3 ms·

No jurisdiction under international law (to the extent this exists), I can imagine, but does it not have such jurisdiction under US law either? The 16th amendme

No jurisdiction under international law (to the extent this exists), I can imagine, but does it not have such jurisdiction under US law either? The 16th amendment sounds broad enough to cover this, on the face of it.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
The authority to tax is one of the most fundamental components of national sovereignty. It was one of the key factors that lead to the revolutionary war. Your proposal is basically to annex any country with a tax regime that the US doesn’t approve of.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Please don't suggest I support something just because I'm discussing its legality. I'm not suggesting this is a good, sane, or practical idea. I'm just asking whether it's legal. (And note the US has violated a lot of other countries' sovereignties in the past, too. In even worse ways. They haven't run into illegality as the hurdle.)
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    I don’t believe there are any constitutional restrictions that would get in the way of the war, treaty making, or expansion that would be required of a federal government aiming to annex foreign countries whose tax regime it didn’t like. Definitely some international laws that would violate, but you can choose how seriously you want to take those. There probably isn’t an authority that could force the US to comply with them at least.
- csomar 3y ago
  The US will already do that (Pillar 1) which essentially forces companies (called multi-national companies) to pay taxes on where their customers are located. This is akin to extra-territorial taxation and really is just a way around customs tax. (they could have simply implemented customs for these product sold, but I guess the system has reached peak bureaucratic complexity for that to be possible). > Your proposal is basically to annex any country with a tax regime that the US doesn’t approve of. Unfortunately, we are going there and fast. (CRS, Global Minimum Tax, FATCA, and other stuff). My guess is that this will speed up the bifurcation of the current international system into two systems. One of which will be supported by China who will be able to play on the two sides due to its size.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    You’re right, and I personally hope it does end up with bifurcation. Because the alternative if it continues on its current trajectory is far worse. It’s astonishing how many countries have given up massive amounts of sovereignty over their own legislative power to a US-EU coalition that seeks to rewrite the whole worlds taxation and regulatory frameworks to suit their own interests. It’s framed as anti money laundering, anti tax avoidance, anti terrorism ect… but it’s really just the worlds most powerful governments trying to rewrite the laws of every other country in the world using non-legislative processes. Pillar 1 is a great example of that, most environmental treaties are too, and so is the fact that just about every foreign aid commitment comes attached with a treaty that requires countries to sign up to ICSID arbitration (here’s a great interview on how monumentally corrupt that system is: https://youtu.be/vDsp2apG5zQ?si=7IusNjr-E3SgmE6S https://youtu.be/vDsp2apG5zQ?si=7IusNjr-E3SgmE6S). Annexation would actually be a preferable outcome imo. At least then people would actually know what was happening in their own countries, rather than just being endlessly frustrated that their governments seem to be serving everybody other than its own citizens, all the while generally having no idea what any of these systems are, or that they even exist.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

The authority to tax is one of the most fundamental components of national sovereignty. It was one of the key factors that lead to the revolutionary war. Your proposal is basically to annex any country with a tax regime that the US doesn’t approve of.

dataflow 3y ago
Please don't suggest I support something just because I'm discussing its legality. I'm not suggesting this is a good, sane, or practical idea. I'm just asking whether it's legal. (And note the US has violated a lot of other countries' sovereignties in the past, too. In even worse ways. They haven't run into illegality as the hurdle.)
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  I don’t believe there are any constitutional restrictions that would get in the way of the war, treaty making, or expansion that would be required of a federal government aiming to annex foreign countries whose tax regime it didn’t like. Definitely some international laws that would violate, but you can choose how seriously you want to take those. There probably isn’t an authority that could force the US to comply with them at least.
csomar 3y ago
The US will already do that (Pillar 1) which essentially forces companies (called multi-national companies) to pay taxes on where their customers are located. This is akin to extra-territorial taxation and really is just a way around customs tax. (they could have simply implemented customs for these product sold, but I guess the system has reached peak bureaucratic complexity for that to be possible). > Your proposal is basically to annex any country with a tax regime that the US doesn’t approve of. Unfortunately, we are going there and fast. (CRS, Global Minimum Tax, FATCA, and other stuff). My guess is that this will speed up the bifurcation of the current international system into two systems. One of which will be supported by China who will be able to play on the two sides due to its size.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  You’re right, and I personally hope it does end up with bifurcation. Because the alternative if it continues on its current trajectory is far worse. It’s astonishing how many countries have given up massive amounts of sovereignty over their own legislative power to a US-EU coalition that seeks to rewrite the whole worlds taxation and regulatory frameworks to suit their own interests. It’s framed as anti money laundering, anti tax avoidance, anti terrorism ect… but it’s really just the worlds most powerful governments trying to rewrite the laws of every other country in the world using non-legislative processes. Pillar 1 is a great example of that, most environmental treaties are too, and so is the fact that just about every foreign aid commitment comes attached with a treaty that requires countries to sign up to ICSID arbitration (here’s a great interview on how monumentally corrupt that system is: https://youtu.be/vDsp2apG5zQ?si=7IusNjr-E3SgmE6S https://youtu.be/vDsp2apG5zQ?si=7IusNjr-E3SgmE6S). Annexation would actually be a preferable outcome imo. At least then people would actually know what was happening in their own countries, rather than just being endlessly frustrated that their governments seem to be serving everybody other than its own citizens, all the while generally having no idea what any of these systems are, or that they even exist.