1) Companies would not pay most of their taxes where they put the greatest strain in public infrastructure.

2) Moderate differences in VAT rates would create enormous price differnces, which would invite smuggling.

3) The incentive for rich people to move to low tax destinations would be even greater than it already is.

I won't deny that the solution has upsides as well though.

The issue is that when Google shows ads to someone in the UK to monetize a search service used by the UK person, Google uses almost no UK resources.

It appears to me that the only thing that has changed is that the US has left everyone else in the dust, which causes envy.

Why is that an argument against moving from corporation tax to VAT though? I don't think it would change much in terms of the UK's (in)ability to tax Google.

I don't know why people keep harping on this, it simply isn't true at all. If it were, all the rich people would be living in Somalia right now, and they aren't, they're living in high-tax, high-CoL areas.

Very few rich people live in a way that allows them to live anywhere on the planet. Most "rich" people in the US are still working, and have to live someplace that allows them to continue to work. Some millionaire running a business in Silicon Valley can't just relocate to rural Alabama and expect to continue that.

Nebraska isn't exactly third-world either.

Although I'd also like everyone to stop using the term "income tax" for this. It's a tax on corporate profits, and has nothing at all to do with personal income tax, a tax on wages.

and the issue isn’t evasion. it’s avoidance. which allowance for is intentional by governments for good and bad reasons.