>No, you need to compete with the labour rates which isn't the same thing.
could you point to me 1 government in north america who has lowered minimum wage? That's how you would compete with labour rates.
>Interestingly total tax take vs GDP isn't much different between China (20%) and US(24%)[1].
I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here. Tax to GDP while also looking at the entire country. The free trade zones are certainly not 20%. Mainland is around 20% for sure. In fact some of the zones are lower than hong kong on purpose. Which according to that source is 13% but that seems high.
>It's somewhat easier to compare two similarly sized countries in Europe. The UK and Germany for instance. Germany has a total tax take of about 45%, the UK is at 35%. Yet German exports are much higher than the UK[2].
I believe we're missing the forest through the trees though. so many missing factors, for example Germany also has very low debt but they also benefit greatly from the Balkan countries. Germany sits well because Crotia and neighbours are the ones heavily in debt.
>Globalisation means taxes will shift away from corporations and towards consumption, dividends and land value which are much harder to avoid.
they may shift but the balance is what matters. What's more important is what's about to happen. The governments of the world are increasingly bankrupt. No politician will consider dynamically changing the fundamentals of how taxes are collected. If land value taxes come about, it will be a new tax that is in addition. they will be raising taxes. The exact opposite of what they need to be doing.