And what would happen if we did?

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours 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)

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours 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.