Janet Yellen to call for unified global corporate tax rate

[perfect999]

Some countries will always have a lower corporate tax just to get companies interested, not everyone is USA and have enough money to print trillions of dollars worth of money and end up being in the profit anyway, so many nations drop the corporate tax to minimum, even zero at times to attract money from other places. Hell if I had Facebook in my nation, I would charge them zero money for being here, even help them pay for some stuff, why? Because that would mean there would be a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars in my nation and that profit comes into my nation from outside, and they are hiring tens of thousands of workers, and they are getting headquarters, basically there are tons of things I can list that the nation would benefit from.

Long story short corporate tax can never be the same in every nation, some poor nations will try to attract rich companies one way or another.

[aesma]

Sithara007 : first of all this new corporate tax rate is only for people earning more than 1 million dollars a year. Granted, these people are the ones who own the majority of the stock market, but that's precisely a problem they also want to fix. You can't look at the stock market going up and up and up and conclude the economy is doing great, if most people don't benefit at all from that rise.

Considering what Biden wants to pay with the money raised, it's possible a state like California could end up lowering its own tax, since the federal government would now pay for things that California used to spend money on.

[AndySt]

Some countries will always have a lower corporate tax just to get companies interested, not everyone is USA and have enough money to print trillions of dollars worth of money and end up being in the profit anyway, so many nations drop the corporate tax to minimum, even zero at times to attract money from other places. Hell if I had Facebook in my nation, I would charge them zero money for being here, even help them pay for some stuff, why? Because that would mean there would be a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars in my nation and that profit comes into my nation from outside, and they are hiring tens of thousands of workers, and they are getting headquarters, basically there are tons of things I can list that the nation would benefit from.
Long story short corporate tax can never be the same in every nation, some poor nations will try to attract rich companies one way or another.

Each country acts by virtue of its own principles and its own capabilities, and if the capabilities and principles allow, then it is possible to reduce the corporate tax. Another question is that the current multinational corporations are a very complex phenomenon and a simple reduction in corporate tax does not mean the transfer of the parent corporation to your jurisdiction along with all the staff. The question is very complex and ambiguous, because let's say the same Facebook just opens a nominal office with a minimum of staff for the sake of paying taxes, and the main activity will still be conducted in a convenient country.

[Sithara007]

Sithara007 : first of all this new corporate tax rate is only for people earning more than 1 million dollars a year. Granted, these people are the ones who own the majority of the stock market, but that's precisely a problem they also want to fix. You can't look at the stock market going up and up and up and conclude the economy is doing great, if most people don't benefit at all from that rise.

Considering what Biden wants to pay with the money raised, it's possible a state like California could end up lowering its own tax, since the federal government would now pay for things that California used to spend money on.

The majority of the stock market is owned by pension funds and mutual funds and therefore any decline in the stock prices will disproportionately impact the pensioners and the middle class. Obviously billionaires own a large share of the stocks, but they hardly sell them in unfavorable circumstances (so there is no question of capital gains tax). For example, Jeff Bezos own around 10% of the Amazon shares and he hasn't sold any of his stocks for the last two decades. They can afford to wait, until a Republican president is elected to power. But the middle class and pensioners can't afford to wait more than 4-5 years.

[aesma]

Bezos has given plenty of shares to his ex wife (not by choice) and also sells stock every year to fund Blue Origin, his rocket company, to the tune of 1 billion a year.

Stocks go up but bond yields don't, US pensioners usually rely on bonds not stocks.

[Sithara007]

Bezos has given plenty of shares to his ex wife (not by choice) and also sells stock every year to fund Blue Origin, his rocket company, to the tune of 1 billion a year.

Stocks go up but bond yields don't, US pensioners usually rely on bonds not stocks.

If that is true, then I am wrong and sorry for that. The 1 billion per year sale still represents only around 0.5% of his net wealth. And in case the tax is increased, there is a good chance that he will postpone his plans to sell these stocks.

Now another proposal that has been suggested by some of the Pacific Coast Democrats is to tax unrealized capital gains. They say that this will prevent people like Bezos sitting on top of $200 billion worth of stock and still paying zero tax on it. But now comes the important question. Perhaps you are implementing a tax on unrealized capital gains of let's say 4%. Bezos need to pay $8 billion as tax. But there are a lot of people who have unrealized losses. If the government is taxing unrealized gains, then they need to reimburse (a part of) the capital losses as well.