4 ms·

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. T

by 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.

by csomar 3y ago

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.