Proč se zdaňování musí stát globálním

Oct 30, 2014 Wolfgang Schäuble

BERLÍN – Jsme svědky hlubokých změn ve způsobu fungování světové ekonomiky. Vlivem rostoucího tempa a intenzity globalizace a digitalizace má více a více ekonomických procesů mezinárodní rozměr. V důsledku toho stále vyšší počet firem přizpůsobuje své struktury domácím a zahraničním právním soustavám a daňovým zákonům.

Díky technickým pokrokům v digitální ekonomice mohou firmy obsluhovat trhy, aniž by na nich musely být fyzicky přítomné. Také zdroje příjmů se staly mobilnějšími: těžiště se stále více posouvá k nehmotným aktivům a příjmům z mobilních investic, které lze z daňového hlediska snadno „optimalizovat“ a převádět do zahraničí.

Daňová legislativa nedrží s tímto vývojem tempo. Většina dnes platných principů alokace daní pochází z doby, kdy mezinárodní rozměr podnikání znamenal převážně dopravu zboží přes hranice do sousední země. Pravidla vymyšlená ve 20. a 30. letech minulého století však nejsou vhodná pro dnešní mezinárodní integraci ekonomických procesů a podnikových struktur. Je potřeba je adaptovat na ekonomickou realitu digitálních služeb.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 24 in all 24 Comments on this article

Julian Sayer Nov 6, 2014

Please tell me why aren't all tax havens simply shut down?

$34 trillion in tax havens which simply take money out of the economies of the world offering very little in turn?

Banks own 50% of these funds! it's simply starving the economy of growth and pushing up taxes on the ones that can least avoid it. It is helping stifle growth?
- Kai Kaufmann Nov 9, 2014
  
  Send me a private message and I will give you GOD's phone number. Also look up the first world chess champion, Wilhelm Steinitz.
  
  Alright, seriously, Isaiah Berlin wrote "Two Concepts of Liberty", a positive and a negative one. The economy tends to build up on the former, law on the latter. There would be problems with reinforcement and with the typical question of who supervises the supervisors, and who supervises the supervisors' supervisors and so forth.
  
  Yet no need to worry, Mr Sayer, at some moment the bubble (of trying to create money out of nothing, and hiding it in tax havens) bursts; Fama got a Nobel for showing that.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 3, 2014

There seems to be a point in what you are saying here, Mr Lucas. Ahmadinejad and Putin kept/keep mentioning the term "hypocrisy" as s.th. that characterized/s their opponents. Well regarded economist Gunnar Myrdal had a book chapter about "The Beam in our Eyes" (a biblical reference; cf. Matthew 7:1–2) dealing with this and more recently, two Yale game theorists (Nalebuff/Brandenburger) coined "co-opetition" as the portmanteau of competition and cooperation.

So there are (at least) three ways to answer to your question.
1.) Time will tell which is which, as the "good" policy will become part of the larger chunk in the sense of Herbert Simon and the "bad" one will be isolated and marginalized, i.e. part of a smaller chunk.
2.) You might find this disturbing, but actually one of the best characteristics of intelligence is to be able to find out about other persons' intelligences. This is not a performative contradiction (or a circular argument) but can be explained by "recursion", used by Alan Turing in his recursion theory that is at the heart of any and all computers we are nowadays surrounded by.
3.) Fractals (instead of yes/no answers, try fuzzy logic; readers interested in this topic may want to look at B. Mandelbrot, G. Julia, P. Fatou and popularizer N.N. Taleb).

Again the point you make is quite solid here as with 1989/90 (German reunification, disintegration of USSR/Warsaw Pact), "experts" assumed that history had ended and individualism had won over collectivism (Fukuyama) for good. This revealed itself not to be the case, as we can see in bottom-up movements (Arab Spring), the sharing economy and free communication (Rifkin) and in the fact that Europe, China and the US implemented "too big to fail policies" that are against the individualist, libertarian idea of free competition. This collectivizes losses (disadvantaging the normal citizen) while privatizing gains (benefitting high earners); again the lower GINI index was why I had previously mentioned that in my view the EU is somewhat better at limiting these excesses.

Good luck.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 3, 2014

The reason why Wolfgang Schäuble has found time to write this article is the urgency to combat tax evasion. He wants to sell the concept of "fair taxation" and shows ordinary people that rich individuals and corporations have to carry their fair share of the tax burden. He also wants to be seen as the architect of an agreement, that commits the signatories to introduce automatic exchange of taxpayer information from 2018.
Yet the accord, a brainchild of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for purposes, has only been signed by 51 nations. The Forum has currently 123 members, out of 193 member states of the United Nations. Switzerland, known for its bank secrecy, and the US, which puersues its own path of fighting international evasion - the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, were absent from the meeting, although they are members.
As Britain and Germany were the two initiators of cracking down on tax evasion and tax fraud, George Osborne, the chancellor of the British Exchequer, was pleased with the relative speed with which the agreement had been negotiated and signed. Now the finance ministers hope to cash in billions in otherwise unpaid taxes, which could be a boon to public finances. Yet more efforts would be required to ensure that large multinational companies actually pay taxes in countries where they take in revenue.
The OECD urges governments in developing countries to improve their governance and regulations, so that they can clamp down on the black economy. They lose about $1 trillion a year, as a result of the flow of illicit assets, that leave countries through money laundering, tax evasion and bribery.
Schäuble is working on developing a single global standard on automatic exchange of information, which will enable tax authorities to share information with their foreign counterparts automatically, without being asked. No doubt the OECD, the G8 and G20 countries are eager to cooperate.
Whether the others would "agree on uniform international standards in order to achieve fair international tax competition" remains to be seen. It's unclear if China and Russia would support the idea, although they have seen massive capital flight from their countries in recent years. They may deem such a legal framework an intrusion into their sovereignty.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Lucas Nov 3, 2014

What, Honorable Wolfgang Schäuble, is the difference between your 'bad' "beggar-thy-neighbor" taxation policy, and 'good' "competition" with regard to taxation?
And what is the difference between 'bad' "beggar-thy-neighbor" subsidy policy, and 'good' "competition" with regard to subsidies?
What is the difference between an economy running on global rules (on accounting, taxation and subsidies, etc.), and the centralised cyber-economy, as envisaged by President Allende in Chile in 1973 (and which was stopped from being implemented, because it threatened the rigid 'cold war' dichotomy between the rigid command economy of the Soviet Union, and the West's competition economy, with its subsidy and oligopoly distortions)
The whole problem of free and open competition is that it quickly turns into its opposite. Until the advocates of competition admit that too much competition is as bad as too little competition, capitalism will continue from one crisis to the next.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 2, 2014

Mr Sos, while I do not defend arms sellers, from the side of the country at least there was no participation in the lies upon which the Iraq war was built up in order keep "military Keynesianism" going and with it the military industrial complex of which Eisenhower had warned in 1961. In case you want to find out who spread bribery and much uglier tactics, look up "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins (2004).

Mr Zammit-Lucia, plainly and simply wrong. Germany was called "the sick man of Europe" at the beginning of this century. And the country did not overcome its predicament by trying to create something out of nothing (as the FED does, making the rich even richer while disadvantaging the middle and lower class) but by actual work and reforms (Agenda 2010). The Gini in Europe is much better than in the other somewhat smaller economies of the world (US, China) and has shown it is willing and able to take on monopolies (such as Microsoft; with Sun, IBM and Adobe joining the side of the EU). Schäuble's plan clearly goes in the direction of limiting the incredible tax advantages enjoyed by the super-rich.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Nov 2, 2014

As is dangerous to use all kinds of lies and tricks in order to grab resources and trap countries in the debt trap ,on behalf of your employees the big capital.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Nov 2, 2014

seriously now?How about stopping the german habit of bribing politicians everywhere in order to secure contracts for the german industries(weapons basically)?Is this good governance example?..spare me the lies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Zammit-Lucia Nov 2, 2014

Is it just me or are we all getting a little fed up of German hypocritical preaching? Germany has been relatively successful in the last 10-20 years in large part due to "beggar thy neighbour" mercantilist policies. They continue this showing utter disregard for the human catastrophes going on in their Eurozone "partner" countries. Schäuble of course understands perfectly well that for many small and resource poor countries, tax competition is one of their few possible sources of economic viability. But that's not in Germany's self interest. Therefore by definition it must be wrong or unfair.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
steve from virginia Nov 2, 2014

Leona Helmsley famously remarked, "only the little people pay taxes", nothing has changed since 1989.

Schäuble takes aim at the little guy while the tycoons and non-national corps have a free reign to move money wherever they please.

What will the little-peoples' tax money be spent on? Bailing out bankers and paying unelected officials' bloated salaries. Funding pointless wars that enrich contractors and manufacturers, more funding to support the parasitic auto industry and its massive dependencies.

Memo to 'tax reformers': get your house in order first then look for citizens to pay. Otherwise the best and most certain reform is revolution where tycoons and their allies swing from lampposts.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tomas Kurian Nov 1, 2014

What is needed is fully digital financial system, which will enable to directly tax capital through negative retail interest rates.

How it really works:
http://www.genomofcapitalism.com/index.php/prologue

Periodic taxation of accumulated capital
http://www.genomofcapitalism.com/index.php/16-periodic-taxation-of-accumulated-capital-2
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Timothy Williamson Nov 1, 2014

Schaeuble is right. The OECD initiative will reduce the number of tax cheats who try to hide their profits in non-reporting banks. The need for strong and uniform international standards concerning tax competition is also needed....

If you want to more fully understand the origin, evolution, and trajectory of global connectivity in all things, then take 15 minutes to watch my recent Youtube video on this subject.

If you seriously want to understand the origin, evolution, and trajectory of gbloal connectivity, then watch my recent 15 minute video on the topic....

http://youtu.be/Uvx95aayfVg
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
F. W. Croft Oct 31, 2014

"Fair international tax competition" is the LAST thing that a government wants if it's trying to create prosperity for its people. Ideally, a government should be acting to create economic advantage fir its citizens: i.e., it wants the competition to be unfair and tilted in its favor. National citizens don't benefit from international parity (though statist governments might...) Citizens benefit from having a more efficient and frictionless economic policy than their competitors, allowing them to be entrepreneurial, create personal net worth and build a strong national economic base.. I'm unclear why Minister Schauble thinks global taxation would benefit anyone other than bureaucrats.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
LA Grant Oct 31, 2014

Wolfie, two comments: this is what Euro-bureau-weenies see as a solution. You run out of your own countries wealth, so you go after other's. Good luck with that.

Second, in the US of A, we have this 2nd Amendment thing. So, you can have my money the same day you get my guns. Come on over.
- Kai Kaufmann Nov 1, 2014
  
  Mr Grant, don't forget that the Wolf tells Jules and Vincent what to do.
  Mr Croft, the argument reflects the one of Mr Piketty that capital instead of labor has mostly been profiting in recent decades with Mitt Romney and companies such as Apple having to pay extremely low tax rates.
  
  Mr Schäuble, you describe an interesting concept for the medium term, that would replace the Cold War mentality of certain commentators in this forum, exemplified by the prisoner's dilemma and rational egoism, instead calling for a solution to the collective action problem that we need more of in the 21st century, also for pressing problems in the environmental area and for a different kind of growth (assuming that more of the same is not going to happen). I have actually worked out the technical solution and offer two prizes at http://goo.gl/XfPkAF .
  
  In my view, the main shortcoming (leading to other commentators maybe not getting your point) is that you did not bring across the technological dimension, the growing sophistication of algorithms, the transparency of any and all data that lie at the root of the coming change. For readers of German, I recommend http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/43/43177/1.html . For anyone, I recommend Jeremy Rifkin's books on a similar topic.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ECO VIEW Oct 31, 2014

They should be focusing on how to establish unambiguous 'workable rules' and harmonised tax rates first across the EU, OECD and the G20 rather than limit themselves to automatic exchange of information that will only lead to harassment of the private sector across boundaries. Most of the rules or definitions for permanent establishment, transfer pricing, etc. currently fall in grey areas and subject to wild interpretations. Here is an idea to pursue: can they agree on a simple taxation methodology with simple tax rate common across borders, pool the taxes collected from such multinationals operating in their jurisdictions and share them in a mutually agreed manner? Why are they not removing the distortions left open for companies to arbitrage and then complain?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andis Harasani Oct 31, 2014

The author is right in principle but by making Taxation global for small businesses and allowing Coca Cola and similar huge companies benefit from different systems through sofisticated accounting will not do good to the global economy. And before we go to global taxation lets start with global accounting
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Harm Hoekstra Oct 31, 2014

No, no, no. Governments must run on tight budgets, just as companies. Making a global taxation cartel, as per Mr Schlaube, removes the last remaining incentive for goverments to be frugal with taxpayers money. Countries should compete on law taxes. Otherwise we end up with 90% tax rates... we'll be all France soon...

I do support, however, that companies should nog be taxed on profit, because this is easy manipulated. The tax bases for corporate taxes for companies should be shifted towards ebitda / revenue.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marvin Scott Oct 30, 2014

Good luck!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco Totino Oct 30, 2014

That means ...

What Europe and Foreign countries should do ...
by Francesco Totino
Among EU countries should be accepted some common and few rules ..to share also with US and other world countries

To overcame single countries and worldwide crisis we need to move all together sinergically .

"Fiscal compact" agreement in Europe has been a good first step .... now we need

1 ) a Global " Fiscal Compact,

2) a global Balanced Budged in any other world countries constitution

3)to abolish all worldwide Tax Havens ..

Fixed this worldwide FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC target any single countries should simultaneusly start to reform deeply his domestic not only FINANCIAL but also POLITICAL AND PUBLIC Structure, a structure that has gained in the last years more and more importance in the success of all the economic policy actions. In particular a factor that affects economic development and that is common to both Politics and Pubblic sector is the corruption phenomena linked to political patronage,. Corruption has blocked the efficiency of the social system at any level in some EU countries like Italy, Spain , Portugal, Greece and also in other countries

From these point of view EU and US and other worldwide countries should fix immediately some social standard measures index to be applied by the singles EU, US other country members that are particularly affected from inefficiency in political and public sector system.
Most of the time Financial results in single countries come out only if some political and pubblic reforms have been done . To implement this "Public" reorganization process ( from information, education , management and control) is strategic that "European Digital Agenda" has been realized as soon as possible .

4) a much more active role of international institutions like IMF , UN and so on in managing international financial and economic rules .

Francesco Totino
founder at "new politics and economics thinking"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/109329849194325/
twitter https://twitter.com/TrueNewsWorld

Posted 20th March 2013 by Francesco Totino
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco Totino Oct 30, 2014

Mr Shauble this is what i wrote about it and i sent to our isntitutional reperesentative : If we want to have a long term balanced social development we need take the following actions
http://economicsandpolicy.blogspot.it/2012/06/economic-growth-strategy-for-g20.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco Totino Oct 30, 2014

i completely agree on this ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 30, 2014

I would change it just one little bit to say "Taxation of multinational corporations and the mega rich should go global". Leave Joe Blogs and the Mom and Pop shop alone please.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Oct 30, 2014

Outsourcing the tax responsabilities to Banks looks like a very bad idea.

Around 50% of our income goes to the government, and they can't even set up an efficient system to collect taxes, even that they have to outsource.

Countries need to set up tighter controle on capital movements, but outsourcing this control is just opening a new pandora box.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/r75ga7Mcs

Cookies and Privacy

Proč se zdaňování musí stát globálním

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Proč se zdaňování musí stát globálním

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification