Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

130 Nations Agree To Support US Proposal for Global Minimum Tax on Corporations (cnbc.com) 223

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced Thursday that a group of 130 nations has agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations. From a report: If widely enacted, the GMT would effectively end the practice of global corporations seeking out low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland and the British Virgin Islands to move their headquarters to, even though their customers, operations and executives are located elsewhere. "For decades, the United States has participated in a self-defeating international tax competition, lowering our corporate tax rates only to watch other nations lower theirs in response. The result was a global race to the bottom: Who could lower their corporate rate further and faster? No nation has won this race," said Yellen in a statement on the accord. "Today's agreement by 130 countries representing more than 90 percent of global GDP is a clear sign: the race to the bottom is one step closer to coming to an end," said Yellen. "In its place, America will enter a competition that we can win; one judged on the skill of our workers and the strength of our infrastructure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

130 Nations Agree To Support US Proposal for Global Minimum Tax on Corporations More

130 Nations Agree To Support US Proposal for Global Minimum Tax on Corporations

Comments Filter:

  • Participation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:19PM (#61540580)

    There are 195 sovereign nations in the world, so those last 65 holdouts are going to see a lot of companies moving in to them.

    • Re:Participation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:29PM (#61540618)

      so those last 65 holdouts are going to see a lot of companies moving in to them.

      We should probably Adopt either Non-Recognition of corporations from those countries. E.G. Make it so by law they cannot be recognized as entity which business can be conducted with, And anyone making payments to them must deposit taxes on that money as if it was income (30% Backup witholding).

      Or else,.. impose a tariff on US revenue for payments made to any companies located in countries that do not adhere to the minimum. Seems like it should be simple enough --- Make a global tariff and exempt signaturies to the agreement as part of the treaty.

      • The problem with your proposed repression and control is that it pushes even more economic activity away.

        If it is illegal to import components or use business services from a banned company, then an obvious solution is to shift the business using those services abroad as well. You could add even more repression/control to detect and punish that, but that could push yet more businesses away.

        Income is notoriously difficult to measure and easy to hide. Rather than your proposal to treat revenue as income, a

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          If it is illegal to import components or use business services from a banned company, then an obvious solution is to shift the business using those services abroad

          Not illegal to Import components. I am saying the revenue as in PAYMENTS for those components would Not be allowed to be deducted and would be taxed as if it is 100% income. Moving more of the supply chain overseas would not avoid that tax --- The entire payment made by the customer would still be attributed as income to whichever US-based

          • You would be isolating America from the rest of the world.

            For instance, not all members of the EU are signing up for GMT. Ireland is not one of the 130, nor is Luxembourg. Goods and services trade freely within the EU. So anything an American company buys from Europe would be taxed as if it was income.

            That is insane and would completely shut down American imports from Europe. The EU would then retaliate and shut down all exports as well.

            • Re:Participation (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @03:11PM (#61541308)

              >That is insane and would completely shut down American imports from Europe.

              Unless it were actually part of the GMT. Then it would shut down GMT-nation imports from non-GMT nations - with the probable effect that non-GMT nations would sign on very rapidly to regain access to those markets.

              Still, a less disruptive scheme would be a simple across-the-board tariff equal to (or greater than) the GMT applied to all imports (including licenses, etc) from non-GMT nations.

              Or, a bit more customized approach could be adopted resembling the VAT: non-GMT imports get the tarriff *unless* the seller includes legal documentation proving that a corporate tax >= the GMT was already paid.

      • Any such regulatory regime could be abused for political reasons. US tends to abuse financial powers it has for political reasons rather than the economic ones they were granted for.

      • We should probably Adopt either Non-Recognition of corporations from those countries.

        No doubt that is the next step. And yet we get upset when Facebook/Apple/Google/Microsoft do the same thing to their competitors.

      • so those last 65 holdouts are going to see a lot of companies moving in to them.

        Don't worry, they're dictatorships and corrupt government officials will make it very expensive to operate from there.

        • Don't worry, they're dictatorships and corrupt government officials will make it very expensive to operate from there.

          Many of the 65 are well-run first-world democracies. Ireland and Luxembourg have not signed up for the GMT and have no reason to do so. The Cayman Islands and Bermuda are also democratic common law jurisdictions.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            Ireland and Luxembourg have not signed up for the GMT and have no reason to do so.

            They will have every reason to do so if a number similar to the Income Tax is required to be withheld at say 30% of the value of all Exports to those countries including the transfer of Goods, Services, Money, and the transfer of any form of Property, including Intangible property, and this requirement is imposed on all Vendors, etc.

      • So everyone with money moves to those countries and stops dealing with the high tax world.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          So everyone with money moves to those countries and stops dealing with the high tax world.

          If they do it, then the Rich stuck in those countries will not be able to affordably buy products or services from anybody. Because those countries are likely small and Not major producers of goods that Rich people would want.

          Are you really that rich if you just have money But no way to spend any of that money without paying taxes in order to do so?

          Because Nobody in the Other countries will be allowed to provide t

      • I would guess a lot of those remaining countries are ones business don't want to do business with.

        Nigeria, for example, has a booming economy in its region, but most large multinationals NOT in the oil/gas industry will not operate in Nigeria directly. Currency fluctuation, corruption, and an inability of potential customers to pay their bills in a stable currency like USD or Euros kept my former employer out of there for years. Our products made it into Nigeria, but only through intermediary companies i

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      Not necessarily.

      The top 10 largest economies:

      United States (GDP: 20.49 trillion)
      China (GDP: 13.4 trillion)
      Japan: (GDP: 4.97 trillion)
      Germany: (GDP: 4.00 trillion)
      United Kingdom: (GDP: 2.83 trillion)
      France: (GDP: 2.78 trillion)
      India: (GDP: 2.72 trillion)
      Italy: (GDP: 2.07 trillion)

      • Re:Participation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @01:15PM (#61540790)

        Income taxes do not occur where a company is physically located but rather where they are legally domiciled.

        Thousands of companies are domiciled in file cabinets in the Cayman Islands yet have no actual operations nor a single employee there.

        • Income taxes do not occur where a company is physically located but rather where they are legally domiciled.

          IANAL but that's not my understanding. I thought companies generally paid income tax based on net revenue generated in a country.

          Where the games begin is defining where the sale happens and what costs are associated. Companies try very hard to move costs to high-tax countries (thus reducing their profit in that country). They might do something like have TwitFace Ireland "sell" services to TwitFace France, thus making TFF have no profit (and owe no taxes). Naturally, there are all sorts of shenanigans becau

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luthair ( 847766 )
            They often sell patents and other IP to their offshore subsidiaries which then charge the rest of the locales for using them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      Sure are. So, wonder if Hong Kong's in that list. Or South Ossetia. Or Abkhazia, or the SADR. North Korea, probably.

      Enjoy moving your company to any of them.

      • Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, ... probably not the places to move your pharmaceutical or agricultural production facilities.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ghoul ( 157158 )
          Syria actually has a very advanced Pharma industry. They make most of their own medicines. US is trying to destroy it using sanctions and claiming the chemicals used for medicines are actually for chemical weapons.

        • Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, ... probably not the places to move your pharmaceutical or agricultural production facilities.

          There is no requirement to locate your production facilities where you register your profits and plenty of good reasons to keep them separated.

        • Are you sure? Less regulation and lower taxes cover building a lot of your own infrastructure.

    • I think big Corp are already there.

    • No, companies will stick to the list of tax havens which are conveniently, perpetually ignored, that is the ones which are under US or British control, such as Delaware, Nevada, and the Channel islands. Historically the BVI and Cayman Islands have also been left conveniently untouched, it will be interesting to see if anything happens to them this time.

      I'm familiar with how this works from a job in related industry I used to work in. The big OECD powers say nobody is allowed to host low-tax jurisdictions (*

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        No, companies will stick to the list of tax havens which are conveniently, perpetually ignored, that is the ones which are under US or British control, such as Delaware, Nevada

        I hate to get in the middle of a good rant, but you do understand that being incorporated in a US state does not somehow exempt you from US federal taxation?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mad7777 ( 946676 )
      What's Janet Yellen about this time? Oh... the evils of competition:
      This "international tax competition" isn't something governmets like very much, it seems. Apparently, "competition" only applies to free enterprises, not monopolistic international cartels.
      Next on the agenda: Imposing a global tax regime on physical persons, too. Oh wait... that already exists, at least for US citizen-prisoners.
      https://www.quora.com/My-mothe... [quora.com]

    • There are 195 sovereign nations in the world, so those last 65 holdouts are going to see a lot of companies moving in to them.

      Nah, we'll just bomb them until they decide to uphold their part of the social contract.

    • The real issue here are businesses making money in one country but doing tax and accounting games to funnel their money out of country with lowest taxes possible.

      If you make money in a country, then you should pay the same taxes as every other businesses in the country.

    • so those last 65 holdouts are going to see a lot of companies moving in to them.

      The agreement allows countries to tax a company's global profits based on the share of global revenue raised from that country. This will likely apply to all companies operating in the 130 countries who signed up regardless of where their home is. The only choice this leaves the 65 hold outs is to either abandon having their companies operate in the rest of the world or allow them to get taxed that way based on operations in those countries and as they only represent 10% of the world's GDP threatening to s

  • It's all good, until ... (Score:3)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:19PM (#61540582)
    The countries not in the 130 are rubbing their palms together: "Come to papa!"

  • Rest assured that some countries will create creative ways to "convince" corporations to come.

  • I completely get the desired outcome here .... but trying to get all the nations of the world to participate in applying a "global minimum tax" seems unworkable. (Obviously, some countries will see no reason to make any effort to do this. And in fact, it stands to benefit them to refuse if everyone else is on-board with it, since that means they'll get all those corporate HQs located there.)

    Can't this be addressed more effectively by simply changing the U.S. tax law?

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:31PM (#61540622) Journal
    What are we trying to accomplish with corporate taxes? Wouldn't we be better served increasing taxes on individuals that own the corporations? (e.g. higher dividend and capital gains tax)

    The way I see it, the downside to corporate taxes are:
    -It's a tax on the average person's 401k.
    -It's less money corporations have to invest in people and capital. Which means fewer jobs.

    I'm not trolling here. I want to hear a good economic argument besides, "corporations are evil."
    • Benefits are provided to corporations in the country where their products are used/purchased (think of highways). Taxing the employees in Ireland for the services used in the US seems inappropriate. The best way to handle this is to tax the corporations on their revenue in the country where they generate that revenue. If you think that corporations are using their tax shelters to increase the amount they have to invest in people and capital, then you certainly are trolling here.

      • Benefits are provided to corporations in the country where their products are used/purchased (think of highways). Taxing the employees in Ireland for the services used in the US seems inappropriate. The best way to handle this is to tax the corporations on their revenue in the country where they generate that revenue.

        I'm a little confused by this statement. Companies incorporate in locations far from where they do business all of the time. I don't see how corporate taxes will fix this. If you want to make sure taxes are realized close to where products are used or purchased, a sales tax is much more appropriate.

        If you think that corporations are using their tax shelters to increase the amount they have to invest in people and capital, then you certainly are trolling here.

        If they don't invest in people or capital, and they are flush with cash, there will be a push by the shareholders to get that cash. [cnn.com] That's when the taxes should be captured.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ghoul ( 157158 )
          We should abolish all sales and income taxes as they are regressive (the poor end up paying most of the taxes) and replace with a wealth tax. A global agreement on a minimum wealth tax would be something worth celebrating.

          • We should abolish all sales and income taxes as they are regressive (the poor end up paying most of the taxes)

            I don't know about sales tax. Rich people buy a lot of stuff.

            This is untrue for US income tax. Absolute dollars and proportion of income paid in income taxes goes steadily up from zero to enormous as you go up the income scale. See https://www.kiplinger.com/arti... [kiplinger.com] for just one example documenting it.

            Payroll tax is more complicated but is generally considered to be somewhat regressive.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      Nope.

      These days, billionaires don't "own" the money, they control it, as a way of avoiding taxes.

      Btw, in 1972, about 25% of the US federal revenue stream came from corporate taxes, and about 16.67% from individual income taxes. Now, in the days of trillion-dollar companies, it's 44+% from individual income taxes, and just over 10% from corporate taxes.

      So, enjoy higher taxes on *you*?

      • These days, billionaires don't "own" the money, they control it, as a way of avoiding taxes.

        Please explain this concept in further detail.

        • Let me google that for you

          https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

          You can start with: "Buy, borrow, die: How America's ultrawealthy stay that way"

          In short, they simply "borrow" against their immense wealth, since borrwing isn't income, and then never pay it back.

          • In short, they simply "borrow" against their immense wealth, since borrwing isn't income, and then never pay it back.

            I am very familiar with the ProPublica article. [propublica.org] However, I'm skeptical of the "never pay it back" part. They conveniently gloss over the details about how this part works. However, I'm not aware of any type of loan where the principle isn't repaid at some point. If this is true, that's the real shocker. Somebody is giving away money!

            I suspect there is a loophole in the estate tax that's being exploited. That should certainly be closed in any situation. However, ProPublica did a terrible job report

        • They use their wealth as collateral for large loans with highly favorable terms, and since it is a loan, it isn't income, and thus not taxable. And if anything, the interest (whatever it is) is tax deductible, and then you can do fun accounting games potentially.
      • Most corporate taxes become a passthrough to the consumer. Past tax hikes are easily connected to price changes for the consumer. That isn't very efficient in terms of economics and collection. Most taxes are difficult to collect and involve too much coercion and privacy violation, especially static wealth taxes. The better way to tax, if indeed you must tax, is to use sales taxes exclusively and eliminate all other taxation. Rich people can play all the games they want with accounting, tax shelters, and h

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by amorsen ( 7485 ) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:53PM (#61540718)

      Capital gains are generally only taxed when the gain is realized, i.e. when the stock or bond is sold. Very rich people do not generally need to sell stocks or bonds, for two main reasons. The first reason is that their income is way higher than they have any use for. The second reason is that they can borrow against the stocks or bonds at very low interest rates, enabling them to enjoy an entirely debt-financed lifestyle without having to pay any tax. Often the interest paid can even count as a capital loss, offsetting some gains that the rich person may choose to realize.

      This does not work if the individual rich person does their stock trading themselves, since most huge portfolios need to have at least some trading to get the best return, and trading means realizing gains. Easily subverted by creating a company to do the trading.

      In almost every country you only have to pay tax if you are resident there or earn most of your income in that country. Without corporate taxation, it would be easy to live in Monaco while owning Volkswagen and avoid all taxation. The US is the only outlier here that I know of, every US citizen is taxed by the US, no matter where they live.

      If you do away with corporate taxation, you will have to either do away capital gains taxes at the same time (since taxing the gains of poor people but not those of rich people is deeply unfair), or you have to tax unrealized capital gains. Which is complicated and unpopular.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @01:04PM (#61540758) Journal

        Capital gains are generally only taxed when the gain is realized, i.e. when the stock or bond is sold. Very rich people do not generally need to sell stocks or bonds, for two main reasons. The first reason is that their income is way higher than they have any use for. The second reason is that they can borrow against the stocks or bonds at very low interest rates, enabling them to enjoy an entirely debt-financed lifestyle without having to pay any tax. Often the interest paid can even count as a capital loss, offsetting some gains that the rich person may choose to realize.

        Sounds like you read thisProPublica article. [propublica.org] However, that article raised more questions for me than answers. The debt looms forever? It HAS to be paid at some point. That's when the taxes get paid.

        The only thing I got from that article is there needs to be reforms to the estate tax so the cost basis doesn't get reset by the next generation.

        This does not work if the individual rich person does their stock trading themselves, since most huge portfolios need to have at least some trading to get the best return, and trading means realizing gains. Easily subverted by creating a company to do the trading.

        This is the best reason for a corporate tax IMHO. Perhaps it would be more elegant if corporations only paid tax from capital gains and distributions realized through trading stock in other companies.

        In almost every country you only have to pay tax if you are resident there or earn most of your income in that country. Without corporate taxation, it would be easy to live in Monaco while owning Volkswagen and avoid all taxation. The US is the only outlier here that I know of, every US citizen is taxed by the US, no matter where they live.

        This makes no sense to me. If you live in Monaco, you should pay tax to Monaco when you receive dividends or realize capital gains on your investment in Volkswagen.

        If you do away with corporate taxation, you will have to either do away capital gains taxes at the same time (since taxing the gains of poor people but not those of rich people is deeply unfair), or you have to tax unrealized capital gains. Which is complicated and unpopular.

        This is BS. You treat dividends and capital gains as regular income, and use a graduated income tax.

        • However, that article raised more questions for me than answers. The debt looms forever? It HAS to be paid at some point. That's when the taxes get paid.

          It looms until they die. Then because of the way death taxes and debt work, no taxes are required to be paid.

          This is why Jeff Bezos gets a $4000 eic tax credit from the government.

          Don't expect to get this tax benefit yourself, you are a little person. You will fall under the AMT when your stocks vest.

          • It looms until they die. Then because of the way death taxes and debt work, no taxes are required to be paid.

            That's the problem. The estate tax is broken! Everyone is so worried about corporate taxes, they are ignoring the real problem.

            • That's the problem. The estate tax is broken! Everyone is so worried about corporate taxes, they are ignoring the real problem.

              You can thank people like Warren Buffet for that incredible misdirection.

          • It looms until they die. Then because of the way death taxes and debt work, no taxes are required to be paid.

            You sure about that? I'm not a tax accountant but I'm married to one and have done some estate planning. My understanding is when you transfer an asset through probate, that counts as income to the recipient so there are tax consequences. To be fair, there ought to be a corresponding step up in the basis. Think of it as if the estate sold the asset, gave you the cash, and you bought the asset back. The cash is taxed as income.

            We carve out all sorts of exceptions here. For example, this only happens after th

            • There was a story on it a few years back [slashdot.org]. Zuckerberg also uses a GRAT to avoid those taxes fwiw.

            • Think of it as if the estate sold the asset, gave you the cash, and you bought the asset back. The cash is taxed as income.

              This is how it should work. However, I suspect there were political concerns over family farms being handed down over generations. Offspring would have to take out loans to keep the farm in the family.

              However, if an individual wins a new car on a game show, the cash value would be counted as income. [nerdwallet.com] I don't see why inheritance should be treated differently.

            • Think of it as if the estate sold the asset, gave you the cash, and you bought the asset back. The cash is taxed as income.

              Alternatively, I propose setting the tax basis to zero upon transfer to the heir. The heir doesn't have to sell the investment immediately, but when it is sold, the entire amount is taxable. They are not allowed to subtract the value of the initial investment, because it was inherited, and not earned.

        • "You treat dividends and capital gains as regular income, and use a graduated income tax."

          Two problems. If there is a corporate income tax, dividends are paid out of after tax income, and therefore you would tax them again at the personal level. Dividends should either be deducted from the corporate tax bill, and taxable only to the recipient, or not taxed at all to the recipient, since the corporation has already paid the taxes.

          As for capital gains, I would agree with treating them as regular income, but

          • Two problems. If there is a corporate income tax, dividends are paid out of after tax income, and therefore you would tax them again at the personal level.

            You are only reinforcing my point that corporate taxes should be lower, or eliminated altogether.

            As for capital gains, I would agree with treating them as regular income, but only if the basis is adjusted for inflation.

            In the US, minimum wage isn't adjusted for inflation. Why should capital gains be treated differently?

        • Update:

          Real world example of the inflation indexing effect on capital gains.

          I bought $10,000 of a mutual fund in 1995, and sold those shares in 2018. Adjusted for inflation, I needed $16,477 to get my original purchasing power back. Only then do I actually have a profit. So taxing me on that $6,477 of paper profit would not be polite, because it's not really a profit. Taxing me on the gain above that is fair.

          Whether there is any economic benefit to a slight lower CG tax rate in terms of encouraging investme

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          The debt looms forever? It HAS to be paid at some point. That's when the taxes get paid.

          There are plenty of ways to avoid taxes upon death. But even if you don't, society only gets the tax on however much the rich person consumed, which is a very small percentage of what the person made. Larry Ellison will not manage to spend even 1% of his lifetime income.

          This makes no sense to me. If you live in Monaco, you should pay tax to Monaco when you receive dividends or realize capital gains on your investment in Volkswagen.

          You are arguing that the corporation tax should be abolished. If you do that, and the owner of Volkswagen lives in Monaco, Germany misses out on the capital gains tax for all of Volkswagen. This does not sound like an attractive deal for Ger

          • There are plenty of ways to avoid taxes upon death. But even if you don't, society only gets the tax on however much the rich person consumed, which is a very small percentage of what the person made. Larry Ellison will not manage to spend even 1% of his lifetime income.

            This sounds like a good argument for estate tax reform, not corporate tax.

            You are arguing that the corporation tax should be abolished. If you do that, and the owner of Volkswagen lives in Monaco, Germany misses out on the capital gains tax for all of Volkswagen. This does not sound like an attractive deal for Germany.

            This is a good argument. The way it was explained before was unclear.

            The rich do not have a significant amount of realized capital gains. There is nothing to tax, unless you tax unrealized gains.

            This is why I think the estate tax should be reformed. The capital gains should be realized upon death.

    • -It's less money corporations have to invest in people and capital. Which means fewer jobs.

      Corporations have a shit ton of money already... many with more money than they know what to do with it, so they use it for stock buybacks instead of using it for hiring more workers, pay increases, or investing it back into the company.

      U.S. corporate buybacks are on the rise, lifting investor hopes [reuters.com]

      Stock Repurchases Are Increasing After A 2020 Slowdown – Here’s Why Experts Say Buybacks Will Accelerate In 2021 [forbes.com]

      Get ready for stock buybacks to roar back [marketwatch.com]

      .

      We got a good look at what corporations

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Its a question of paying for services. Corporations are not a natural entity. They exist because of charters granted by govt. These charters give many benefits to the corporations like no personal liability for the owners for crimes committed by the corporation or debts defaulted on by the corporation. So corporations benefit a lot from govts so it is fair they pay their share. Most individuals dont get as much benefit from a govt so asking individuals to pay the costs of govt instead of corporations would

    • What are we trying to accomplish with corporate taxes? Wouldn't we be better served increasing taxes on individuals that own the corporations? (e.g. higher dividend and capital gains tax)

      You're not alone. There are a number of economists who point out that taxing corporations obfuscates what actual humans bear the burden of the tax. Politicians think this is a feature. I think it's a bug. As you say, it would be much more transparent if all taxes were paid by individuals.

      That being said, it might be cheaper to collect taxes on corporations. I just heard this about carbon taxes. It's expensive to tax every car owner for every mile they drive. It's much cheaper to have refineries write the ch

      • Higher corporate taxes and low/no personal income tax? Interesting move. It's so completely different from what we currently have, I don't know what to think. My initial concern is that it might be regressive.

    • Well corporations are people according to the supreme court...

      • Well corporations are people according to the supreme court...

        I can't argue with that. Have them use the same tax rules as individuals and see how long that lasts...

  • The Result? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kaatochacha ( 651922 )
    HI! We're a nation formerly known as a tax haven. As we have to charge a global minimum tax, thank you for your $1,000,000 tax payment. Ironically, here is your $1,000,000 dollar "doing business in our country is fun" payment. Thanks!

  • the oligarchs won (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:37PM (#61540650)
    It's official, the oligarchs have won. How did the US afford the jobs program and projects that got us out of the great depression? Taxing the rich. The top tax rate on rich individuals and corporations was 91%. Even during the Carter administration it was still 70%. Since Reagan (who dropped the top tax rate, but when revenue crashed, raised taxes on the middle and lower classses 11 times in 8 years),the rich have essentially purchased a complete tax boycott. Resulting the greatest wealth disparity since the Louis of France (it didn’t end to well for them either). Meanwhile roads crumble, schools quality falls, social programs are gutted but the rich march on. Lemmings
    • Ah, I guess you read Thomas Picketty's book too?

  • . . . or. . .you could just cut spending to stay within current revenue. . .

    Yeah, I know, that's crazy talk. . . .

  • Bureaucrats Hate Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rapierian ( 608068 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:48PM (#61540692)
    The whole justification for a global minimum tax to avoid the "race to the bottom" is just bureaucrats demonstrating that they hate having to compete in trying to be actually competent.
    • This is where slashdot is obviously infested with trolls. This is just the n'th in a list of zany non-sequitur replies that sound smart but are actually stupid. Do you guys have a focus group that comes up with these things?
    • This is actually extremely insightful. These countries are acting as a cartel. [wikipedia.org] In any of these countries this type of behavior would be considered illegal price fixing. [wikipedia.org]
  • ...about US infrastructure being competitive with other countries'... erm... we may have some bad news for you...
  • wars? subsidies to petroleum or friends of presidents? cramming stupid ideas in kids heads? helping violent nations?

    • Mostly to fund medicare and social security.

    • I'd expect more from an older account.

      Roads, bridges, power grids, forest management, wildfire management, flood management, basic health services for citizens, subsidies for basic science, nationalizing/creating partnerships in critical industries like microprocessors/pandemic response equipment etc.

      And yes, education. What's the alternative, not education? What are you on about?

  • "In the simplest form of collusion, overt collusion, firms openly agree on price, output, and other decisions aimed at achieving monopoly profits. Firms that coordinate their activities through overt collusion and by forming collusive coordinating mechanisms make up a cartel. Firms form a cartel to gain monopoly power."

    • Countries also have armies, police and prisons, also things that are illegal for companies to have. So... You've noticed that companies and countries aren't the same despite sharing the first two letters.

  • US Skilled workers ??? (Score:3)

    by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Thursday July 01, 2021 @04:31PM (#61541630)
    US Skilled workers come from other countries. Hell you only need to look at US rankings for pretty much every metric there is (apart from Prison population, military spending) and the US doe NOT perform well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close