I'm not as concerned about countries setting attractive tax rates, because the countries with the lowest taxes are generally going to have less government-funded infrastructure, which might be a disincentive for some companies.
I'm more concerned about counties offering reduced environmental regulation or slave labor as an incentive. That's truly harmful for everyone. I think treaties should set some minimum protection for the environment and freedom of choice for workers.
The flaw in your logic is assuming you can only fund infrastructure by taxing the mega rich... truth is you can have flat tax that significantly reduses the tax on mega corperations and still bring in the same amount of tax by taxing the middle class.
So yea, you can have quite minimal taxes on megacorperations and still have the same tax as a country that highly taxes them.
I am not arguing for or against any tax model here. Just saying you cant rely on the fact that a society that doesnt heavily tax mega corps are going to lack infrastructure.
Also keep in mind there are entirely different models out there that can be a big incentive too. Some countries for example have no tax at **any** income level and instead rely on sales tax. These countries have seen absolutely massive economic booms in recent years and a good deal of migration.
@freemo
>"Just saying you cant rely on the fact that a society that doesnt heavily tax mega corps are going to lack infrastructure."
I'll concede that point. There are also resource-rich nations that can fund infrastructure that way without high taxes.
My concern with the OP was the idea that counties should stick to some tax policy that the people may or may not agree with. In the US, that was the main driving force behind our revolution -- taxation without representation.
I don't think someone in Denmark should be dictating (or even influencing) how (or how much) taxes are collected in some other country in the world.
(Not to pick on the Danes specifically, they are very cool people. 🙂 )
@stux