• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    but that they never actually ever end up doing because paying high taxes isn’t worth the hassle that uprooting and moving everything to a new country entails.

    Have you honestly calculated both to decide which is more expensive, or it’s just talk?

    Because there have been a few instances of big companies doing just that.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Except not really because what that is is them saying they’re owned or headquartered internationally.

      It’s not reflective of capital flight at the scale of hyper wealthy individuals, just of how fucked corporate tax law is in comparison to income tax law.

      Similar exit tax laws for reheadquartering out of country or selling out to a foreign owner would probably help cut way down on the practice.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well the highest marginal rate ever was about 90% in the 50s and there wasn’t significant capital flight at that time

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yes, you might have noticed that Microsoft, Google, Apple etc are the kind of companies which didn’t exist back then.

                • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Yeah, instead there was a bunch of fruit companies, IBM, and GM.

                  The most bloated corporate valuation in history was the South Sea Company, and that fiasco went down in the 1700s.