Comment on Is it really possible to tax the rich?

• FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Yes that’s true, I was trying to make the point that the ownership of the company is usually directly responsible for its success, whatever form that takes. And forcing the dilution of ownership (by taxing a company on its overall market cap rather than its profits) is only going to be disruptive to whatever arrangement made it successful in the first place (be that forcing control out of the hands of a good founder or diluting the control of a group of investors that approved a good board). Don’t get me wrong, that might sometimes be a good thing. It’s just that the logic “you’ve made this company is so successful you’re going to have less control over it” is unlikely to work out well in the long run. Better to take more taxes from profits if anything (as long as that’s internationally competitive) or have stronger laws preventing companies with huge value from muscling in and taking over competitors or whole industries (eg Musk etc)

  source

  • Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    That would be true if companies did not create elaborate constructions and park money in tax havens.

    I’d almost say that companies should be taxed (a different rate) not on profits but on revenue. If they make the revenue in your country, it should be taxed in your country.

    source

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yes, tax havens are a problem

      I’d almost say that companies should be taxed not on profits but on revenue

      This is what sales tax is though. Tax collected at the point of sale (ie revenue). You can collect it direct from companies instead but all you’d see is the ‘sales tax’ line of your shopping cart go higher.

      Profit is taxed instead of revenue (in general) because companies operate on wildly different margins (the difference between revenue and profit). So let’s ignore the fact it would get passed directly onto consumers and assume a revenue tax is borne by the companies… Say your revenue tax was 2% you might have a negligible effect on Apple, they have a large gap between their revenue and costs so they just absorb this as a tiny dent on profits, Tesla might be hit moderately hard (the amount of profit they turn compared to revenue is smaller so a revenue tax makes a much larger impact on profit), and it may have a catastrophic impact on Starbucks (very small gap between revenue and expenses so decreasing revenue via a 2% tax almost completely eradicates profits).

      I’m making up which company’s which just to illustrate that a revenue tax doesn’t land equally across companies. Some industries are low margin some are high margin and a revenue tax disproportionally clobbers low margin industries. Which might not be the effect we wanted. So it’s better to tax profit.

      This does create issues where companies deliberately don’t turn a profit because they aggressively reinvest in expansion and acquisition.

      source

      • Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Except in this case the tax is levied across the entire value chain. But yes, this would favor high margin business over low margin ones. But isn’t the current system doing that too? Investors throw money at high margin companies while not so much at low margin ones.

        source