10 ms·

>> The G7 group of advanced economies has reached a "historic" deal to make multinational companies pay more tax No, it hasn't. Some finance ministers met and

>> The G7 group of advanced economies has reached a "historic" deal to make multinational companies pay more tax No, it hasn't. Some finance ministers met and talked: "Finance ministers meeting in London agreed to battle tax avoidance by making companies pay more in the countries where they do business. They also agreed in principle to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other." I have no idea how it works in other countries, but in the US, finance ministers don't have the power to agree to treaties. Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate. Unless Mitch McConnell has signed off on this, the G7 group of advanced economies did not reach a deal on anything. I don't even see the word "Senate" in the entire article. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen can tell reporters whatever she wants. Without buy-in from Republicans in the Senate, finance ministers agreeing "in principle" amounts to finance ministers agreeing that if they had ham, they could make ham and eggs, if they had eggs.

caymanjim 5y ago
Not every international agreement is a treaty. You're right, though; this is merely an agreement in principle and has no force whatsoever. That doesn't mean it won't lead to actual legal changes, but this article is misleading.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > this is merely an agreement in principle and has no force whatsoever You mean that it's unenforceable in a court, but that doesn't mean at all that it lacks force: Court enforcement isn't the the only force. If your boss, client, spouse, etc. pressures you to do something, it can't be enforced in a court, but it can have great force. We all are subject to great social pressure in our behavior, conduct, life choices, etc. - we all generally speak the same language, dress the same, follow the same life and career paths, avoid socially unacceptable things (even those that are unfairly discriminated against), etc. HN mods have great influence here, even though they have no means of court enforcement (in any practical sense). International relations in particular has no law, in the sense of a court that can make enforceable decisions. In a sovereign legal sense, it's anarchy. There is no international sovereign government (the UN is a conference of sovereign governments). But obviously a great deal is done which has real force. It's actually very interesting to see the creative ways in which 'international law' (again, not the same as a sovereign government's law) is crafted, given that very significant constraint, in order to give it force and effectiveness. Note that the G7 is exceptionally influential despite having no legal power - why do you think these very powerful, busy people are spending their time there? The President controls the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Their decisions have great legal force. Politically, those decisions mostly carry forward to future presidents.
CameronNemo 5y ago
The executive is allowed to make executive agreements without consent of congress.
- nohuck13 5y ago
  In the US, executive orders cannot change tax law, since the "power of the purse" is constitutionally reserved for congress. If you're thinking of the Iran nuclear deal, that's head-of-state stuff where the president is considered to have more powers (though of course it still was never a treaty, so could be/was scrapped easily by the next administration).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  And those executive agreements have no binding legal force, and can be broken by the next executive (or even the same executive who made them) on a whim. See, for example, the Iran deal and the Paris climate deal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nohuck13 5y ago
    I agree with your main point but I wouldn't say executive orders lack binding legal force. They derive binding legal force from congress or the constitution first telling the executive branch "you go figure out the details here." Foreign policy. The SEC. Heck, the emancipation proclamation was an executive order. Everyone knew Lincoln and his contemporaries wanted to abolish slavery, but Lincoln was absurdly careful at the time to frame the proclamation as a wartime measure aimed at crippling the south's economy. He went out of his way to appeal to existing commander-in-chief powers in order to make it lawful.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  They can make all the agreements they want, but it's not a legal treaty until 2/3 of the Senate agrees, and even then, this stuff requires that laws be passed -- many laws affecting jurisdiction, accounting standards, and the tax laws themselves. None of this can be done with an executive agreement.
summerlight 5y ago
Yeah, it is merely a high level blueprint for the actual treaty. There should be lots of details to be hashed out coming months (or years).
ketzu 5y ago
I was under the impression that "agreed upon" for international diplomacy was regularly used before ratification by any national government or parliament, because that is usually the required first step. It might still fail later on before becoming law. I think it is the same for national things as well, e.g., two government parties in a coalition "agreeing" to make a law, even though it was an out-of-parliament discussion and has not been voted on in parliament and might never make it that far.
nickysielicki 5y ago
They print the money, though! They can force businesses to denominate in dollars, inflate the dollar to construct a 15% tax, and make up the difference for individuals through transfer payments and UBI. I’m making a rhetorical point here, but this isn’t as far fetched as it might sound at first. When you look at the numbers coming out of the fed, it’s pretty clear who is calling the shots and it’s not the Congress.
ncallaway 5y ago
You're referring to the process of finalizing a treaty. That would be conceptually similar to "executing" an agreement between parties—the most important step that makes it legally binding! But "reaching a deal" and "executing the agreement" are often different steps. When we have discussions with a client, and we negotiate on the terms we can reach an agreement on the negotiation before we actually execute the contract. After reaching satisfactory terms in the agreement, I need to run the agreement by my business partner and ensure he approves. Sometimes the person who actually signs the contract may be a different party that I've never met or talked with during any part of our discussions. All of which is to say the language here seems appropriate. The G7 has reached a deal—that doesn't mean the deal is now effective or legally binding. Deals that have been reached can still fall through. But the G7 has reached a deal. What they haven't done is yet made it legally binding through a formal treaty process.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> After reaching satisfactory terms in the agreement, I need to run the agreement by my business partner and ensure he approves Do you think Mitch McConnell sees US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen as his business partner? Or vice versa? That's your perception? >> The G7 has reached a deal—that doesn't mean the deal is now effective or legally binding So if I'm negotiating with you and you tell me we have a deal, I should consider that to be something that may or may not happen, may or may not be effective, and may or may not be legally binding? Which car company do you work for?
  - YZF 5y ago
    There's all sorts of outcomes here. While you may be right that the US will not sign on to the deal it might still have to deal with some consequences. E.g. while Yellen may not have the ability influence US tax laws there are also foreign tax laws that are part of this over which McConnell has no control. Let's say the rest of the G7/G20/OECD changes the way they tax global companies, if the US doesn't ratify their side there's still plenty of real world consequences. I think Yellen's agreement does count as in this is the US's (sort of foreign policy?) position, i.e. the rest of the world can proceed to make changes based on that agreement even though Yellen does not have the authority to commit to changing US tax laws.
wolverine876 5y ago
> in the US, finance ministers don't have the power to agree to treaties The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury speaks for the President; it's a fundamental dynamic of organizations. Otherwise, effectively Yellen wouldn't be Treasury Secretary - Yellen would be powerless and meaningless - and would resign or be fired. Only Trump seemed to ignore this and undermine the people under him. Also, I expect that the Treasury Secretary has great legal authority to make binding decisions for the U.S. government; remember that the American people decided the cabinet members would be separately confirmed by Congress (i.e., the Senate), per the Constitution. Similarly, if the CFO of Apple makes an agreement, the counter-party assumes they speak for CEO Tim Cook. Otherwise, why talk to this person? > Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate. Most international agreements are not treaties. The people of the U.S. delegate the power to conduct foreign affairs almost exclusively to the President, again in the Constitution. Only certain actions, such as treaties, require Congressional approval.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  Here's what it says in the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" Crystal clear.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    There is far more to U.S. government than the Constitution, which is only a framework. There are an enormous body of law, court precedents, institutional customs, federalized government, and of course public opinion. Among that body of law are existing tax rates, which are currently over 15% for corporations. Under the Constitution, the President must agree to changes in tax rates unless their veto is overridden. You're right that Congress theoretically could violate the agreement, but in practice, it's almost irrelevant. They could theoretically pass a bill tomorrow that eliminates every tax and every law in the U.S.
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      No. The United States Constitution is not "only a framework".
OJFord 5y ago
Yes it has. Several other comments have pointed out 'reaching a deal' vs. 'it has been enacted everywhere'; I'll just add that it's not at all novel language, e.g. Brexit saw the UK & EU reaching deals before (or without ever) enacting them.
jedberg 5y ago
An agreement can be reached without a treaty. But that's not even super relevant here. The US doesn't need to change any laws to meet this agreement. We already tax our corporations more than 15%. What the US wants is for other countries to tax that much, to discourage our own multinationals from booking revenue outside the US to avoid US tax. The EU wants companies to book revenue where they make it, which they can do all on their own. They don't need the US for that. And what makes you think the GOP wouldn't support this? It would give them cover to lower the tax rate to 15% from 21% to "be in line with the rest of the G7". Also, if our multinationals can't avoid tax anymore, there is a good chance they would just book their revenue here in the US, leading to more revenue for the US and less for Europe.
- cm2187 5y ago
  The agreement changes the way a company revenue is recognized and allocated between jurisdictions. I suspect it may require to change the tax treaties between those countries. It's not just changing the corporate tax rate.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    From what I can tell with what's out there on there internet, the main change is allowing local jurisdictions to tax a company on the money they make in that country, even if they have no presence there. So again, it would just increase revenue for the US, and I see no reason they wouldn't agree to it. At the end of the day, I don't think the US had to compromise here. I think it's universally better for the US government, just not US based companies, but it gives the GOP enough air cover to agree to it anyway. It mostly benefits the European countries that are missing their tax revenue.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      It will also massively increase the complexity of doing taxes for smaller businesses. It wouldn't surprise me if it lead to even more websites going "sorry, we value customers from your country, but we cannot serve this content to you". Imagine running a small business and somebody from Algeria wishes to purchase your software. Is the $5 you make worth having to file Algerian taxes? I mention this, because this is something that happened with YouTube this month. Content creators have to give their tax info to YouTube because the US is now charging taxes from creators outside the US on money they made on US customers. Edit: as was pointed out - there's a minimum $10 million threshold. That makes it far more reasonable.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate. That's misleading, because what are called “treaties” in international law include more than what are called “treaties” in US domestic law, but also “Congressional-executive agreements” and some (but, IIRC, not all) “sole executive agreements.” Virtually all “treaties” in the international sense that have come into force in US law in recent decades have been Congressional-executive agreements.
bjt 5y ago
The US corporate tax rate is already 21%. Agreeing to "at least 15%" should not be a tough sell.
briandear 5y ago
> They also agreed in principle to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other. Why? If a country can be more efficient, why must they be penalized by being required to raise taxes? This is the equivalent of a price floor. Why should a country be required to have higher taxes to appease those that make different policy decisions? It should be up to the government (voters) what tax rates work for their country. Why wouldn’t a tax rate ceiling be proposed instead? Why should Ireland raise taxes just because France wants to run huge healthcare deficits or offer extremely generous train worker pensions? Seems like decisions on tax rates should be left to the country. If a country wants a 50% tax rate, that’s their business. If they are economically harmed by someone else having a 10% rate, then the problem isn’t that someone else has a lower cost but that they have too high a cost. As far as the 2/3 rule for US treaties, that’s a good thing. That ensures that treaties are good for the entire country rather than just a simple majority. I don’t want 51% being able to ignore 49%. If Republicans were in power and proposed a maximum tax rate treaty, those complaining about the 2/3 rule would be singing a different tune. The Constitution was designed specifically to ensure that a narrow majority isn’t able to run roughshod over everyone else. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. And that feature benefits everyone at different times.
- rswail 5y ago
  Ireland is part of the EU, so how it taxes corporations is something it has to negotiate with the rest of the EU. That is its problem, not something the G7 care about. Ireland has attracted investment and revenue by undercutting other nations, while providing access to the EU. Not surprisingly, the rest of the EU is not happy about that. No one is denying nations the right to set their own tax rates for corporations. What has happened here is that a number of nations have come together, negotiated, and agreed that they will each set their lowest rate at 15%. The reason for that is deliberately to stop countries undercutting each other. They have all agreed that undercutting each other has lead to consequences that have affected them all equally in a "race to the bottom" and of corporate tax avoidance. > If they are economically harmed by someone else having a 10% rate... The G7 nations have agreed that they don't want to be economically harmed. Their agreement is to pass laws in each of their environments to stop that. They've also agreed that each of them can tax the profits made locally to them. They agreed to limit that to a maximum of 20% of the corporate's global profits. As for the 2/3rds rule for US treaties, that's because the Senate, representing the States (not the people), is given a "check" over the President unilaterally making treaties, as far as the United States is concerned, because treaties made in this way are considered equal in power to the Constitution. Each treaty is effectively an amendment to the US Constitution. So it's not about 51 vs 49%, it's about 2/3rds of the US states, as represented in the Senate, agreeing with a treaty.
kinkora 5y ago
"Every journey of a 1000 miles begins with 1 step" Maybe we should laude and celebrate that at least loads of effort was put into getting all the G7 finance ministers in one place and actually have a discussion + agree to a next step? Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk". I sometimes think people in the last decade are to quick to find faults for every little thing that falls short of a 100% effort (and even that gets criticism) without even considering that they are not the men-in-the-arena [1] doing the hard work. ---- [1] Whenever I think of criticizing something/someone, I always consider Theodore Roosevelt comment on this sort of behaviour where he once said: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
- CaptainSwing 5y ago
  You saying all politicians, even the aweful ones, should get participation awards, while us plebs should just know our place and shut up?
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  > Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk" They don't have the authority to negotiate the agreements that were described in the headlines as already being made. That's called bullshit. Doesn't matter which side politically you are on, it's bullshit. Why is the BBC printing bullshit? They don't have that authority, the BBC is lying to you, why are they doing that?
  - 5y ago
viztor 5y ago
Except it doesn't require the status of a treaty for the United States. Since the current corporate tax rate in the US is above the 15% agreed upon, it doesn't really matter if the senate signs on the deal or not. And the senate has little reason, even as republican-majority, not to when it's mostly a deal restricting small countries for offering tax rate too low.

caymanjim 5y ago

Not every international agreement is a treaty. You're right, though; this is merely an agreement in principle and has no force whatsoever. That doesn't mean it won't lead to actual legal changes, but this article is misleading.

wolverine876 5y ago
> this is merely an agreement in principle and has no force whatsoever You mean that it's unenforceable in a court, but that doesn't mean at all that it lacks force: Court enforcement isn't the the only force. If your boss, client, spouse, etc. pressures you to do something, it can't be enforced in a court, but it can have great force. We all are subject to great social pressure in our behavior, conduct, life choices, etc. - we all generally speak the same language, dress the same, follow the same life and career paths, avoid socially unacceptable things (even those that are unfairly discriminated against), etc. HN mods have great influence here, even though they have no means of court enforcement (in any practical sense). International relations in particular has no law, in the sense of a court that can make enforceable decisions. In a sovereign legal sense, it's anarchy. There is no international sovereign government (the UN is a conference of sovereign governments). But obviously a great deal is done which has real force. It's actually very interesting to see the creative ways in which 'international law' (again, not the same as a sovereign government's law) is crafted, given that very significant constraint, in order to give it force and effectiveness. Note that the G7 is exceptionally influential despite having no legal power - why do you think these very powerful, busy people are spending their time there? The President controls the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Their decisions have great legal force. Politically, those decisions mostly carry forward to future presidents.

CameronNemo 5y ago

The executive is allowed to make executive agreements without consent of congress.

nohuck13 5y ago
In the US, executive orders cannot change tax law, since the "power of the purse" is constitutionally reserved for congress. If you're thinking of the Iran nuclear deal, that's head-of-state stuff where the president is considered to have more powers (though of course it still was never a treaty, so could be/was scrapped easily by the next administration).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
HideousKojima 5y ago
And those executive agreements have no binding legal force, and can be broken by the next executive (or even the same executive who made them) on a whim. See, for example, the Iran deal and the Paris climate deal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nohuck13 5y ago
  I agree with your main point but I wouldn't say executive orders lack binding legal force. They derive binding legal force from congress or the constitution first telling the executive branch "you go figure out the details here." Foreign policy. The SEC. Heck, the emancipation proclamation was an executive order. Everyone knew Lincoln and his contemporaries wanted to abolish slavery, but Lincoln was absurdly careful at the time to frame the proclamation as a wartime measure aimed at crippling the south's economy. He went out of his way to appeal to existing commander-in-chief powers in order to make it lawful.
rsj_hn 5y ago
They can make all the agreements they want, but it's not a legal treaty until 2/3 of the Senate agrees, and even then, this stuff requires that laws be passed -- many laws affecting jurisdiction, accounting standards, and the tax laws themselves. None of this can be done with an executive agreement.

summerlight 5y ago

Yeah, it is merely a high level blueprint for the actual treaty. There should be lots of details to be hashed out coming months (or years).

ketzu 5y ago

I was under the impression that "agreed upon" for international diplomacy was regularly used before ratification by any national government or parliament, because that is usually the required first step. It might still fail later on before becoming law. I think it is the same for national things as well, e.g., two government parties in a coalition "agreeing" to make a law, even though it was an out-of-parliament discussion and has not been voted on in parliament and might never make it that far.

nickysielicki 5y ago

They print the money, though! They can force businesses to denominate in dollars, inflate the dollar to construct a 15% tax, and make up the difference for individuals through transfer payments and UBI. I’m making a rhetorical point here, but this isn’t as far fetched as it might sound at first. When you look at the numbers coming out of the fed, it’s pretty clear who is calling the shots and it’s not the Congress.

ncallaway 5y ago

You're referring to the process of finalizing a treaty. That would be conceptually similar to "executing" an agreement between parties—the most important step that makes it legally binding! But "reaching a deal" and "executing the agreement" are often different steps. When we have discussions with a client, and we negotiate on the terms we can reach an agreement on the negotiation before we actually execute the contract. After reaching satisfactory terms in the agreement, I need to run the agreement by my business partner and ensure he approves. Sometimes the person who actually signs the contract may be a different party that I've never met or talked with during any part of our discussions. All of which is to say the language here seems appropriate. The G7 has reached a deal—that doesn't mean the deal is now effective or legally binding. Deals that have been reached can still fall through. But the G7 has reached a deal. What they haven't done is yet made it legally binding through a formal treaty process.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> After reaching satisfactory terms in the agreement, I need to run the agreement by my business partner and ensure he approves Do you think Mitch McConnell sees US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen as his business partner? Or vice versa? That's your perception? >> The G7 has reached a deal—that doesn't mean the deal is now effective or legally binding So if I'm negotiating with you and you tell me we have a deal, I should consider that to be something that may or may not happen, may or may not be effective, and may or may not be legally binding? Which car company do you work for?
- YZF 5y ago
  There's all sorts of outcomes here. While you may be right that the US will not sign on to the deal it might still have to deal with some consequences. E.g. while Yellen may not have the ability influence US tax laws there are also foreign tax laws that are part of this over which McConnell has no control. Let's say the rest of the G7/G20/OECD changes the way they tax global companies, if the US doesn't ratify their side there's still plenty of real world consequences. I think Yellen's agreement does count as in this is the US's (sort of foreign policy?) position, i.e. the rest of the world can proceed to make changes based on that agreement even though Yellen does not have the authority to commit to changing US tax laws.

wolverine876 5y ago

> in the US, finance ministers don't have the power to agree to treaties The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury speaks for the President; it's a fundamental dynamic of organizations. Otherwise, effectively Yellen wouldn't be Treasury Secretary - Yellen would be powerless and meaningless - and would resign or be fired. Only Trump seemed to ignore this and undermine the people under him. Also, I expect that the Treasury Secretary has great legal authority to make binding decisions for the U.S. government; remember that the American people decided the cabinet members would be separately confirmed by Congress (i.e., the Senate), per the Constitution. Similarly, if the CFO of Apple makes an agreement, the counter-party assumes they speak for CEO Tim Cook. Otherwise, why talk to this person? > Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate. Most international agreements are not treaties. The people of the U.S. delegate the power to conduct foreign affairs almost exclusively to the President, again in the Constitution. Only certain actions, such as treaties, require Congressional approval.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
Here's what it says in the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" Crystal clear.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  There is far more to U.S. government than the Constitution, which is only a framework. There are an enormous body of law, court precedents, institutional customs, federalized government, and of course public opinion. Among that body of law are existing tax rates, which are currently over 15% for corporations. Under the Constitution, the President must agree to changes in tax rates unless their veto is overridden. You're right that Congress theoretically could violate the agreement, but in practice, it's almost irrelevant. They could theoretically pass a bill tomorrow that eliminates every tax and every law in the U.S.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    No. The United States Constitution is not "only a framework".

OJFord 5y ago

Yes it has. Several other comments have pointed out 'reaching a deal' vs. 'it has been enacted everywhere'; I'll just add that it's not at all novel language, e.g. Brexit saw the UK & EU reaching deals before (or without ever) enacting them.

jedberg 5y ago

An agreement can be reached without a treaty. But that's not even super relevant here. The US doesn't need to change any laws to meet this agreement. We already tax our corporations more than 15%. What the US wants is for other countries to tax that much, to discourage our own multinationals from booking revenue outside the US to avoid US tax. The EU wants companies to book revenue where they make it, which they can do all on their own. They don't need the US for that. And what makes you think the GOP wouldn't support this? It would give them cover to lower the tax rate to 15% from 21% to "be in line with the rest of the G7". Also, if our multinationals can't avoid tax anymore, there is a good chance they would just book their revenue here in the US, leading to more revenue for the US and less for Europe.

cm2187 5y ago
The agreement changes the way a company revenue is recognized and allocated between jurisdictions. I suspect it may require to change the tax treaties between those countries. It's not just changing the corporate tax rate.
- jedberg 5y ago
  From what I can tell with what's out there on there internet, the main change is allowing local jurisdictions to tax a company on the money they make in that country, even if they have no presence there. So again, it would just increase revenue for the US, and I see no reason they wouldn't agree to it. At the end of the day, I don't think the US had to compromise here. I think it's universally better for the US government, just not US based companies, but it gives the GOP enough air cover to agree to it anyway. It mostly benefits the European countries that are missing their tax revenue.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    It will also massively increase the complexity of doing taxes for smaller businesses. It wouldn't surprise me if it lead to even more websites going "sorry, we value customers from your country, but we cannot serve this content to you". Imagine running a small business and somebody from Algeria wishes to purchase your software. Is the $5 you make worth having to file Algerian taxes? I mention this, because this is something that happened with YouTube this month. Content creators have to give their tax info to YouTube because the US is now charging taxes from creators outside the US on money they made on US customers. Edit: as was pointed out - there's a minimum $10 million threshold. That makes it far more reasonable.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate. That's misleading, because what are called “treaties” in international law include more than what are called “treaties” in US domestic law, but also “Congressional-executive agreements” and some (but, IIRC, not all) “sole executive agreements.” Virtually all “treaties” in the international sense that have come into force in US law in recent decades have been Congressional-executive agreements.

bjt 5y ago

The US corporate tax rate is already 21%. Agreeing to "at least 15%" should not be a tough sell.

briandear 5y ago

> They also agreed in principle to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other. Why? If a country can be more efficient, why must they be penalized by being required to raise taxes? This is the equivalent of a price floor. Why should a country be required to have higher taxes to appease those that make different policy decisions? It should be up to the government (voters) what tax rates work for their country. Why wouldn’t a tax rate ceiling be proposed instead? Why should Ireland raise taxes just because France wants to run huge healthcare deficits or offer extremely generous train worker pensions? Seems like decisions on tax rates should be left to the country. If a country wants a 50% tax rate, that’s their business. If they are economically harmed by someone else having a 10% rate, then the problem isn’t that someone else has a lower cost but that they have too high a cost. As far as the 2/3 rule for US treaties, that’s a good thing. That ensures that treaties are good for the entire country rather than just a simple majority. I don’t want 51% being able to ignore 49%. If Republicans were in power and proposed a maximum tax rate treaty, those complaining about the 2/3 rule would be singing a different tune. The Constitution was designed specifically to ensure that a narrow majority isn’t able to run roughshod over everyone else. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. And that feature benefits everyone at different times.

rswail 5y ago
Ireland is part of the EU, so how it taxes corporations is something it has to negotiate with the rest of the EU. That is its problem, not something the G7 care about. Ireland has attracted investment and revenue by undercutting other nations, while providing access to the EU. Not surprisingly, the rest of the EU is not happy about that. No one is denying nations the right to set their own tax rates for corporations. What has happened here is that a number of nations have come together, negotiated, and agreed that they will each set their lowest rate at 15%. The reason for that is deliberately to stop countries undercutting each other. They have all agreed that undercutting each other has lead to consequences that have affected them all equally in a "race to the bottom" and of corporate tax avoidance. > If they are economically harmed by someone else having a 10% rate... The G7 nations have agreed that they don't want to be economically harmed. Their agreement is to pass laws in each of their environments to stop that. They've also agreed that each of them can tax the profits made locally to them. They agreed to limit that to a maximum of 20% of the corporate's global profits. As for the 2/3rds rule for US treaties, that's because the Senate, representing the States (not the people), is given a "check" over the President unilaterally making treaties, as far as the United States is concerned, because treaties made in this way are considered equal in power to the Constitution. Each treaty is effectively an amendment to the US Constitution. So it's not about 51 vs 49%, it's about 2/3rds of the US states, as represented in the Senate, agreeing with a treaty.

kinkora 5y ago

"Every journey of a 1000 miles begins with 1 step" Maybe we should laude and celebrate that at least loads of effort was put into getting all the G7 finance ministers in one place and actually have a discussion + agree to a next step? Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk". I sometimes think people in the last decade are to quick to find faults for every little thing that falls short of a 100% effort (and even that gets criticism) without even considering that they are not the men-in-the-arena [1] doing the hard work. ---- [1] Whenever I think of criticizing something/someone, I always consider Theodore Roosevelt comment on this sort of behaviour where he once said: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

CaptainSwing 5y ago
You saying all politicians, even the aweful ones, should get participation awards, while us plebs should just know our place and shut up?
rufus_foreman 5y ago
> Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk" They don't have the authority to negotiate the agreements that were described in the headlines as already being made. That's called bullshit. Doesn't matter which side politically you are on, it's bullshit. Why is the BBC printing bullshit? They don't have that authority, the BBC is lying to you, why are they doing that?
- 5y ago

viztor 5y ago

Except it doesn't require the status of a treaty for the United States. Since the current corporate tax rate in the US is above the 15% agreed upon, it doesn't really matter if the senate signs on the deal or not. And the senate has little reason, even as republican-majority, not to when it's mostly a deal restricting small countries for offering tax rate too low.