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.
Yeah, I said generally...
But even a heavy tax of middle class can be a disincentive because the companies will need to pay workers more so the workers can afford the tax. Also, to some extent in certain professions and locations, workers will choose move to more favorable tax climates (but they're certainly not as mobile as corporations are). And in true democracies, taxing the middle class is more difficult for politicians.
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
>"Stux is fromt he netherlands, not Denmark btw."
Yeah, I know. My comment wasn't directed at him. I picked Denmark because their tax policies have historically differed quite a bit from the US.
@stux