5 ms·
It will, just like in Ireland. That's the beauty of this deal. It's blackmail basically. If the US does not pass it, other countries will tax the difference eve
by ko27 5y ago
It will, just like in Ireland. That's the beauty of this deal. It's blackmail basically. If the US does not pass it, other countries will tax the difference even on US profits (company just needs to have presence in the EU). US would be shooting itself in the foot, especially being the one to propose it originally. Also, I am pretty US is already above 15% corporate tax rate.
- cgearhart 5y ago>US would be shooting itself in the foot… That’s very “on brand” for the US. All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP.
- wutbrodo 5y ago> All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP. TPP was opposed by both major-party candidates by the time of the general election; Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her position on it to pander to Bernie-inclined voters (or charitably, in order to better represent her constituents' views). Regardless, our withdrawal from it had nothing to do with "a change in party running the White House", and we would've likely withdrawn regardless of who won the election. It was just a consequence of the populist wave that swept America across the political spectrum (and is sweeping much of the world).
- tweedledee 5y agoI think it’s more likely Hillary would have just flipped again.
- wutbrodo 5y agoThat's certainly possible, but only if she felt like she didn't need the populist-left energy anymore (which is plausible).
- nescioquid 5y agoIndeed. Makes me think back to Clinton-trademarked "triangulation".
- cgearhart 5y agoI think it would’ve been unlikely for a Dem to torpedo such a signature piece of international policy as the TPP, even if they were mildly opposed to it. I never really liked it personally, so I wasn’t sad when it failed. But I still think the point stands: US foreign policy can shift substantially every few years depending on elections. See also: the Iran nuclear deal.
- Causality1 5y agoThe TPP included some lunatic overreaches.
- cgearhart 5y agoI agree, and I was never personally a fan of it. Still, it’s a good example of how mercurial it can be dealing with the US when the government changes so frequently. Another good example is the Iran nuclear deal.
- lovich 5y agoThat’s not blackmail, that’s the cost of access to those countries markets. Much like you could ignore GDPR if you never intended to touch the European market. You can’t claim blackmail because a club charges you a cover to enter the door
- 1123581321 5y agoThey probably just meant to say extortion, since the OECD isn’t threatening to release any damaging information about the US. :) That said, to your point, by definition a nation or group of nations can never commit extortion. They can treat other countries miserably and completely refuse to trade, if they want, and go to war if they choose to. Individuals have more restrictions on their interactions with others.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lovich 5y agoI think I quibble with that definition still. Something like the US sailing up to Japan and forcing them to trade at gunpoint would still be extortion but refusing to let you into their borders unless you comply with certain criteria is not. I noticed this sort of illogical argument that preventing access to a market was aggression with the GDPR drama as well. Americans(I say as one) seem to be completely incapable of handling when other countries use access to their markets in negotiations despite the US using that lever constantly.
- 1123581321 5y agoCertainly—I’d say it comes down to the necessity of access to the market in question, for the company or country outside of it. It quickly becomes subjective, hence the blindness to one’s own demands.
- lovich 5y agoIt’s literally not subjective. It’s their own land and country. The only way you can treat removing access to it as extortion or blackmail is if you feel you have a legitimate claim to it in which case you are by definition not recognizing their sovereignty. That’s a position you can(and many countries have) take, but it’s an oxymoron to recognize a countries sovereignty and also expect a claim to their sovereign lands
- goodpoint 5y agoIt's not blackmail nor extortion at all. These are 136 countries finding in agreement, not one country imposing its willpower on the rest of the world using threats of force.