Paul Bramscher wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> I can agree in principle, but then we need to look at the penned-in
> nature of the rent/borrow/labor economy. Since consumers freely
> outsource (that is, they regularly buy foreign-made goods), and
> manufacturers may freely outsource labor (that is, hire what would be
> "illegals" at home), then there's an unaddressed asymmetry afoot.
>
> Namely, workers need to enjoy the same free-roaming rights that the
> fictitious individuals (corporations) do. If I want to move to Canada
> tomorrow, but still work in Minnesota (we're a border state), why not?
> If I want to claim an Australian address, while living in Ireland, why
> not? Corporations apparently enjoy this sort of thing...
A company I worked for had an office in Germany, it wasn't manned, it was
just a place to effectively put our flag and claim that we had a German
subsiduary and could trade from Germany. The company was effectively sent
to the headmaster because it was selling in Germany but making all of it's
money in the UK. It seemed reasonable to me that Germany wanted a bit of
income from those who use it as a base, can take advantage of Germany asa
location or maybe take advantage of some legal area or whatever, but not
putting anything back into the country.
The same could be said of workers, working in one country, increasing that
countries output and paying it's taxes, while living in another. It would
be reasonable for the country you are living in to say 'You do not add to
this countries output therefore you should pay more than your neighbours
for services.
|
|
