Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's profits that get taxed, not revenues. By the way, Starbucks had an effective tax rate of close to 35% in 2014. So it's not like they aren't paying any taxes. The whole issue is about that mythical concept of a "fair share" of taxes.

My idea of "fair" would be to make taxes porportionate to the extent to which public infrastructures of a country are used. That may be easier to achieve through fees than through taxes, which would come closer to your idea of taxing revenues.



I would say that fees would be more fair, yes -- I don't see why the amount a company pays for using public resources should vary with its profitability: even if they don't make any money, or shift profits to a subsidiary abroad, the resources are being used anyway.


>It's profits that get taxed, not revenues.

Can I get taxed on my profits and not just revenues? It would be nice if I wasn't paying so many taxes just for having a place to live.


I'd posit that a far better way to judge tax contributions would be to compare them to a company's market cap. That's where we'll likely see stark realization that multi-national corporations are living the good life.


The problem with that is that changes in market cap don't directly translate to taxable income -- and when they do, they do already get taxed through capital gains.


Capital gains tax is paid by the owners of the company when they dispose of shares, not by the corporation itself.

But I agree that using market cap is not a good basis for taxation. Most companies don't even have a market cap as they are not publicly traded. And among those that do it would hurt the most innovative companies disproportionatly.

Companies would start paying dividends way too early to keep the share price low instead of investing and growing the business. Tesla has a market cap of $27bn. They would pay more than half of what GM pays in taxes if market cap was used as a basis.

I'd rather they use that money to keep innovating and tax them later on when they make a real profit and use a greater share of public infrastructures.


I'm definitely not suggesting it's necessarily the correct way to approach taxation.

I think it's probably a "more fair" alternative to the current state of things. And perhaps worthy of being part of the discussion.


That doesn't solve the problem of which country should get what share of the taxes.


Should people living entirely on public assistance then pay 100% tax?


People don't pay corporation tax.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: