Re: Wait and see
Err... You want to tax _outgoings_ rather than profits?
What I'm saying is that for almost all countries, the current tax system for businesses was designed in a time when all businesses were local, and some exported or imported overseas.
Today most countries are being exploited by multinationals, that take advantage of legal fictions and loopholes to avoid paying what they should in the countries that they operate in. Starbucks. Google. Amazon. Apple. it really doesn't matter who, BigCorp is a good enough name.
The key is that they and their subsidiaries really are the same company, in spite of the legal fiction that they aren't. In that there is one overall management team that controls pricing and what is happening at every subsidiary, and has shareholders that it reports to. The subsidiaries usually only have one shareholder - the parent company.
And as someone else pointed out, if you or I tried this, we'd be held liable for every scrap of tax owed, but BigCorp gets away with it, because they have the money to buy the right politicians. Financial transfers to related entities attract tax. So do royalty payments. But the "Licence Fees" are allocated as expenses, so can be used to offset profits.
So what I say is the "licencing fees" that BigCorp(AU) pays to BigCorp should be taxed at the same rate that profits or royalty payments should have been - because they really are.
Take the rate Starbucks pays for beans, or Amazon pays Luxembourg for the use of the name in the UK. They are fake costs done for accountancy purposes and everyone knows it.
Being able to make an iThing for x and sell it for 500x is fine. Its when the company "sells" it internally to a subsidiary for 500x-1 that things go wrong. If BigCorp really is two separate companies, then the supplier should be able to sell your iThing at 200x wholesale to a competitor. If they aren't willing to compete, then the two entities are related, and should be taxed accordingly.