> If enough large corporations do the math and find that moving to an off-shore platform is a positive value proposition when compared to continuing to pay taxes
I think we can be reasonably confident that somebody in these large corporations has done that math. What this argument misses is that the comparison isn't seasteading vs US taxes, it's seasteading vs existing tax havens like Bermuda and the Channel Islands and Caymans. Those probably get you 90% of the way there on avoiding US and EU taxation, and would seem to be good enough that corps haven't had the need for seasteading or they'd already be doing it.
Yes, that's a good point. The advantage of seasteads is you can control the geography.
Another advantage is that you don't have a large native citizen population that you have to deal with. For example, on Bermuda the big reinsurers have to comply with local laws around hiring citizens (really how many genius level actuaries can an island nation produce - answer not many, you're going to have to bring in outside talent).
Yet another advantage is that it provides you choice. This is the biggest advantage of all. Even if all the current tax havens change their laws, groups of entrepreneurs can always create another one.
You're confusing incorporating with operating. Corporations are incorporated out of places like Bermuda, but they operate on the "mainlands" (US, Europe, Asia, India, etc.) Their physical presence in the country they incorporate in is usually limited to somewhere between a mailbox and a couple of hundred square feet of unoccupied office space. Their operating costs are the same as if they were incorporated in the country they actually operate in. The only thing they are avoiding is the taxes that would otherwise go to pay for the infrastructures they are operating on. The geography is of no concern to them and the risk of the large native citizen population doing anything to them is nearly indistinguishable from nil. The risk lies almost entirely in the political vicissitudes of the country they operate in that allows an essentially foreign company to operate within it's borders. A seastead does nothing to mitigate that risk. It just adds a whole bunch of extra operating costs to build and maintain a mailbox on the seastead.
Comments
> If enough large corporations do the math and find that moving to an off-shore platform is a positive value proposition when compared to continuing to pay taxes
I think we can be reasonably confident that somebody in these large corporations has done that math. What this argument misses is that the comparison isn't seasteading vs US taxes, it's seasteading vs existing tax havens like Bermuda and the Channel Islands and Caymans. Those probably get you 90% of the way there on avoiding US and EU taxation, and would seem to be good enough that corps haven't had the need for seasteading or they'd already be doing it.
Yes, that's a good point. The advantage of seasteads is you can control the geography.
Another advantage is that you don't have a large native citizen population that you have to deal with. For example, on Bermuda the big reinsurers have to comply with local laws around hiring citizens (really how many genius level actuaries can an island nation produce - answer not many, you're going to have to bring in outside talent).
Yet another advantage is that it provides you choice. This is the biggest advantage of all. Even if all the current tax havens change their laws, groups of entrepreneurs can always create another one.
You're confusing incorporating with operating. Corporations are incorporated out of places like Bermuda, but they operate on the "mainlands" (US, Europe, Asia, India, etc.) Their physical presence in the country they incorporate in is usually limited to somewhere between a mailbox and a couple of hundred square feet of unoccupied office space. Their operating costs are the same as if they were incorporated in the country they actually operate in. The only thing they are avoiding is the taxes that would otherwise go to pay for the infrastructures they are operating on. The geography is of no concern to them and the risk of the large native citizen population doing anything to them is nearly indistinguishable from nil. The risk lies almost entirely in the political vicissitudes of the country they operate in that allows an essentially foreign company to operate within it's borders. A seastead does nothing to mitigate that risk. It just adds a whole bunch of extra operating costs to build and maintain a mailbox on the seastead.