Race to the bottom (i.e. competition) is a good thing, it reduces waste and inefficiency.
In the real world you need taxes to operate a country and with big business being able to relocate their capital and their profits at a moments notice corporations have a substantial advantage over nation states (which are by definition somewhat immobile).
So the 'inefficiency' that you seek to eliminate is the oil required to keep the machine running. Note that a company couldn't care less if your country roads fall into disrepair, healthcare sucks and education starts to fall behind. It won't show up in the quarterly reports for a long time and by the time it does they can easily move on to another place.
Having a very low corporate tax is only possible if your country does not require major infrastructure and that's one of the reasons why most tax havens are either nearly un-inhabitable (Cyprus, Panama) or extremely small (Monaco, Lichtenstein, Vaduz, Luxemburg).
Ireland is the exception and it only succeeded there for reasons that the UK will find hard to emulate.
Infrastructure spending represents an incredibly low percentage of government spending in most countries, see e.g https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... and http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_pie_chart.
>Note that a company couldn't care less if your country roads fall into disrepair, healthcare sucks and education starts to fall behind.
East Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong maintain achieve better healthcare and education outcomes than most western countries in spite of lower government spending. While they may have less welfare spending and greater economic inequality, this certainly isn't an impediment to productivity.
Why is it bad when businesses find that conditions for them constantly get better everywhere? Is there something inherently evil or bad about businesses? This is usually a position hardcore Socalists would take.
> In the real world you need taxes to operate a country and with big business being able to relocate their capital and their profits at a moments notice corporations have a substantial advantage over nation states (which are by definition somewhat immobile).
No corporation can move its operations and profits within a moments notice. This takes usually years and the absolute majority of businesses do not even have the option to ever do this.
The problem of most Western societies is that the top 10% basically pay for 75%+ of everything, the middle class pays an acceptable amount and then theres 30% of free loaders with 29,9% being the ones at the bottom and 0,1% on the top.
If those conditions are getting better at the expense of the local populace, then it most certainly can be bad.
How do the freeloaders pay taxes like the rich if they can't afford life circumstances that allow them to get educations similar to the rich?
Healthy countries need taxes to boost their populace up to an optimal level of health and education. Maximize the people that could potentially become high-value.
If you don't have a mechanism of business owners and private enterprise that are determined by the vote of the population (via spending money privately on products) then you'll need a state controlled market and I doubt you would like the results. (Venezuela, North Korea, Soviet Union)
Just imagine some government committee is deciding on what the national variant of the new iPhone should look like.