Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses

US Forges Ahead on $1 Billion Tariff Plan Over Digital Taxes (bloomberg.com) 95

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The U.S. is pressing ahead with plans to hit six nations that tax Internet-based companies with retaliatory tariffs that could total almost $1 billion annually. From a report: Goods entering the U.S. -- ranging from Austrian grand pianos and British merry-go-rounds to Turkish Kilim rugs and Italian anchovies -- could face tariffs of as much as 25% annually, documents published by the U.S. Trade Representative show. The duties are in response to countries that are imposing taxes on technology firms that operate internationally such as Amazon.com and Facebook. In each of the six cases, the USTR proposes to impose tariffs that would roughly total the amount of tax revenue each country is expected to get from the U.S. companies. The cumulative annual value of the duties comes to $880 million, according to Bloomberg News calculations. There have been efforts to replace each individual country's digital taxes with one global standard -- to be brokered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- but a deal has yet to be reached. The U.S. says it's committed to the OECD process, but will maintain its options, including tariffs, in the meantime, USTR Katherine Tai said in a statement on March 26.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Forges Ahead on $1 Billion Tariff Plan Over Digital Taxes More

US Forges Ahead on $1 Billion Tariff Plan Over Digital Taxes

Comments Filter:

  • Recent History (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cygnusvis ( 6168614 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @12:21PM (#61238846)
    We had another president in very recent history who imposed tariffs and was demonized for it. I wonder if Biden will be as well.

    • Re:Recent History (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @12:39PM (#61238942) Homepage Journal

      These retaliatory tariffs are a different animal. They're tit-for-tat, scaled to exactly the quantity foreign countries are exacting from US companies. Tit-for-tat is a simple game strategy with some refinement is optimal for many scenarios where players can gain both from cooperation and non-cooperation (e.g. iterated prisoner's dilemma).

      That other president had more of a zero-sum mentality and adopted tariffs as a way to force the other side to make concessions. This works best when you're more capable of enduring short term pain than the other side. For example if you're a rich guy "see you in court" works when you're dealing with another party that can't afford to take you to court.

      • So currently china hugely subsidizes some domestic industries. This has the effect of making those products too cheap both compared to us competitors and for exports. (For example, the Chinese oems receive mammoth subsidies).

        What should be done there?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Well, ask yourself: could China even stop subsidizing its domestic industries if it wanted to? You have to focus one what's achievable. Even Trump's "Phase 1" trade deal left Chinese subsidies off the table.

          What Trump achieved was some empty promises of buying more American goods which nobody thinks China will stick to, and a few worthwhile incremental changes to the status quo that could have been achieved with a less disruptive (to America) carrot-and-stick negotiation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Probably best not to kick up too much of a fuss over that, or everyone will start looking at your subsidies.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Strider- ( 39683 )

        Look, if those companies are going to do business in those countries, they should be taxed as such. They should not be able to evade taxes by setting up their HQ in another country.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ScwB ( 1879202 )
          This is the key point being missed here. The U.S. isn't doing a tit-for-tat implementation, it's trying to bully other countries out of tax revenues that they rightly deserve. The U.S. implemented the GILTY tax to stop companies from offshoring profits. Other countries are essentially doing the same thing by taxing companies in their own country, rather than letting them move profits elsewhere. The U.S. is definitely offside with this move.
          • You're both missing the point. The taxes are not being levied solely based on what happens in those countries, they're based on worldwide revenue. So a company which makes under the threshold just inside the country doesn't pay the extra tax, but a company which makes the same amount inside the country plus enough outside it to cross the threshold does.

            • Re: Recent History (Score:4, Interesting)

              by IcyWolfy ( 514669 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @04:27PM (#61239918) Homepage

              The hard part about taxing international entities, is that they have the ability to generate $0 revenue in a country.
              The online sales generate revenue for MyJungle Singapore Online HQ, incorporated and operated in Singapore.
              To avoid local laws, there is a fully owned subsidiary: MyJungle France Online. They fulfull orders from French customers by buying products from MyJungle Singapore Online at a loss. (e.g. Buy a fulmillment request to HQ for $1 per item)

              100% of sales go to France.
              0% of revenue is generated in France.
              100% operating loss generated in France (Oh look, no income tax : )
              Customers pay sales tax on items delivered to a customer.

              What could France tax, to gather their fair share of income tax?
              Loopholes exist because of the ability for an online entity to play loose with variances in laws between countries. Taxing global revenue neuters the ability to shuffle books between entities to create a financial appearance which bypasses taxes in a specific county.

              • So tax the revenue in France, rather than trying to tax profit. They can't move the revenues. But, of course, to play fair you must tax the revenues of your own local companies who are in the same business, and that's what France does not want to do. They way to find a way to tax the foreign companies more than any domestic competitor without saying so. By basing the tax on global activity they exploit the fact that the foreign companies are much bigger to neatly exempt their domestic companies. You can be
                • That is difficult todo, I mean yes a government could easily do this, but it squeezes low margin companies much more then high margin companies. Designing it so that it is fair is very very difficult.

                  Imagine a 10% gross revenue tax, when your margin is 2%. You either have to jack your prices through the roof or go out of business.

                  Income taxes used to work, because the taxed amount is based purely on the gain. Governments need to start having a much dimmer view of profit transferring schemes.

                  Perhap

                  • Yes, I understand perfectly the difference between high and low-margin companies, and the difference between taxing revenue and profit. Taxing grocery stores on their revenue would put them out of business, but they're only applying this tax to companies in online advertising businesses, which have high margins. Taxes can and do differentiate by sector.

        • The base UK Corporation tax rate is 20%, but foreign companies get double taxation relief if they pay tax in their home country. They are actually paying only 2% in the UK which means they are paying the US government 18% tax on their UK profits. So who is playing who here?

      • This is a tit-for-tat tariff by its very nature lol? Also the Biden administration just announced like last week that they weren't lifting tariffs on China so I guess they agree with tariffs now.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          They are not tit-for-tat *by nature*, they are tit-for-tat by the method used to calculate their size.

          • You take 1B from me, I take 1B from you sounds very tit-for-tat regardless of how you want to characterize it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hey! ( 33014 )

              You take 1B from me, I take 1B from you sounds very tit-for-tat regardless of how you want to characterize it.

              I characterized it as "tit for tat".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Tariffs hurt you more than the other side, in many cases.

        Taxes applied fairly are a much better tool, but of course the protest here is over fair taxation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No they're not tit-for-tat, they're just tit.

        We've been getting told by Americans for years that if we don't like American tax companies committing the largest tax avoidance (and sometimes evasion) in history by orders of magnitude then we should just change our laws.

        So we change our laws and guess what? America says we're not actually allow.

        It doesn't matter if it's Trump or Biden, this is America enforcing widespread tax avoidance by it's abusive multi-nationals globally. I notice Elizabeth Warren has sud

      • This is NOT tit for tat, it is as bad or worse than Trumps moronic Tariffs. The EU is trying to crack down on large companies that avoid tax through tax havens, profit transfers and dodgy licensing deals. This is something that needs to be stopped world wide yet Biden is not just allowing the practice but actively defending it because US companies tend to be some of the worst offenders.

      • They're tit-for-tat, scaled to exactly the quantity foreign countries are exacting from US companies.

        A tariff on a country is not a tit-for-tat response to a tax that applies to all companies regardless of country of original equally.

        I would normally say it's childish but it's not really, rather its institutional to the lobby culture in the USA where large corporations decide what the government does. I mean it's not like the USA is left out of pocket if an American company happens to actually pay tax somewhere lese.

      • They're not really tit-for-tat, they're the US government acting as the enforcement arm of a select few US mega-corporations' tax avoidance schemes.

    • Re:Recent History (Score:4, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @12:42PM (#61238958)

      In a statement, Tai announced that her office would proceed with steps to impose potential tariffs, including filing public notices and collecting public comments as part of investigations launched originally by the Trump administration into the taxes aimed largely at American internet companies and e-commerce platforms.

      Yeah all Biden...

    • Why should he? President Biden is only acting after others did something. He has not unilaterally enabled sanctions because he thinks he can score points with the uneducated masses.

      Nor has he shelled out tens of billions of dollars to prop up the very people he said would be helped by the sanctions, but instead were pummeled by the sanctions, all the while claiming money is pouring in from sanctions (money that the U.S. consumer paid).

      But thanks for playing.

    • I'm consistent in the belief that retaliatory tariffs are economically irresponsible and unmaintainable long term. The are a very destabilizing bargaining chip and historically have lead to escalating tensions between nations. While it's unlikely the US and EU could come to blows, they are quite capable of giving each other a bloody nose over something as stupid as protecting Facebook's bottom line.

      Free trade is the only path towards world peace.

      • I agree. Especially when facebook doesn't actually benefit anyone

      • Free trade is the only path towards world peace.

        This is why there will never be WW3, because we will all go bankrupt.

        • Profit is more persuasive than any ideology. You'd have to be a nation of fanatics to take a massive cut to your standard of living in order to further your cause. At the very least, your average Westerner isn't willing to do that. Where the problem lies is for those who already have nothing, people with nothing to lose make for the most persistent fanatics.
          And the US needs to overhaul their foreign policy to quit making enemies of poor nations. We don't need any more religious terrorists in the world. We'r

        • The U.S. and Germany were bankrupt, prior to WWII.

          If there's no WWIII, it'll be for other reasons.

          • Monetary policy is different now and so-called bankruptcy is less of a factor. Economic collapse and severe depression is very different from a government simply running out of money. And far more likely result of a trade war.

      • Okay. But what about when other nations are not playing by your rules and are imposing taxes specifically to attack US companies; like the EU is doing? Bend the knee and throw our domestic industries to the wolves?

        Don't get me wrong here... the local offices and google.fr and facebook.es sites should absolutely follow the local laws and pay taxes on in-country profit of and to France and Spain respectively. But they should be told to fuck off about what I can see on google.com or facebook.jp and should b

        • But what about when other nations are not playing by your rules and are imposing taxes specifically to attack US companies; like the EU is doing?

          Well, the EU and US are playing by the same rules and always have. So that doesn't apply here. Philosophically both believe in some taxes on revenue for corporation, even multinational corporations that operate in multiple borders. It's a disagreement on he details, but the fundamental structure of two deeply Western nations is unsurprisingly similar.

          Bend the knee and throw our domestic industries to the wolves?

          If that industry remained domestic then the EU wouldn't be able to tax it. It's clearly not a domestic industry. So the real question is: Should the US demand

        • except of course they are NOT imposing taxes to attack US companies. They are imposing Taxes on companies that use digital transactions and profit shifting as a way to avoid paying tax locally. The US has been blocking tax reform on this for years now hence why countries are starting to say FUCK YOU AMERICA. It isn't specifically targeted at American companies, just American companies are the biggest abusers of these loopholes.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
        Why? Because both are white? WASP closeness?
    • and I'm not opposed to Tariffs as a useful tool.

      What made Trump's tariffs useless was they were targeted at manufacturing. Tariffs only work when you have something to protect, but we already let all the manufacturing Trump's tariffs were targeting move to China. There was nothing left to protect.

      This meant Trump's tariffs had all the downsides (higher prices) and no upsides.

      Why did he do them? Showmanship. It made him look like he was doing something without actually doing anything of consequen

    • We had another president in very recent history who imposed tariffs and was demonized for it.

      He was demonized for using them to start an ill-planned trade war with China that severely hurt among others, farmers. This is not starting a trade war with any nation.

      You might as well claim hypocrisy when people hire a handyman just because they complained when your toddler started breaking things with a hammer. It's not the tool, it's how you use it.

    • Of course not. The administration and the media will see this as fair play and white-wash it because there are sticky fingers in government who are going to be the ones getting all the money while the consumer gets BOHICA'ed.

    • A hallmark of cognitive dissonance is when you point out any inconsistency (or facts that contradict the opinion), they change the goalposts.

      One way this comes out is by slicing the topic by a subtle difference. Point out that they were against tariffs before, and they respond with "this time it's different, because...". Then never *ever* point out the subtle differences in their first argument.

      So brace yourselves for a long slew of "the difference is..." posts that explain how people are being completely c

      • Other than a sense of smugness, what's the point of calling out the inconsistency? Yeah, Biden is still using a few pages from Trump's shit-stained playbook, but he's not posting inane 2AM tweets, appointing judges who are going to make life worse for LGBT+ Americans, and there's a number of other issues where he's demonstrably not Trump.

        Most of us who voted for "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden didn't do so under the delusion that the entire previous administration's legacy would be flushed down t

      • You're being intellectually dishonest when you lump all complaints about a particular set of tariffs as the people being "against tariffs."

        For example, I support lots of tariffs on Chinese products where I think they're using unfair business practices, but only if the tariffs are communicated clearly, and will remain in place until the problem is solved. The Trump tariffs were of unknown amounts, which could change or be removed at any time, whose purpose was actually just to try to get some BS "deal" that

    • We had another president in very recent history who imposed tariffs and was demonized for it. I wonder if Biden will be as well.

      In those countries where the USA wants to impose tariffs, they did not do it for no reason, but to recover costs. The USA corps like Google,Facebook, Amazon, etc, and many others are responsible for most of their traffic. That is, most of their internet traffic is not domestic, to the benefit of domestic businesses and immediate locales. The USA does not see from those countries, the equivalent amount of foreign traffic.

      We had another president in very recent history who imposed tariffs and was demonized for it. I wonder if Biden will be as well.

      In those countries where the USA wants to impose tariffs, they did not do it for no re

  • By giving every country retaliatory rights that hurt.

  • I'm no expert, but I'd think that the tariffs were imposed per transaction and not on an annual basis...
  • Polecam serwis napraway telefonów: www.phonetube.pl

  • In a fair world, it seems to me that these countries have the right to tax services in their countries. Of course, in this scenario, they did choose to use American companies.

    Ironically, most of the countries that have started to tax these companies have laws that would never have made these platforms possible. The kind of free wheeling discussions that go on where the companies themselves have zero liability can't happen in most of Europe and the EU. The laws are fairly strict when it comes to these

    • Re:Get your own FANNG! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:06PM (#61239074)
      It isn't quite as simple as that, though, is it?

      Take Amazon as one example... The OP mentions Britain and Turkey, so for our example, lets suppose that there is a British company that is a direct competitor to Amazon - an on-line retailer that sells a wide range of products.

      At the end of each tax year, the British company pays the British government the corporation tax that it is due, based on the profits after deductions that it is supposed to pay. Amazon also makes profits, but the "UK operation" then pays some Luxembourg sham entity - an entity that exists solely for tax purposes - a "licensing fee" to use the Amazon name in the UK. Each year, the cost of that license conveniently matches the pre-tax profits made by Amazon UK and thus Amazon in the UK pays no tax.

      So what is really happening here is that the big US corporations likely to be hit hardest by these tax requirements are lobbying the Biden government to play hard-ball with countries that are being short-changed by a vast amount of tax revenue. I'm sure Amazon shareholders think this is just wonderful... but ultimately this is going to harm US interests. This is stupid, narrow-minded thinking from the administration.

      • This is stupid, narrow-minded thinking from the administration.

        What makes you think the administration is thinking about the USA? They are being told what to think by lobbyists. I mean that's the only logical explanation for why the USA thinks it has any right to "retaliate" against another country for applying a tax on all corporations regardless of country of origin.

        Maybe the USA should look to these other countries as an example of how to actually build infrastructure from public coffers, because god knows tax breaks to the wealthy aren't keeping the roads and bridg

      • But this, of course, is the fundamental problem with corporate income tax. "Corporate income" is a completely artificial concept, created solely for the purposes of taxation. It's not surprising then that companies can easily find ways to make their "corporate income" in any given country exactly zero. Amazon UK still collects sales taxes from UK residents on behalf of the UK government and Amazon employees working in the UK still pay income tax, so Amazon generates lots of tax revenue for the UK governm

      • At the end of each tax year, the British company pays the British government the corporation tax that it is due, based on the profits after deductions that it is supposed to pay. Amazon also makes profits, but the "UK operation" then pays some Luxembourg sham entity - an entity that exists solely for tax purposes - a "licensing fee" to use the Amazon name in the UK. Each year, the cost of that license conveniently matches the pre-tax profits made by Amazon UK and thus Amazon in the UK pays no tax.

        This isn't really unusual though. In fact its exactly the reason that so many US companies incorporate in Delware [wikipedia.org]. The same think happens in many other countries as well. It's espcially true in shipping where there are lot of flags of convenience. [wikipedia.org]

        This isn't a tax problem, it's an EU problem. The EU established a free trade zone between it's members, and with other near-by countries. And that works fine for companies inside the EU, German companies pay German taxes, and French companies pay French taxes, et

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
        Change your taxation laws. Kick your overlords in the gonads. But I have this feeling that Brits are too cowardly to rise up like Oliver Cromwell. ;-)

    • Ironically, most of the countries that have started to tax these companies have laws that would never have made these platforms possible.

      Which laws do you have in mind?

      As far as I know, the companies involved are operating in accordance with EU and UK law. If they weren't they'd have been shut down by now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ytene ( 4376651 )
        Very slight correction...

        When Amazon operate in the EU, they are using International Tax Law, which is effectively honored and implemented by the EU nations, as a mechanism to avoid paying corporation tax in the EU.

        What that means in real terms is that Amazon in the EU have an additional margin that they can use to undercut competitors. Because Amazon aren’t having to pay 20% corporation tax in the EU, they can use that balance that they are not paying to offset their profit margins, allowing th

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
          Atlantists and Eurotrash are shouting because they do not want to give up their high stanard of living which is unsustainable now that they do not have colonies to exploit. They don't have much to sell either. What do they do? They cry like little babies they are.

    • Re:Get your own FANNG! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hackingbear ( 988354 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:32PM (#61239208)

      Of course, in this scenario, they did choose to use American companies.

      In the other scenarios, the American government would ban [washingtonpost.com] or threaten to ban [protocol.com] foreign internet / hi-tech companies if they start to out-compete the American competitors, under the disguise of national security.

    • In a fair world, it seems to me that these countries have the right to tax services in their countries.

      Minor quibble: governments do NOT have Rights. They have Powers.

      That said, the EU countries can, assuming their own laws allow, levy any taxes they wish on anyone they wish.

      Likewise, the USA can do the same....

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Of course, in this scenario, they did choose to use American companies.

      No they didn't, they chose any tech company that is engaging in widespread tax avoidance.

      The fact that American companies seem to be the only ones choosing to fall foul of these laws is on them, not the countries implementing them - any company doing the same from any country in the world would also fall foul such as Sony and Nintendo, but they don't, because they're not piss takers like American companies are.

      > Ironically, most

    • Of course, in this scenario, they did choose to use American companies.

      No they didn't. Not a single tax proposed so far discriminates based on the country of origin. The fact that the USA happens to have the largest companies and are now butthurt about paying the largest share of tax kind of goes to show how utterly retarded the tax-breaks for the wealthy in the USA has gotten.

  • New Tax Consensus (Score:5, Informative)

    by Archie Gremlin ( 814342 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:39PM (#61239236)

    Taxes such as the UK Digital Services Tax are a reaction to the fact that the current tax consensus isn't working any more. At the moment we have an agreement that companies can pay their corporation tax in any country as long as they pay it _somewhere_. The problem is that companies are increasingly finding ways to avoid paying any corporation tax at all. This isn't too much of a problem as long as they pay a reasonable amount of labour and sales taxes. Unfortunately, online advertising etc don't attract any these taxes in the EU or UK.

    These taxes are an attempt to redress the balance. Note that they're pretty focused. The Digital Sales Tax only applies to that part of a companies turnover which doesn't attract sales tax and which is derived from local sales. It doesn't affect small companies and it doesn't apply to companies that pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax.

    I really hope the US doesn't make a big deal of this. There is a widespread feeling in Europe that Amazon etc are not paying their fair share of tax. The problem isn't going to go away. I hope we can settle on a new consensus where there's less incentive to export profit without paying tax in the country where the sale took place.

    • Re:New Tax Consensus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @02:09PM (#61239376)

      Taxes such as the UK Digital Services Tax are a reaction to the fact that the current tax consensus isn't working any more. At the moment we have an agreement that companies can pay their corporation tax in any country as long as they pay it _somewhere_. The problem is that companies are increasingly finding ways to avoid paying any corporation tax at all. This isn't too much of a problem as long as they pay a reasonable amount of labour and sales taxes. Unfortunately, online advertising etc don't attract any these taxes in the EU or UK.

      These taxes are an attempt to redress the balance. Note that they're pretty focused. The Digital Sales Tax only applies to that part of a companies turnover which doesn't attract sales tax and which is derived from local sales. It doesn't affect small companies and it doesn't apply to companies that pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax.

      I really hope the US doesn't make a big deal of this. There is a widespread feeling in Europe that Amazon etc are not paying their fair share of tax. The problem isn't going to go away. I hope we can settle on a new consensus where there's less incentive to export profit without paying tax in the country where the sale took place.

      Most of these corporations pay no effective taxes. Biden is actually pursuing the Trumpian idea of punishing other countries for wanting to change that because apparently only the US is entitled to the benefits of taxing foreign corporations. Problem is that imposing tariffs is a game that more countries than just the US can play and tariff wars tend to be a loose-loose proposition for everybody. It would be more constructive to come up with some sort of EU/US trade agreement that includes a comprehensive taxation agreement that would put an end to creative accounting^W^W tax evasion and that would limit the political and trade ambitions of China ... but hey, let's start yet another asinine trade & tariff war instead!!!

      • Not only that. Tariffs are not taxes imposed on the seller, they are taxes imposed on the buyer. So, effectively, this sounds like "you are taxing our companies so to retaliate we will be taxing our importers". I don't see how this can really work as retaliation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by trmj ( 579410 )

          The end result is that it raised the price of foreign goods beyond the point at which people buy it without second thought.

          The intent of tariffs is to promote the purchase of domestic product by making foreign product more expensive. This is sometimes necessary to prevent a foreign government dumping product so cheap that the domestic companies shut down, then the foreign governments stop subsidizing the product because there's no longer competition.

          Tariffs are a defensive tactic to protect domestic industr

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
        You live in Europe, I guess. I would be unhappy if my easy money (dole) is threatened as well. I don't live in Europe, so no problem there.

  • Is this not the Biden that decried tariffs? As in because Trump was in favour of them, they were the last thing in this universe the Democrats would use.

  • Why does America think it corporations should be able to operate tax free in other countries? No other type of company is exempt from paying taxes in other countries.

  • For the love of god, stop this shit. (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday April 05, 2021 @04:42PM (#61239992) Journal
    It is far better to put a sales tax, say 10%, on anything that crosses a border. Have the delivery company collect the 10% and keep 1% (i.e. 10% of the 10%), give 5-8% to the state, and then feds keep 1 to 4%.
    As to the European nations going after the digital sales, the above sales tax will accomplish the same thing. Issue solved.

    • That is against EU VAT tax law.
      You are supposed to pay VAT only once at the rate of the country the purchase was made.

  • Well that's quite surreal.

    I am British and I had no idea that our little country is famed for its merry go rounds or "mrygrends" as we've called them since the 13th century. Henry III used to ride one into battle or something. The endless circling of what he called his destrier caused the opposing army to piss themselves with laughter, making them an easy pushover.

    I'm off to polish my monocle and spank something.

  • The really amusing part is the US claiming they are working with the OECD on digital tax treaty. Or in other words they are ACTIVELY blocking the OECD from implementing a digital tax which is why countries are started to go their own way. The US has been preventing the OECD from moving forward in this area for several years now.

  • Funny, how Biden too, continues many of Trump's nutty schemes.

    As I was saying before: Biden's main job is to make those people swallow the schemes of the corporate oligarchy that did not accept it from Trump, so the livestock is prepared for the next step in Reagan -> ... -> W. Bush (actually Cheney and his pet monkey) -> Trump -> ...

    The denial that I'll be getting now, is exactly why that game works, and what keeps it working.

  • Water is wet, Earth is flat, and corporations don't pay taxes. Ooops... scratch the second one.

    Corporations can and do hire an army of accountants, lawyers, and if necessary lobbyists to make sure they will pay the least amount of tax possible. They can do many tricks that are almost impossible for single individuals, or even small business companies.

    So the way I look at it is it is a waste of taxpayer time and money to go after individual companies. Adding more rules will only enable them to discover new t

  • After all the criticism of Donald Trump, the Democrats are adopting some of his strategies. They will probably claim tariffs were their idea first, but we all know better.
  • I can do without anchovies. ;-) :-P

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close