities on a country by country basis.
It is inefficient and complicated funnelling owned entities back to a parent and if autonomous entities can be equally taxed, this would be a cost benefit to most multi-nationals."
You are extremely naive if you think companies wont find ways round any global tax and also countries will find ways round it too, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sounds good on paper, but wouldn't work in reality. For starters, it would hit the same problem that the climate change accord faced. Developing countries which are multiple steps behind developed countries would feel like their hands are forced and it will provide unfair advantage to developed countries. Developing countries these days can still pull industries by promising reduced spending and taxes. You take away that leverage by forcing equal taxes.
Then, there is this matter of sovereignty. Every country's economy is different. If a crisis similar to the one in Greece were to happen in a country, it is important that the country's government has the ability to modify taxes and economic drivers to fix it. It is important that countries have control over own economies. I don't think anyone will compromise on that.
Yes, and no.
When you agree your mortgage deal and you know that your major outgoing is set in stone for the next 25 years, you still have innumerable alternatives to cut your cloth with other outgoings."
Easy to say that "if a bad thing happens, you can fix it through other means". Every country is different. While some countries have their own natural resources to build industries on. Countries like India depend a lot on service industries and Global corporations for both their current development and future roadmaps. Western countries have no rights to enforce such a thing on other sovereign nations. The impact is different for different countries. Why not just run it like a free market and let supply/demand work its way? Countries that are really in need will reduce taxes to pull corporations. Countries which aren't in much need can increase the taxes to protect its local players. What's wrong with that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Sounds good on paper, but wouldn't work in reality. For starters, it would hit the same problem that the climate change accord faced. Developing countries which are multiple steps behind developed countries would feel like their hands are forced and it will provide unfair advantage to developed countries. Developing countries these days can still pull industries by promising reduced spending and taxes. You take away that leverage by forcing equal taxes.
Then, there is this matter of sovereignty. Every country's economy is different. If a crisis similar to the one in Greece were to happen in a country, it is important that the country's government has the ability to modify taxes and economic drivers to fix it. It is important that countries have control over own economies. I don't think anyone will compromise on that.
Yes, and no.
When you agree your mortgage deal and you know that your major outgoing is set in stone for the next 25 years, you still have innumerable alternatives to cut your cloth with other outgoings.
Easy to say that "if a bad thing happens, you can fix it through other means". Every country is different. While some countries have their own natural resources to build industries on. Countries like India depend a lot on service industries and Global corporations for both their current development and future roadmaps. Western countries have no rights to enforce such a thing on other sovereign nations. The impact is different for different countries. Why not just run it like a free market and let supply/demand work its way? Countries that are really in need will reduce taxes to pull corporations. Countries which aren't in much need can increase the taxes to protect its local players. What's wrong with that?"
What is wrong with it is the companies are funnelling profits out of the countries that they operate in and into countries where they tax shelter.
The whole purpose of the global CT rate is to ensure that CT is paid equally and fairly and there is no need to shelter. This is exactly why this is being proposed now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds good on paper, but wouldn't work in reality. For starters, it would hit the same problem that the climate change accord faced. Developing countries which are multiple steps behind developed countries would feel like their hands are forced and it will provide unfair advantage to developed countries. Developing countries these days can still pull industries by promising reduced spending and taxes. You take away that leverage by forcing equal taxes.
Then, there is this matter of sovereignty. Every country's economy is different. If a crisis similar to the one in Greece were to happen in a country, it is important that the country's government has the ability to modify taxes and economic drivers to fix it. It is important that countries have control over own economies. I don't think anyone will compromise on that.
Yes, and no.
When you agree your mortgage deal and you know that your major outgoing is set in stone for the next 25 years, you still have innumerable alternatives to cut your cloth with other outgoings.
Easy to say that "if a bad thing happens, you can fix it through other means". Every country is different. While some countries have their own natural resources to build industries on. Countries like India depend a lot on service industries and Global corporations for both their current development and future roadmaps. Western countries have no rights to enforce such a thing on other sovereign nations. The impact is different for different countries. Why not just run it like a free market and let supply/demand work its way? Countries that are really in need will reduce taxes to pull corporations. Countries which aren't in much need can increase the taxes to protect its local players. What's wrong with that?
What is wrong with it is the companies are funnelling profits out of the countries that they operate in and into countries where they tax shelter.
The whole purpose of the global CT rate is to ensure that CT is paid equally and fairly and there is no need to shelter. This is exactly why this is being proposed now."
BUT in practice the head offices are in USA, even if they are digging in peru this year, mexico next year etc... so the taxes are paid to USA and peru gets fuck all.
a drilling company drill for oil in ocean but head quarters in USA, taxes paid USA
they are ring fencing
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wonder what rate they will settle for. The Americans started out wanting it at 21% but already down to 15%
Looks like it has been all agreed at 15%"
And importantly they can't just pay it where they want.... wonder what happens if they don't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If the US and Europe adopt the rates then others will follow.
Carbon benefits could be used to help developing countries get investment.
Remember tax is avoided and evaded but mostly kept in the G20 areas of influence for safety.
No one will hide their ill gotten gains in a country that may decide to help themselves to your cash.
Guess where most businesses have their head quarters? USA. .. hence it will benefit them most which is why they like the idea, it will mean there is no benefit to moving regards tax, so rich country stays rich poor country stays poor."
Taxes in country of sale is the ambition so fair tax revenue where it’s due.
Rich countries do need to help outer but that’s another issue.
Tax haven status benefits mostly rich countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I wonder what rate they will settle for. The Americans started out wanting it at 21% but already down to 15%
Looks like it has been all agreed at 15%"
The G7 will take the lead, and get the G20 to accept it later this year.
That will cover 80% of global trade. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wonder what rate they will settle for. The Americans started out wanting it at 21% but already down to 15%
Looks like it has been all agreed at 15%
The G7 will take the lead, and get the G20 to accept it later this year.
That will cover 80% of global trade. "
or it will all move to the 20% that isnt covered and work out of there? and then the 80% will rethink the whole thing lol
lets hope not, it is certainly a step in right direction, im ready to be amazed! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
