Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Nice cliche, 'a race to the bottom' - often used by politicians like Corbyn. Again you are ignoring the facts that overall very often tax take goes up - either for corporate tax and/or looking at the wider tax take due to the increased investment. I've posted evidence for this before - would you like me to post it again?

It is simply a fact of life for many countries that they need to attract and stimulate investment. But good to see that you know better, not just better than an experienced tax professional but better than many governments out there :roll:

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Stevo looks at this as a benign competition for individual countries to attract investment & workforce.

So what is it then from your point of view? Please let me have the benefit of your extensive international business and tax knowledge

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Competition for resources is pretty much a universal of all life on Earth and we are no exception, whether they are physical resources or financial resources with which to gain access to physical resources. Yes, obviously if one country attracts business from another with a tempting CT rate (or some other advantage), then the latter will lose out. The counter pressure to the 'race to the bottom' is the need to maintain and improve revenues, just as Tesco can only trim their prices so much before the increased sales don't compensate for the lower profit per sale.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

One recent example - I was in Poland earlier this month sorting out some things on our new shared services operation. Why are we there? Main reasons are a good supply of good value educated labour and low tax rate. No disconnect there.

Setting up your new post Brexit office?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely a company just pays corporation tax in a low corporate tax jurisdiction and then outsources the work to a low income tax jurisdiction?

Why do you assume that? You are probably aware of the anti avoidance rules that are standard in OECD countries and many other economies around needing appropriate substance to generate the level of profits in very low tax jurisdictions - that generally means staff and premises etc. I can explain more if you want.

One recent example - I was in Poland earlier this month sorting out some things on our new shared services operation. Why are we there? Main reasons are a good supply of good value educated labour and low tax rate. No disconnect there.

which taxes are so low? their CT is 19%, std income tax is slightly lower and higher rate quite a bit granted but why would lower income tax attract your company there? or do you mean low taxes and low wages.

that well educated workforce had to be paid for, state education costs.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Stevo looks at this as a benign competition for individual countries to attract investment & workforce.

So what is it then from your point of view? Please let me have the benefit of your extensive international business and tax knowledge

It's a race to a lower tax world, where the state has a smaller role in trying to look after all members of society. I look at what that might mean to the US, for instance, if they were to pass one of the Republicans' tax reduction plans (including the repeal of ACA), and the effect on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society would be profound. But hey, making healthcare unaffordable for a few million people has got to be worth lowering taxes for some.

I'm assuming, BTW, that you'd never feel competent to comment on anything else other than tax, if you're of the view that only those who work in an industry are qualified to have an opinion on it.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

It's a race to a lower tax world, where the state has a smaller role in trying to look after all members of society. I look at what that might mean to the US, for instance, if they were to pass one of the Republicans' tax reduction plans (including the repeal of ACA), and the effect on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society would be profound. But hey, making healthcare unaffordable for a few million people has got to be worth lowering taxes for some.

I'm assuming, BTW, that you'd never feel competent to comment on anything else other than tax, if you're of the view that only those who work in an industry are qualified to have an opinion on it.

So you didn't read any of my repeated posts about how cutting the rates can and does increase the tax take when managed sensibly? You probably should read it rather than just repeating the 'race to the bottom' type cliché, which goes against the evidence.

As for competent to comment, well we all can but as this thread shows only too clearly, some are more qualified to comment than others

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely a company just pays corporation tax in a low corporate tax jurisdiction and then outsources the work to a low income tax jurisdiction?

Not so sure that would work for Starbucks.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely a company just pays corporation tax in a low corporate tax jurisdiction and then outsources the work to a low income tax jurisdiction?

Why do you assume that? You are probably aware of the anti avoidance rules that are standard in OECD countries and many other economies around needing appropriate substance to generate the level of profits in very low tax jurisdictions - that generally means staff and premises etc. I can explain more if you want.

One recent example - I was in Poland earlier this month sorting out some things on our new shared services operation. Why are we there? Main reasons are a good supply of good value educated labour and low tax rate. No disconnect there.

which taxes are so low? their CT is 19%, std income tax is slightly lower and higher rate quite a bit granted but why would lower income tax attract your company there? or do you mean low taxes and low wages.

that well educated workforce had to be paid for, state education costs.

19% CT is competitive - same as the UK currently.
Income tax top rate is 32% so much lower than the UK (base rate is 18% - slightly lower).

We were attracted by these points as well as the point above about good availability of workforce with the right sort of skills at a competitive cost - other locations such as Prague and Warsaw have become more 'saturated'. We have around 75 employees so far from a standing start of zero earlier this year. In the next 2-3 years it will be well into the hundreds.

Clearly the Polish tax system pays for an educated workforce, in line with my point above that low tax rates do not always equal low tax revenues Although that said, they do get a lot of funding for other stuff such as roads etc from the EU.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Stevo looks at this as a benign competition for individual countries to attract investment & workforce.

So what is it then from your point of view? Please let me have the benefit of your extensive international business and tax knowledge

It's a race to a lower tax world, where the state has a smaller role in trying to look after all members of society. I look at what that might mean to the US, for instance, if they were to pass one of the Republicans' tax reduction plans (including the repeal of ACA), and the effect on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society would be profound. But hey, making healthcare unaffordable for a few million people has got to be worth lowering taxes for some.

I'm assuming, BTW, that you'd never feel competent to comment on anything else other than tax, if you're of the view that only those who work in an industry are qualified to have an opinion on it.

I think in the case of US Republicans, it's more of an ideological opposition to state involvement in anything, but the absolute bare minimum for running a country, and by extension low taxes, rather than low taxes being seen to offer an advantage.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Nice cliche, 'a race to the bottom' - often used by politicians like Corbyn. Again you are ignoring the facts that overall very often tax take goes up - either for corporate tax and/or looking at the wider tax take due to the increased investment. I've posted evidence for this before - would you like me to post it again?

It is simply a fact of life for many countries that they need to attract and stimulate investment. But good to see that you know better, not just better than an experienced tax professional but better than many governments out there :roll:

Mate, if a company uses a tax haven to reduce their overal tax expenditure, the overall tax tax is lower, by definition.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely a company just pays corporation tax in a low corporate tax jurisdiction and then outsources the work to a low income tax jurisdiction?

Why do you assume that? You are probably aware of the anti avoidance rules that are standard in OECD countries and many other economies around needing appropriate substance to generate the level of profits in very low tax jurisdictions - that generally means staff and premises etc. I can explain more if you want.

One recent example - I was in Poland earlier this month sorting out some things on our new shared services operation. Why are we there? Main reasons are a good supply of good value educated labour and low tax rate. No disconnect there.

which taxes are so low? their CT is 19%, std income tax is slightly lower and higher rate quite a bit granted but why would lower income tax attract your company there? or do you mean low taxes and low wages.

that well educated workforce had to be paid for, state education costs.

19% CT is competitive - same as the UK currently.
Income tax top rate is 32% so much lower than the UK (base rate is 18% - slightly lower).

We were attracted by these points as well as the point above about good availability of workforce with the right sort of skills at a competitive cost - other locations such as Prague and Warsaw have become more 'saturated'. We have around 75 employees so far from a standing start of zero earlier this year. In the next 2-3 years it will be well into the hundreds.

Clearly the Polish tax system pays for an educated workforce, in line with my point above that low tax rates do not always equal low tax revenues Although that said, they do get a lot of funding for other stuff such as roads etc from the EU.

Interesting and a fair point on the EU investment into eastern european infrastructure, something your company are now benefiting from, that will now reduce long term, so maybe taxes will go up to compensate?

From my experience of the place, they have a certain amount of get up and go, which is sometimes missing from our school system and perhaps our population in general?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is it so difficult to identfy the value add of tax competition to compensate for the lost revenue to gov’ts?

Why are the majority of countries doing it then? You still haven't answered that question.

Even the last bastions of high tax, US, Japan and France are cutting corporate tax rates now Maybe you know something they don't?

Why are they all doing it?

Because it's a race to the bottom. A bit like armament before WW1. Why were they doing it? Because everyone else was.

IT doesn't mean it's an optimal outcome. It's a bit like raising tariffs but in reverse. If everyone does it, everyone loses out. If no-one does it, no-gov't loses out.

Nice cliche, 'a race to the bottom' - often used by politicians like Corbyn. Again you are ignoring the facts that overall very often tax take goes up - either for corporate tax and/or looking at the wider tax take due to the increased investment. I've posted evidence for this before - would you like me to post it again?

It is simply a fact of life for many countries that they need to attract and stimulate investment. But good to see that you know better, not just better than an experienced tax professional but better than many governments out there :roll:

Mate, if a company uses a tax haven to reduce their overal tax expenditure, the overall tax tax is lower, by definition.

Why are you restricting this to 'tax havens'? (btw you never did state at what tax rate the threshold lies between tax haven and no tax haven - care to answer that now?).

I gave a perfectly good example above of Poland as a real life attractive investment proposition for reasons including tax. Are you saying that Poland is a tax haven? Or is their 19% tax rate unacceptable?

Also see my other example above where Macron was offering to cut income tax rates for bankers relocating to Paris. Why is that not tax competition?

rick_chasey

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

Which is contrary to what you put earlier.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely a company just pays corporation tax in a low corporate tax jurisdiction and then outsources the work to a low income tax jurisdiction?

Not so sure that would work for Starbucks.

It'll be fine when people start having virtual cups of coffee. Clearly it wouldn't work for all companies.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It's a race to a lower tax world, where the state has a smaller role in trying to look after all members of society. I look at what that might mean to the US, for instance, if they were to pass one of the Republicans' tax reduction plans (including the repeal of ACA), and the effect on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society would be profound. But hey, making healthcare unaffordable for a few million people has got to be worth lowering taxes for some.

I'm assuming, BTW, that you'd never feel competent to comment on anything else other than tax, if you're of the view that only those who work in an industry are qualified to have an opinion on it.

So you didn't read any of my repeated posts about how cutting the rates can and does increase the tax take when managed sensibly? You probably should read it rather than just repeating the 'race to the bottom' type cliché, which goes against the evidence.

As for competent to comment, well we all can but as this thread shows only too clearly, some are more qualified to comment than others

It might increase the tax revenue for the country reducing its tax rate (it attracts more business, which of course is the idea), but what are the effects on the countries from which earnings are diverted? I'm guessing (because, as you know, I'm better at playing the trumpet than international tax law) that that country's tax take is reduced, leaving it in the position it either has to reduce its rates (as the UK has suggested it might do post-Brexit) to make it more attractive to businesses who are trying to reduce their tax bill (and yes, I do accept that that is what they should do, and will employ the best people they can to do the job), or adjust its expenditure downwards. I'm also guessing that you would generally think that's a good thing, though I hope you'd not disallow others from disagreeing even if they aren't tax experts. Though it would be quite nice if the politicians and civil servants drafting the regulations were experts.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Interesting and a fair point on the EU investment into eastern european infrastructure, something your company are now benefiting from, that will now reduce long term, so maybe taxes will go up to compensate?

From my experience of the place, they have a certain amount of get up and go, which is sometimes missing from our school system and perhaps our population in general?

OK, but who do you think is paying for a lot of that infrastructure in the first place?

As for us benefiting from them, well they are certainly benefiting from us investing and creating jobs there - we didn't have to invest there and there were lots of choices of location. So clearly they were having to compete for our investment and tax was part of that (just spelling it out for the tax competition deniers on the thread )

Poland's tax rate has been fairly consistent over time for a while now so they have a consistent strategy of keeping a competitive tax rate.

As for get up and go, that subjective and hard to judge from the smallish sample of employees I met as naturally these will be the more successful ones that we hired.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

A brilliant observation Rick. Proof if ever that you are a tax genius

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It's a race to a lower tax world, where the state has a smaller role in trying to look after all members of society. I look at what that might mean to the US, for instance, if they were to pass one of the Republicans' tax reduction plans (including the repeal of ACA), and the effect on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society would be profound. But hey, making healthcare unaffordable for a few million people has got to be worth lowering taxes for some.

I'm assuming, BTW, that you'd never feel competent to comment on anything else other than tax, if you're of the view that only those who work in an industry are qualified to have an opinion on it.

So you didn't read any of my repeated posts about how cutting the rates can and does increase the tax take when managed sensibly? You probably should read it rather than just repeating the 'race to the bottom' type cliché, which goes against the evidence.

As for competent to comment, well we all can but as this thread shows only too clearly, some are more qualified to comment than others

It might increase the tax revenue for the country reducing its tax rate (it attracts more business, which of course is the idea), but what are the effects on the countries from which earnings are diverted? I'm guessing (because, as you know, I'm better at playing the trumpet than international tax law) that that country's tax take is reduced, leaving it in the position it either has to reduce its rates (as the UK has suggested it might do post-Brexit) to make it more attractive to businesses who are trying to reduce their tax bill (and yes, I do accept that that is what they should do, and will employ the best people they can to do the job), or adjust its expenditure downwards. I'm also guessing that you would generally think that's a good thing, though I hope you'd not disallow others from disagreeing even if they aren't tax experts. Though it would be quite nice if the politicians and civil servants drafting the regulations were experts.

Well yes, that's what competition is all about and in reality there is no escaping it.

If commercial companies competing for business all colluded to fix their prices at a high level that would be an illegal cartel and would attract massive punitive fines from the EU or various national governments. Are you saying that cartels are OK if it is the cost of tax that is being fixed? Should governments somehow be exempt from their own rules on price fixing?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Interesting and a fair point on the EU investment into eastern european infrastructure, something your company are now benefiting from, that will now reduce long term, so maybe taxes will go up to compensate?

From my experience of the place, they have a certain amount of get up and go, which is sometimes missing from our school system and perhaps our population in general?

OK, but who do you think is paying for a lot of that infrastructure in the first place?

.

People like me who pay their taxes and have no real means to reduce it... ie PAYE.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

Which is contrary to what you put earlier.

CT isn't the only tax that they pay. They might save a bit on that, but pay slightly more elsewhere with a net benefit to the exchequer of that country. Like Stevo's Tesco shopper drawn into the shop by the discounted beans, but then thinking they have got a bargain ends up doing the full weekly shop. Clearly Sainsbury's over the road have lost out on the custom, but they can't just undercut Tesco on everything as they won't make any money. Maybe they'll pursue a slightly different type of customer by discounting the wine. Nobody drinks wine with baked beans

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

Which is contrary to what you put earlier.

CT isn't the only tax that they pay. They might save a bit on that, but pay slightly more elsewhere with a net benefit to the exchequer of that country. Like Stevo's Tesco shopper drawn into the shop by the discounted beans, but then thinking they have got a bargain ends up doing the full weekly shop. Clearly Sainsbury's over the road have lost out on the custom, but they can't just undercut Tesco on everything as they won't make any money. Maybe they'll pursue a slightly different type of customer by discounting the wine. Nobody drinks wine with baked beans

I've given up trying to explain this to him, he is simply not listening to the facts or evidence. As a tax professional of over 25 years experience, in my considered opinion he is effing clueless on this subject

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Interesting and a fair point on the EU investment into eastern european infrastructure, something your company are now benefiting from, that will now reduce long term, so maybe taxes will go up to compensate?

From my experience of the place, they have a certain amount of get up and go, which is sometimes missing from our school system and perhaps our population in general?

OK, but who do you think is paying for a lot of that infrastructure in the first place?

.

People like me who pay their taxes and have no real means to reduce it... ie PAYE.

Not after 2019 you won't be. Every cloud...

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

Which is contrary to what you put earlier.

CT isn't the only tax that they pay. They might save a bit on that, but pay slightly more elsewhere with a net benefit to the exchequer of that country. Like Stevo's Tesco shopper drawn into the shop by the discounted beans, but then thinking they have got a bargain ends up doing the full weekly shop. Clearly Sainsbury's over the road have lost out on the custom, but they can't just undercut Tesco on everything as they won't make any money. Maybe they'll pursue a slightly different type of customer by discounting the wine. Nobody drinks wine with baked beans

Yes but net, the overall tax spent is lower.

Christ guys, it’s not that hard.

Tax competition means net less tax is paid.

Otherwise multinational companies wouldn’t do it, right?

I can’t see the advantage to that.

You can make a broader case for tax cuts, but multinational tax avoidance is not as the tax law was designed.

Cross border international cooperation is the best way to combat it.

It stops these weird distortions and means it’s easier to plan tax in a nation as intended.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was illustrating that, by definition, if a company pays less tax, less tax is paid.

Which is contrary to what you put earlier.

CT isn't the only tax that they pay. They might save a bit on that, but pay slightly more elsewhere with a net benefit to the exchequer of that country. Like Stevo's Tesco shopper drawn into the shop by the discounted beans, but then thinking they have got a bargain ends up doing the full weekly shop. Clearly Sainsbury's over the road have lost out on the custom, but they can't just undercut Tesco on everything as they won't make any money. Maybe they'll pursue a slightly different type of customer by discounting the wine. Nobody drinks wine with baked beans

Yes but net, the overall tax spent is lower.

Christ guys, it’s not that hard.

No it is not. My offer to repost the evidence is there if you want to pull your head out of the sand.

Or do you honestly still not understand after all the time I have spent explaining?

rick_chasey

Are you making a case for low tax, or for multinationals moving stuff around to avoid paying corporate tax?

Cos they’re not the same.

Hypothetical example. Moving your 100man hq to Ireland just for lower taxes does not improve the net tax rate.

If it meant the company paid more tax, they literally wouldn’t do it, if they were looking to reduce the tax bill.

rick_chasey

Changing where you book profits to lower your tax bill does not increase the overall tax take in the world.

It can’t be so. Otherwise it wouldn’t be lowering the tax spend by the company!!

Stevo_666

I'm making the case that I was making when I replied earlier today. Here it is:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence to support the
overall advantages of tax competition?

This example don't look particularly positive.

It attracts investment/jobs etc and overall can raise tax revenues as the attracting factor (often corporate tax) is more than offset by wage taxes, VAT etc. There are a couple of examples in this Wiki link, one from the US and one from Europe (Ireland). There are plenty more given enough time to search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_competition

Maybe you can explain why if its not a good idea than why are most countries competing on tax? I posted the downward trends in corporate tax rates as an example a few pages back - which is happening in nearly all of the advanced economies and quite a few others. Your thoughts?

You seem to be unaware that a lot of the taxes that are generated from business investment are not necessarily a cost to/borne by the business itself, but nonetheless result directly from the business investment and resulting activity. VAT is an example, likewise income tax to a large extent. The company acts as a collector for these taxes but they are a cost to others.

Here is one piece of evidence to support the increased overall tax tax despite reducing CT rates:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html
It also shows the shift away from CT5 in relative terms on towards other taxes which I mentioned earlier (the Tesco analogy).

I also posted recently data to support the increased UK corporate tax take despite the CT rate reduction from 28% to 20% over the measured period even after allowing for economic growth over that period.

rick_chasey

You’re arguing for lower tax rates.

That’s not what I’m arguing.

I’m asking what the net economic benefit is of booking your profits somewhere else to artificially reduce your tax.

Allowing it essentially is a tax break for multinationals.

It allows multinationals who have the scale to do the shifting to pay less tax.

That’s it. And since the national corporate tax rate of nations isn’t designed to do so, it’s a costly distortion.

You need to understand I am talking about the process of shifting where you book your profits to reduce your tax bill, not the ins and outs of where corporate tax sits on the laffer curve.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Changing where you book profits to lower your tax bill does not increase the overall tax take in the world.

It can’t be so. Otherwise it wouldn’t be lowering the tax spend by the company!!

Read the post above and try to understand. For the umpteenth time it is about more than corporate tax. RJS has tried to tell you this as well. And you need to understand the distinction between taxes borne and taxes collected by a company.

If youre still struggling after that, maybe tax shouldn't be your specialist 'Mastermind' subject :roll: