14 ms·

U.S. Backs 15% Global Minimum Tax to Curb Profit Shifting Overseas

• rationalData 5y ago
  What's stopping someone from buying an island, calling it "definitely not a tax shelter", and allowing companies to store their wealth there? I'm not a Republican or Democrat, but Democrats need to modernize their economics.
• gotoeleven 5y ago
  Does humanity really want an authority powerful enough to claim dominion over the entire planet?
  • belatw 5y ago
    Isn’t that why more than 50% of the globe blindly worship an abrahamic god?
    • colecut 5y ago
      So hip, so edgy
      • belatw 5y ago
        Sure, whatever. The fact is that all abrahamists follow some version of a silly book in which some sky daddy told a man in a desert that they are the choosen people and that by following that specific man, they have the right to dominion over the earth. These philosophies also all lay out rules for how and when they may tax, kill and enslave those of the other religion. So yes, at least 50% of the earth’s population are OK with one group dominating the tax laws of the planet, as long as it is their group.
        • colecut 5y ago
          Truly stunning interpretation
  • nerdponx 5y ago
    We already have the UN, INTERPOL, and the ICC. Also, this isn't a single authority, this is one authority asking other authorities to all agree on something.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • karmasimida 5y ago
    If that authority is to prevent several thousands rich folks to exploit the rest several billions ... maybe it could be given a try? The current system isn't working anyway
  • yowlingcat 5y ago
    > Does humanity really want an authority powerful enough to claim dominion over the entire planet? I believe the word you're looking for there is /did/ not /does/. And the answer is for some, yes, for some, no, but regardless -- it happened for a variety of structural reasons (British Empire, Mongol Empire, etc). Perhaps a more interesting question is whether such a dominion will work for the future. And for that, I'm not so sure. What's to say that we won't see some kind of three body system between India, China and the West? Not to mention what could happen as South America and Africa continue to ascend. I think the logistics of collecting a 15% global tax will be "interesting" to watch play out.
  • nostromo 5y ago
    This isn't a great article. It's more about the politics than the actual proposal. Bloomberg has a better write up: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-08/plans-for-a-bigger-pie-of-global-taxes-sliced-fairly-quicktake https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-08/plans-for... To answer your question, this wouldn't create a new organization to collect a global tax. Instead it would give the IRS the authority to tax American companies (say, Google) an additional amount on their overseas earnings. So, if they paid 13% in Irish tax, but the American tax rate is %21, the IRS could charge them the gap (an additional 8%). This would be true in all countries that sign the agreement. Obviously tax havens would still exist, but they'd be harder for big multinationals (like American tech giants) to abuse.
    • hellow0rldz 5y ago
      Last I checked the US tax code does this already. If the US tax rate is higher you pay the difference!
      • maneesh 5y ago
        I believe that's on personal income tax, not on global corporations.
      • coliveira 5y ago
        For individuals, not for corporations. Corps can keep their profits oversees, which operates like a 401k that you never need to withdraw from.
        • Aerroon 5y ago
          But aren't corporations in another country corporations of that country? They follow all the laws and rules of that country, not US ones. When a European has dealings with Google they aren't dealing with Google Inc, they're dealing with Google Ireland Ltd.
    • coliveira 5y ago
      I think the point is that to do this, tax agencies around the world would have to cooperate with American tax agencies, which just creates another level of overseeing that has never happened before. It is another instance of Americans trying to force their wishes on the rest of the world.
  • disposekinetics 5y ago
    The problem is government overreach and the proposed solution is more overreach.
  • CPLNTN 5y ago
    My two cent is that it’s just inevitable (and personally welcomed). Throughout the history, from tribes to today we have merged in bigger and bigger entities. And pretending that we can live without a global authority, when supply chains are global, food market are global, most of what happens in politics has global effect is total nonsense IMO. We pretend we live in separate societies with entirely different rules when we are already operating like a single, global organism.
• prepend 5y ago
  It’s interesting to see a multinational standard to set a “standard” for taxation. Seems odd to start with corporate income taxes as it seems pretty efficient to not tax corporations and encourage more distribution to individuals and tax there. I remember in my microeconomics101 course how taxes on corporate profit are easy to squish around with tax deductible benefits that reduce profit (eg, country club dues are an expense, corporate jets are an expense, 5000 square foot offices are an expense). Since it’s hard to police these expenses, it’s more efficient to just push all profits to salary and dividends to individuals and tax there since there are so many fewer individual exemptions.
  • trdtaylor1 5y ago
    There's no other way then to establish AMT for corporations. Otherwise countries will apply deductions around this 15% global minimum anyway.
    • prepend 5y ago
      I tried to call out the other way is to push the income to individuals so corporate profits are always near zero. So to apply energy on taxing individuals rather than corps. For corps income is so fluid, I think we get more revenue with tariffs, usage taxes, property tax, VAT, sales, etc. Profit isn’t as important to corporations as it is to individuals.
      • dannyw 5y ago
        Wealthy individuals will just keep all their wealth in a company and accumulate forever. It's terrible for wealth inequality.
        • prepend 5y ago
          Corporate income taxes don’t matter with this as corporate income gets deferred even longer than individuals. So I think it’s neutral for wealth inequality, since an individual getting $1B in income or a corporation getting $1B in income to a single individual is the same. Or deferring income with trusts, credits, etc. I think for wealth inequality, the goal is to have more individuals with greater wealth, so this doesn’t seem to affect the number of people impacted.
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  Why would smaller countries who are looking for a competitive edge to attract business ever agree to this? It seems like this is really just in the interest of the US and other big incumbents that rely on large tax revenue already. But even within that group, enforcing such a minimum really has the effect of cementing the incumbents' hold on economic power. So why would any nations other than the US agree to this, when others stand to benefit by gaining economically at the cost of the US? Personally I also find the notion of a global order that prevents flight (of companies, capital, etc.) to be a bit dystopian. I don't want any power (a nation, or a coalition of nations) to have that kind of influence or authority, and this proposal doesn't give me good vibes.
  • mathattack 5y ago
    Without justifying whether or not this is a good thing to do, large countries have a lot of economic levers to use with smaller countries. (Tariffs, limiting foreign direct investment, etc)
  • mattmanser 5y ago
    And I find the idea that big companies can shift their taxes so they get a massive advantages over local businesse to be much more dystopian.
  • Analemma_ 5y ago
    Read the proposal: it doesn't matter whether small countries agree to it. The idea is that if any country levies less tax than the global minimum, the IRS will automatically charge the difference. i.e. if the global minimum is 15% and a company based in Luxembourg is paying only 5%, the IRS will levy an additional tax burden to bring it up to the minimum. No coordination or cooperation is required.
    • hellow0rldz 5y ago
      The US can tax US corporations anyway it sees fit. What do other countries have to do with it? Read the subtitle: >The Biden administration wants other countries to back a minimum tax as part of its plan to raise the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent. This makes no sense. Is the IRS a global institution now?
• hellow0rldz 5y ago
  Thank God the US is taking charge of the GLOBAL finances. What could go wrong!? This is ladder pulling. Who needs smaller countries competing on fiscal rates when all tech should be registered in Dellaware? Note how it's a small 15% to start with. If this goes through and all the treaties are in place moving it to 25% should be much easier. Maybe the US should investigate all the creative ways US corporations pay so little tax anywhere. It's a problem caused by US and US corporation and now they come to provide a solution.
  • germinalphrase 5y ago
    “It's a problem caused by US and US corporation and now they come to provide a solution” Shouldn’t the responsibility for US corporate problems be (presumably) addressed by the US government? I’m not understanding your point here.
    • hellow0rldz 5y ago
      Precisely. But instead of solving this problem inside US they want to re-engineer the whole globe. Most countries are mad about multinationals, most of them rich US multinationals. If the US would do a proper job of taxing their own corporations none of this would be necessary. Interesting how this is just in time for the Dutch sandwich scheme to expire. Clearly something else was missing!
      • onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
        How else do you solve this in the US? Company A sells all of its IP to Ireland. They have the Irish company charge them 100% of the profits for IP. Poof. No US taxable income. What's your magic beans solution for this beside what the IRS plans to do?
        • coliveira 5y ago
          It is very simple: just make corporate profits for US corporations (or more sensibly, the difference in taxes) taxable on the US, wherever it is made. This is already the rule for individuals.
• adamsvystun 5y ago
  While I have never looked deeply into the topic of big business corporate taxes, I do share a strong suspicion that the corporate tax system is flawed, and would be supportive of reform in the system. Including international cooperation for solving this. But the way they went about this is disappointing. There should be a way to solve this that would still allow countries to compete in attracting businesses. They talk as if they want everybody to settle for mediocrity. > Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has warned that a global “race to the bottom” has been eating away at government revenues. This literally sounds like something a cartel would say.
  • andrepd 5y ago
    "Medoicrity" is countries around the world losing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in tax evasion and capital flight. A "cartel" in this case, meaning a (democratic) agreement between major economic blocs to put a floor on corporate tax, and sanction those who violate this, is precisely what you need.
    • throwawaysea 5y ago
      It isn't "countries around the world" that lose taxes and capital. It's a small number of very rich countries, mostly in the West, and primarily the US. This is simply a way for the US to retain economic power (and all the other powers that come from it) while cutting off competitive paths for other countries to compete and get rich. The reason this feels like a cartel is because the proposed policies amount to a joint collusive policy meant to reduce competition.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago
        Exactly. These countries put forth policy they cannot afford and are out-competed via taxation. Allowing them to express force on smaller countries in an effort to reduce their profits seems mind blowingly aggressive. I guess its the kind of dumb policy we have to put up with until someone points out that those affected by this are likely 'minorities" in western societies and is therefore racist/bigoted. Its the only way to argue nowadays.
• gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  They're fumbling around trying to find any way to get out of the messes they keep creating. Yet, no one dares to talk about the true underlying causes.
  • maneesh 5y ago
    what is the true underlying cause?
    • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      Corporation tax. They should just dump it and tax dividends and capitals gains like any other income. It's easy to shift corporation tax but much harder to shift an individuals income.
      • permo-w 5y ago
        This sounds like a good idea for the current, somewhat dystopian world we're living in, but have you ever thought about whether huge corporations are even a net positive in the first place? I think that even if taxing corporations doesn't make sense in terms of tax revenue, it makes sense in terms of stopping companies from growing too large Imo corp tax should be nil until you get to about 1m profit, and then brutally progressive after that. Small businesses are great, and companies that benefit the consumer by being large can be public-owned and both compete internally and internationally.
        • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
          You have the opposite of that at the moment. Big companies can shift their profits around the world to avoid corporation tax but small ones have no choice but to pay it.
          • permo-w 5y ago
            and that's exactly what this is trying to address
• known 5y ago
  "If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it" --Ronald Reagan (b. 1911)
• codeecan 5y ago
  If they would just close the loop holes that allow things like having Apple, setup a subsidiary that licenses its own stuff back to itself so it can move profits around the world ... you'd solve this problem. Make a rule, if you own >50% of a company, you can't buy trademarks, patents, whatever from yourself.
  • gamblor956 5y ago
    Most of the West treats transactions between companies and their disregarded subsidiaries as not occurring for tax purposes (i.e., the transactions are "disregarded"). They should expand that principle to simply disregard transactions between all members of a conglomerated or commonly owned group.
    • milesvp 5y ago
      I might be tempted to take it a step further, and say that any interaction that would be taxed between businesses should be taxed if the same interaction happens internally. I really don’t like that the system seems to encourage acquisitions and mergers. If I buy a marketing firm so I don’t have to keep paying another firm for marketing, all those taxable events are now gone. I know my proposal starts to break down quickly and can lead to an accounting nightmare, but it seems like sort of a starting place to meditate on this topic.
  • Andrex 5y ago
    Agreed. Self-dealing among companies under the same corporate parent is a scourge. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/fox-settles-bones-suit-ending-profits-case-stunned-hollywood-1238843/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/fox...
  • ksec 5y ago
    You then end up having FAANG setting a company called FAANG which each FAANG owns exactly 20% of the FANNG companies and the sole purpose was to relicensing trademarks patents or whatever. At the end of the day moving profits around isn't illegal and I dont see how banning it solves that problem. As long as it is taxed somewhere, which is what all country cares.
• option 5y ago
  we need jurisdictions to compete on how much they can provide in return for as little as possible in collected taxes.
  • moate 5y ago
    Who's "we"? Certainly not the citizens of those jurisdictions...
    • Proven 5y ago
      Wut??? They would benefit the most, from having a small government.
  • ramtatatam 5y ago
    Well said. Each amount of money will find a "good" reason to be spent, so less money collected means less money wasted (or spent on weapons and armies).
    • permo-w 5y ago
      In ideal world that might work, but in reality, the countries that can afford to set low corp taxes do it, and the countries that can't don't. As usual, the rich get richer, and corporations get bigger
• 0xB31B1B 5y ago
  Pretty hype about this TBH. There is a long history of companies domiciling in say, Monaco, The Cayman Island, Panama etc to avoid taxes and regulations where they mainly operate. My understanding is that the current process in vogue for the mega cap companies is the "double irish dutch sandwich" https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dut... No one, including tax lawyers, will tell you with a straight face that this is the way things were expected/designed to work. All of these tax avoidance strategies are emergent properties of complex systems that are the result of uncoordinated action amongst individual actors that cannot be fixed without collective organization. I support this and 15% seems reasonable to me.
  • mgolawala 5y ago
    Does anyone know why this approach would be preferred over the use of VAT (Value added tax) instead of a corporate profit tax? I recall a US presidential candidate in the most recent election cycle mentioning this as the solution to the current corporate tax avoidance problem. In fact it was a major part of his campaign. I am not very knowledgeable of the downsides of a VAT approach and how it could be gamed, but what he seemed to say did make sense to me. The idea was to tax the value created in the location it was created. I suppose the way you could game that system was to somehow show that no (or very little) value was created in the US? Would moving to taking a small percentage of revenue solve this? A federal sales tax that is included in the price of products that cannot be avoided. Sure the argument against this may be that they will just pass the increased costs down to the consumer, but why wouldn't the same would happen if the corporations start having to pay more taxes in general .. whether on their profits or on something else?
    • vladvasiliu 5y ago
      I don't have a good answer to this question, and am actually curious about it. But note that in the EU we do have VAT, and the governments are still (pretending to be) looking for ways to curb "tax optimization".
    • notahacker 5y ago
• TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago
  So move it to countries not so authoritarian and interested in actually competing. Problem solved.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• HWR_14 5y ago
  Is this similar to how the EU has minimum tax rates on businesses? Without recalling too many details, I recall Apple and Ireland being sued by the EU government for a sweetheart tax deal they put in place.
  • isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    That was because Ireland only made this deal available to Apple, not because of low tax rates. In Estonia companies don't pay CIT unless they pay out dividends, for example.
    • HWR_14 5y ago
      Ireland also made the deal available to other companies (on a case by case basis.) But it was definitely a too low a tax rate/tax avoidance issue, not an Apple specific issue.
• Proven 5y ago
  Come on, man! The American socialists are deplorable!
• paul_f 5y ago
  Just watch, the next step is to apply this concept to US Sates. Require a minimum 5% state income tax and if less, have the IRS take the difference.
  • thegreatpeter 5y ago
    That escalated quickly.
  • jimbob45 5y ago
    The problem already exists in states though. There is a disproportionate number of companies headquartered in Delaware[0]. That's not really fair when most of the actual business is done in other states but Delaware is currently leading the tax rate race to the bottom within the US 50 states. [0]https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/76951/why-are-so-many-us-companies-incorporated-delaware https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/76951/why-are-so-many-us...
  • permo-w 5y ago
    I love the "have the IRS take the difference", as if the IRS is some corporation that's just gonna stick it in their bank account or pay it to their shareholders
• the_optimist 5y ago
  It’s not about a level, it’s about the rule. To everyone who says “15% is fair,” consider what you’ll feel like at 70% marginal. Literal global rule. Some would call that overreach.
  • alexpetralia 5y ago
    This is like pretending only binaries matter (rule/not rule) vs. gradations on a continuum.
    • the_optimist 5y ago
      No pretending. Sometimes binaries do matter.
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Sometimes. Now, do you have an argument that in this situation, binaries matter?
        • the_optimist 5y ago
          This would establish a standard for global minimum taxes, an instrument of power. The history of such instruments of power being repealed without dramatic catastrophe (warfare) is near zero. The failure of such standards to fulfill their intended purpose is high. Who exactly is ceding what to who here? Extremely naive people seem to think this is a “let’s hold hands and jump into the pool together” idea, as though they’re holding hands with everyone from Gates, Buffett, to bin Salman, Putin and Xi, and that’s going to work.
  • permo-w 5y ago
    If you're at 70% marginal, it means you're already earning an ungodly amount of money
    • the_optimist 5y ago
• spacephysics 5y ago
  This is a central planning band-aid on the gashing flesh wound of an overly complex tax system.
• anm89 5y ago
  The fact that everyone views it as normal for the US to endorse global tax laws is pretty frightening
  • randomopining 5y ago
    The fact that nations can syphon off tax dollars from companies that create nothing in their lands is pretty frightening. Rentier effect x 100.
    • defterGoose 5y ago
      But that's quite literally not what's happening. The problem is companies that do a significant portion of their business in one country using legal loopholes to claim that those operations actually occurred in other jurisdictions where they would have virtually zero tax liability.
      • randomopining 5y ago
        Yeah exactly lol. So they pay the lower taxes to another country like Ireland or Malta. Those countries played no role in their ability to produce. Like what did Ireland do to make Apple the success it is today? etc. Apple wins (lower taxes). Ireland wins (free income from a random corp). America loses (loses tax dollars to invest in infrastructure, education, etc).
  • criddell 5y ago
    Why? To me it feels similar to the US endorsing anti-child labor laws or anti-corruption laws.
  • pie420 5y ago
    The fact that certain countries can endorse global rules dictating what constitutes a war crime is pretty frightening too. Who are you, Lovecraft? Does the mere concept of global politics scare you?
    • 5y ago
• randomopining 5y ago
  Countries should get taxes back from a corporation at a ratio equivalent to their contributions of a corporations success/profits. US has a good legal system, fairly educated population, market, etc. Most of these corps would not have made it in a country like Russia, or they would've been taken over in China etc. They need to pay their fair share back into the system that allowed them to thrive.
  • gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    They wouldn't have made it if the US had high tax rates like Europe either. You can't have your cake and eat it as well.
    • randomopining 5y ago
      There is an optimal Corp tax rate and you can have a data-driven discussion about it. It’s most likely higher than 20%. Def lower than 50%.
      • gher-shyu3i 5y ago
        0% works fine. That's how we've had it under Islamic law, and it worked (and works) out perfectly.
        • randomopining 5y ago
          Really? How does your government operate? How does it build roads?
• justinzollars 5y ago
  This will eliminate competition for low taxes. A pretty scary proposal.
• stephen_cagle 5y ago
  I thought I remembered at some point (might have been more than a decade ago) that I heard that most economist thought that corporate income taxes were basically a bad idea? Is this no longer held as a valid belief? Long term, I would almost prefer if we just moved to taxing people's assets. Maybe we can force corporations to basically pay out most of their profits to shareholders to avoid having them get too large?
  • dnautics 5y ago
    taxing people's assets is complicated as hell. How much is your house worth. And before you answer that question, have you been in a bubbly market? Quotes for houses in the place I've been have gone up by 10% in the last 4 months. Now, suppose you have bought a house and suddenly all of your neighbors are rich. An appraiser comes to your place and suddenly you owe taxes and you basically get evicted from your home under a net-worth-taxation regime. 100% guarantee in your "ideal" situation, the rules will be abused to fuck over those with less clout.
    • hungryforcodes 5y ago
      Housing evaluations are very straight forward -- the market is what decides the price. Unless your house is something exotic like a castle or something. Every year the city or region you live in has a process to evaluate this value, and then asks you to pay a tax based on this. Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house -- if it doubled in value from the year before, according to the market, you'll probably be happy to pocket that profit. Otherwise property taxes are just how it goes when you're a house owner. Also you normally have a year to pay the tax, so there is lots of time to make a decision.
      • dnautics 5y ago
        > Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house let's just be clear about what you're saying. It's okay to effectively force people off of their homes that they have built an emotional attachment to. Perhaps their family has lived there for a few generations. They should just take the money and shut up.
• hackeraccount 5y ago
  Tax complexity is a function of rates. The higher rates go the more value any particular additional complexity has. Maybe this is a good idea and maybe it's not but to the extent rates are high it's going to be a disappointment as a way to increase revenue.
• permo-w 5y ago
  It would be interesting if they took it a step further and redistributed that 15% equally across every nation in the world
• ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  You will never close all the loopholes. It is impossible and the real people in power don't want it. High taxes, like in most of current society, will always mostly keep the poor poor and eliminate the middle class; politicians just dress it up as redistributing money from the rich.
  • permo-w 5y ago
    based on what?
    • ajkdhcb2 5y ago
      The rich are extremely mobile, already have wealth and assets that will keep appreciating. The poor and middle class would need to disproportionately gain wealth if they were to rise to the same position in the power hierarchy, and they are not mobile. High taxes are like fixing positions in place, like a moat to make it difficult for others to rise, since it isn't going to retroactively take money. Historical data further shows that taxes keep rising but so does inequality. It's blatantly obvious that you cant control the laws of every country when the game theory makes it obvious that lower taxes makes you more competitive at attracting wealthy people.
      • permo-w 5y ago
        >Historical data further shows that taxes keep rising but so does inequality. I don't know if you're aware of this, but taxes in the west are significantly lower than they were in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The top marginal income tax rate in the 60s was 90% in the UK and 91% in the US. Currently it is 45% in the UK and 37% in the US. Corp tax is currently 18% in the UK and 21% in the US. In the 60s it was 45% in the UK and between 11% and 55% in the US. But you're right about inequality rising
• missedthecue 5y ago
  This feels like American politicians trying to force countries like Ireland must pay for US fiscal mismanagement
  • permo-w 5y ago
    or is it the American politicians trying to stop countries like Ireland hindering other countries' public services for their own benefit?
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      That's a lot of words to say competition. Competition is good.
      • permo-w 5y ago
        that's a very naive attitude. the financial regulators were competing before the 2008 crash. what were they competing for? who could give the most lenient ratings. what are nations competing for? who can afford to take the least tax revenue who can afford to take the least tax revenue? already rich countries, or countries that don't give a shit about distributing wealth equally who continues to get richer? I'll let you answer that one
        • mardifoufs 5y ago
          What do you mean? Credit rating agencies are not regulators. Plus, pretty strict regulations around credit ratings and their essential role in portfolio composition were already in place at the time. In fact you could arguably say that they were actually one of the reasons behind the severity of the crisis. And even if we put aside that very glaring error aside, if your comment was true Scandinavia or some parts of Europe would've a lot more multinationals than the US, since their corporate tax rates are already lower than in the US. You can also take for example, Spain which has had a ~similar tax rate than the US before 2017, why don't they have a bigger economy per capita if it was that easy and countries were competing to lower taxes? Corporations aren't individuals btw, and taxing the dividends or capital gains is much more efficient. Eventually, any money you don't tax from a corporation usually flows back to the investors in one way or another. So even if you want higher taxes, corporate taxation is usually just something that "sounds good" or is knee jerk reaction to "stick it" to the big corps rather than to actually get more tax revenue.
• permo-w 5y ago
  This article is very sparse on the actual technical details. How would the tax be distributed? What happens if one or a few countries get disillusioned and just stops participating? Isn't that somewhat the plot of the Star Wars prequels?
• onetimeusename 5y ago
  I am concerned about two things seldom discussed by people who endorse increasing tax revenues in ways like this. 1) I don't like unelected, global, IGOs who have powers over citizens without citizens' consent, such as forcing a tax increase in tax havens which crushes local autonomy in those places. The US can do this by embargoing a tax haven. Imagine if you are a resident and business owner in Monaco, etc., who is now facing an increase in corporate tax that is only necessary because the US decided to threaten sanctions against your country to make it less attractive to (ostensibly) US corporations. You could make a moral argument about what tax revenue should be but I don't think it's moralistic because of my next point. 2) No one ever discusses fiscal responsibility or whether tax revenue is well spent. The solution is always to increase taxes or to increase the power to collect taxes.
• LatteLazy 5y ago
  Good news. Good luck getting tax havens to agree. Of course they'll need to close the US/UK buy back loophole...