Hacker News Reader

Comment by Negitivefrags | Hacker News Reader

I don't really like this kind of idea because it really goes against a kind of fundemental freedom. "If you don't like it, you can leave".

Instead, laws around making sure that the profits generated from a countries citizens are taxed by that country make more sense to me. A lot of laws around that already exist, and I suppose a lot of people would say that they have not been effective.

A lot of it comes down to the treatment of Intelectual Property. A lot of the tax games that companies play relate to licencing their IP around between different countries. I wonder what would happen if a country tried banning licencing of IP between related parties internationally?

View on HN

> I don't really like this kind of idea because it really goes against a kind of fundemental freedom. "If you don't like it, you can leave".

That's not fundamental freedom, that's a variation on Hobson's choice.

I assume you refer to people who can't reasonably leave for whatever reason.

But even if you can't leave, seeing the results of another country that does something a different way is a valuable comparison point that can drive a change of policy where you are.

> But even if you can't leave, seeing the results of another country that does something a different way is a valuable comparison point that can drive a change of policy where you are.

True, one could argue that seeing the results in other countries that do things a different way was indeed valuable and the lesson was to adopt a global minimum 15% tax on big business.

Freedom to move about or leave any place is the most fundamental freedom that exists. It is practically synonymous with the word "freedom".

Nobody is preventing big business to do business outside of Europe. Eh, "Take it or leave it", right ?

> and I suppose a lot of people would say that they have not been effective.

They really aren't. Q8, the gas stations, have been in Denmark for 30 year, if not more, they've apparently never been profitable, certainly not enough to pay taxes. The same goes for Coca Cola, which may have start to pay taxes.

The only solution I've seen propose is a revenue tax. Similar to a VAT it would be added at the point of sale, making it impossible to avoid for companies. In return corporation would pay tax on profits. It has it own set of problem though.

> profits generated from a countries citizens are taxed by that country

What about people who migrate somewhere else? What about dual+ citizenships? It makes little sense for me to pay taxes in a country I haven't lived in for 20 years.

A reasonable modified goal would be "profits generated by a country's residents are taxed by that country."

Yeah, I would not even mind a "no double citizenship" rule.

Many countries don't allow for double citizenship, but sometimes they have to make exceptions because some countries don't allow you to renounce to your nationality

You can't get rid of a greek citizenship,its impossible. I think thats how it should be.

The games with revoking citizenship of Snowden, etc. ate absurd and should not be allowed. Even if the person is a criminal, he must server punishment defined in law. He is still 'your' American/greek/ whatever criminal

That would be just shitty for kids. Your parents are from A and B, but live in C. A and B are hard to enter without citizenship and impossible to live/work in long term without it. If you limit multiple citizenships, you basically kick the child and limit their family access without any reason in that situation.

In your scenario, a C-only citizenship child with an A parent and a B parent is no worse off than say his peers who have C-only citizenship, and whose parents have C-only citizenship, too.

It's not like any of those C-only peers could easily visit or move to A or B, either, based on how you've described their policies.

If anyone is worse off in that scenario, it would be the C-only children with C-only parents. Those families are pretty much stuck dealing only with country C, no matter what. The multi-citizenship family, on the other hand, could potentially benefit from the ability of a parent returning to A or B for a period of time, for example.

You seem to be mistakenly portraying the family with more options and flexibility as "victims", when in practice they're actually much better off than others are.

It depends how you look at it. Sure, policies would be the same. But if you think about people, those kids may have minimal chances of seeing their extended family for years.

"I don't really like this kind of idea because it really goes against a kind of fundemental freedom. "If you don't like it, you can leave"."

I'm not sure it's a fundamental freedom, but it is important.

If a law exists over the whole world, there's no competition and no alternative to compare against.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I think the idea "If you don't like it, you can leave" is one of the most important, if not THE most important freedom a person should have. It's the reason why former communist countries took passports away from their citizens.

It's the idea that we know what's best for you and you better adapt because there is no escaping. It's the fundamental idea of many social justice movements that require totalitarian methods to get what they want.

This is why self-determination is such important concept, something that the global utopians can never really grasp.

You can leave, but corporate profits can't leave, that is the idea. I don't see why corporate profits leaving the country they were generated in is necessary for freedom.

nokne us stopping anyone from leaving EU markets. This whole post is a hissy fit about wanting to have your cake and eating it too

Corporate profits don’t affect your fundamental freedoms.

> "If you don't like it, you can leave".

s/leave/rent a new PO Box over here and change some DNS records/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com