too rich?

[Mister Agenda]

The is a problem with internationally held wealth, that it gives the ability to choose where the money is Taxed (yes I said the word meaning governmental tax), however there is no international government so the supper rich can choose where to pay, unlike DeistPaladin or anybody else with a small to medium sized business. This creates an uneven playing field. I am sure Deist's business would be a lot more profitable if he could choose to pay his taxes in Lichtenstein, but he does not have that choice. However a business like Starbucks which stretches across international boundaries, can choose which part of its manufacturing and services are said to be making a profit, and by that means choose where it is taxed. Consequently it reports its shops in Britain have made no profit, the only profit it makes are where is head offices are which coincidently is in a minimal tax jurisdiction it does not even make a profit from manufacturing or distribution. However it does not close down its unprofitable shops, distribution, and manufacturing arms and just keep a small office which the company says makes a profit, we can only speculate why.
So when we look at the super rich, we find we have no equality with them, they can make choices that simply are not available to us. The Lee family who own Samsung (also own as it was put to me by one of their assistants) a good part of south Asia, as well as having interests in every market internationally), have choices that we do not have.

You make an interesting point about the multnationals often being able to choose their jurisdiction for tax purposes. It is in the nature of wealth, which is a representation of economic resources, that the more you have of it, the more options you have. We have choices that people who are poorer than us do not have.

I suppose an alternative arrangement might be to require multinationals to pay taxes to their country of origin or always desgnate their country of origin as their HQ. As always, there will be other consequences to that than the country of origin getting more tax revenue. Interestingly, economists of both the left and the right tend to agree that taxing corporations is not economically beneficial. The left-leaning economists would advise that if you want to tax the rich more, tax the rich more, taxing their corporations doesn't touch the income of the rich, it's just an indirect tax on their employees and customers. The US already charges hefty penalties to wealthy people who emigrate, so if they decide to relocate to a tax haven, our government still gets a revenue boost.

---

No, you were told that, in that context, it had to mean government tax. That is true. Either you are saying, you want them to be 25% difficult for their incomes, or, you want them to be 25% government taxed on their incomes. You must see the absurdity. Also, levying is levying taxes. Only the government does that.

Sorry, but you know what you were saying, jon.

You made this post you now say it is nonsense, I am in total agreement, your post is nonsense.

That was her point: that the first formulation is nonsense, and the second one you deny. Can you offer another alternative? Preferably one that is what you meant in the first place?