There are rules for RoW and there are rules for the USA. Astonishing that the G7 falls in this trap again and again (for example Basel III). The US was a major driver in pillar 2 but won‘t adhere to it. Probably companies will restructure their organization to have two streams and exploit it. Despite GILTI, some US companies have low ETRs.
A country recognizes that the rate of company creation has gone done (or some similar metric). They identify the tax rate as a reason for this. They want the tax rate to be lower to ameliorate this. They leave the agreement.
Now presumably there are penalties or such in place for this type of agreement, so it would need to be weighed as onerous enough to accept any such penalties. If it is just one country that feels this way then it might be a non-starter, but if the global minimum tax gets to a point where many countries feel this way, it would probably be viable to coordinate to leave the agreement all at once, with the remainers having little power at that point.
Citation needed, corporate taxes have been going down for decades.
> companies or people to leave.
"We can't ever tax anyone because else they would just leave; ergo nothing can or should be done about rampant inequality" is not only false, it is extremely dangerous and accelerates the fall of our democracies.
> and the main pressure against that is for companies or people to leave.
Has there been any serious research in this area that supports that conclusion. My impression, which is completely uninformed I admit, is that we often talk about companies leaving due to high tax burdens, but that it rarely happens. It's a politically signal, more than a factual systemic driver.
Sure, a bunch of companies have relocated to tax havens, but we're not going to solve that by regressing to a 2% universal tax rate.
Oh please, as far as USA goes, taxes went down especially for companies and rich. And the country is in the process of creating new massive deficit just by a massive tax cut.
We're working on building our own military to a point we won't need them anymore. This is all temporary appeasement, but they'll pay the price eventually.
America is rapidly squandering its soft power in a foolish pursuit of short-term gains.
To pull this shit in times of a rapidly rising China and a remilitarizing EU is to accelerate the shift to multipolarism and giving up global superpower status.
Agreed. The challenge for all of us in the EU is to collectively wake up to this new reality, and do something to fill the void where we are concerned. IMO, that void is much larger than we are ready to admit.
A remilitarizing EU is no threat to the US due it's ageing demographics and declining birthrates, and lack of tech like the B2 bomber which is 35+ years old at this point. Hence why the EU doesn't get invited to peace negotiations of conflicts. EU can't even beat Russia next door, how would they challenge the US?
> With just 13 days until the Trump-imposed deadline to conclude a EU-U.S. deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen decided the time for conventional negotiating tactics was over.
> She floated the idea that the EU’s 27 countries could join forces with 12 members of the Asian-led Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc (CPTPP) — which now includes the U.K. — to form a new world trade initiative.
> The new grouping would redesign a rules-based global trading order, reforming or perhaps even replacing the now largely defunct World Trade Organization, she said.
> Crucially, the U.S. would not automatically be invited.
In EU-focused online forums, I have recently seen MAGA referred to as "Make America Go Away."
I chuckled at first, but as a beneficiary of Pax Americana, this is a really sad state of affairs. However, I am really pro-EU, and I hope that we are up to the task coming forth.
I think this is completely reasonable, services should use the same customs / duties mechanism on "import" as any other goods. The income tax should be also paid the same way. And if the product is created in multiple countries (licenses, Software Components etc), they are part of the whole product and tarifs for parts of goods should similarly apply.
32 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 55.2 ms ] threadIt seems like the choice is to allow the U.S to upend some fundamental aspects of international cooperation or to pay dues to the Don.
It turns out you can get some pretty big concessions if you're willing to give up your integrity in exchange.
For example you can check Amazon effective tax rate here
https://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatiosy.php?...
...or "Jeff Bezos did not get rich by paying taxes"
Now presumably there are penalties or such in place for this type of agreement, so it would need to be weighed as onerous enough to accept any such penalties. If it is just one country that feels this way then it might be a non-starter, but if the global minimum tax gets to a point where many countries feel this way, it would probably be viable to coordinate to leave the agreement all at once, with the remainers having little power at that point.
Citation needed, corporate taxes have been going down for decades.
> companies or people to leave.
"We can't ever tax anyone because else they would just leave; ergo nothing can or should be done about rampant inequality" is not only false, it is extremely dangerous and accelerates the fall of our democracies.
Has there been any serious research in this area that supports that conclusion. My impression, which is completely uninformed I admit, is that we often talk about companies leaving due to high tax burdens, but that it rarely happens. It's a politically signal, more than a factual systemic driver.
Sure, a bunch of companies have relocated to tax havens, but we're not going to solve that by regressing to a 2% universal tax rate.
To pull this shit in times of a rapidly rising China and a remilitarizing EU is to accelerate the shift to multipolarism and giving up global superpower status.
A remilitarizing EU is no threat to the US due it's ageing demographics and declining birthrates, and lack of tech like the B2 bomber which is 35+ years old at this point. Hence why the EU doesn't get invited to peace negotiations of conflicts. EU can't even beat Russia next door, how would they challenge the US?
> With just 13 days until the Trump-imposed deadline to conclude a EU-U.S. deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen decided the time for conventional negotiating tactics was over.
> She floated the idea that the EU’s 27 countries could join forces with 12 members of the Asian-led Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc (CPTPP) — which now includes the U.K. — to form a new world trade initiative.
> The new grouping would redesign a rules-based global trading order, reforming or perhaps even replacing the now largely defunct World Trade Organization, she said.
> Crucially, the U.S. would not automatically be invited.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leaders-donald-trump-us-t...
The US is locking itself out of world trade with their behavior. The price to pay for actions like these will far outweigh any benefits.
I chuckled at first, but as a beneficiary of Pax Americana, this is a really sad state of affairs. However, I am really pro-EU, and I hope that we are up to the task coming forth.