6 ms·
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. multinationals from global minimum tax
- eptcyka 1y ago[flagged]
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago[flagged]
- seydor 1y agoIsrael isn't even in the G7
- cenamus 1y agoThe GBU-57 is a modern tallboy, stop acting as if it's some sort of magic superbomb. The British dropped the Grand Slam over Germany in the fourties. And that one also penetrated 40m of earth
- earnestinger 1y agoI think you are missing the forest for the trees.
- tux3 1y agoEurope had been enjoying decades of peace, but it is now waking up. However there is no sense in which Western Europe is under a credible military threat by the US. If you look at the French nuclear doctrine for instance, it is designed to make sure people do not forget we can both go MAD. The French nuclear warning shot is designed as a reminder, it is a nuclear EMP payload shot away from populated areas, and intended as a cease and desist, without lasting damage.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoRussia and the US B2 bomb strikes on Iran proved you don't need nuclear weapons to cripple a nation. The US could just use its big tech empire to cripple Europe.
- palmfacehn 1y agoYes, the US has a higher defense budget and a larger individual economy. The entire premise of cartelizing "minimum taxation" levels seems more like anti-competitive bullying.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- brikym 1y agoIt's so much that the G7 exempted them but more that they just set the global minimum to zero.
- spwa4 1y agoWhat's the "compromise" here?
- refurb 1y ago“We’re not going to hold our own corporations to the minimum. What are you going to do about it?”
- spwa4 1y agoAh ok, I understand. Sigh ... yeah, after the shit Ireland pulled, I guess this is the only choice left. (Ireland signing TWO agreements to apply minimum tax one with OECD, one with the EU, with the prime minister announcing wide and far on TV how important this tax was, while telling accountants they weren't going to do it, then not doing it) On the plus side: this is going to suck bad for Ireland, and frankly they have it coming. So it is effectively decided then, even if probably a lot of politicians still need to wake up to it, the next move is the EU taxing payments directly when they cross EU borders, contradicting half the reason the EU exists in the first place, and probably in a system that'll make EU VAT look simple. It's going to be a disaster, but not easy to exploit ... It'll take the power to tax further away from the EU and even further into the countries' own tax departments, but of course that's exactly what's needed to stop this. And the years it'll take to do that will mean multinationals get a few more years of minimally taxed profits.
- notarobot123 1y ago"Give us special treatment or we'll throw a tantrum and implement a revenge tax on foreign owned firms in the U.S." It seems like the choice is to allow the U.S to upend some fundamental aspects of international cooperation or to pay dues to the Don. It turns out you can get some pretty big concessions if you're willing to give up your integrity in exchange.
- abc03 1y agoThere are rules for RoW and there are rules for the USA. Astonishing that the G7 falls in this trap again and again (for example Basel III). The US was a major driver in pillar 2 but won‘t adhere to it. Probably companies will restructure their organization to have two streams and exploit it. Despite GILTI, some US companies have low ETRs.
- miohtama 1y agoA lot of success of Magnificent 7 companies is tax optimisation, not just productivity gains. For example you can check Amazon effective tax rate here https://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatiosy.php?code=AMZN&itx https://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatiosy.php?... ...or "Jeff Bezos did not get rich by paying taxes"
- refurb 1y agoProductivity measures are calculated pre-tax.
- jules 1y agoA minimum tax is a bad idea. Taxes tend to creep up, and the main pressure against that is for companies or people to leave.
- fastball 1y agoThat mechanism would still exist, no? Just that the entity leaving is countries from an agreement, not companies from a country.
- jules 1y agoHow would the incentives of that work?
- fastball 1y agoA country recognizes that the rate of company creation has gone done (or some similar metric). They identify the tax rate as a reason for this. They want the tax rate to be lower to ameliorate this. They leave the agreement. Now presumably there are penalties or such in place for this type of agreement, so it would need to be weighed as onerous enough to accept any such penalties. If it is just one country that feels this way then it might be a non-starter, but if the global minimum tax gets to a point where many countries feel this way, it would probably be viable to coordinate to leave the agreement all at once, with the remainers having little power at that point.
- thrance 1y ago> Taxes tend to creep up Citation needed, corporate taxes have been going down for decades. > companies or people to leave. "We can't ever tax anyone because else they would just leave; ergo nothing can or should be done about rampant inequality" is not only false, it is extremely dangerous and accelerates the fall of our democracies.
- mattmaroon 1y agoAlso, the whole point of the agreement is that the tax is global so there’s nowhere to leave to.
- bitlax 1y agoYou can just do things.
- pydry 1y agoIt sure would be nice if the western world didnt have the same relationship with America that Belarus has with Russia.
- saubeidl 1y agoWe're working on building our own military to a point we won't need them anymore. This is all temporary appeasement, but they'll pay the price eventually.
- pydry 1y agoIm afraid spending more money on American arms which require American consent to work because "daddy" demanded it doesnt really count.
- saubeidl 1y agoReArm Europe explicitly has a "Buy European" clause. American arms are not eligible.
- refurb 1y agoEurope doesn't make a lot of the arms it would need to go it alone.
- saubeidl 1y agoWhich is exactly why it's rapidly expanding its arms production. Which kind of arms are you thinking of, btw?
- pydry 1y agoIf this were the intention we'd be building drone factories, steel forges, munitions factories and hiring troops instead of buying overpriced F-35s for which american permission to operate can be withdrawn at will and which have proven to be too fragile to be allowed to be deployed in Ukraine. The top priority still appears to be "please daddy".
- saubeidl 1y agoAmerica is rapidly squandering its soft power in a foolish pursuit of short-term gains. To pull this shit in times of a rapidly rising China and a remilitarizing EU is to accelerate the shift to multipolarism and giving up global superpower status.
- consumer451 1y agoAgreed. The challenge for all of us in the EU is to collectively wake up to this new reality, and do something to fill the void where we are concerned. IMO, that void is much larger than we are ready to admit.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago>remilitarizing EU A remilitarizing EU is no threat to the US due it's ageing demographics and declining birthrates, and lack of tech like the B2 bomber which is 35+ years old at this point. Hence why the EU doesn't get invited to peace negotiations of conflicts. EU can't even beat Russia next door, how would they challenge the US?
- saubeidl 1y agoOf course we could beat Russia. It's just more convenient for us to keep them tied up in a quagmire of their own making.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- singingwolfboy 1y agohttps://archive.ph/Pkxun https://archive.ph/Pkxun
- rrnechmech 1y agoThe "investment" on the military paying off
- saubeidl 1y agoOn a related note: > With just 13 days until the Trump-imposed deadline to conclude a EU-U.S. deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen decided the time for conventional negotiating tactics was over. > She floated the idea that the EU’s 27 countries could join forces with 12 members of the Asian-led Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc (CPTPP) — which now includes the U.K. — to form a new world trade initiative. > The new grouping would redesign a rules-based global trading order, reforming or perhaps even replacing the now largely defunct World Trade Organization, she said. > Crucially, the U.S. would not automatically be invited. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leaders-donald-trump-us-trade-tariffs-ursula-von-der-leyen/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leaders-donald-trump-us-t... The US is locking itself out of world trade with their behavior. The price to pay for actions like these will far outweigh any benefits.
- consumer451 1y agoIn EU-focused online forums, I have recently seen MAGA referred to as "Make America Go Away." I chuckled at first, but as a beneficiary of Pax Americana, this is a really sad state of affairs. However, I am really pro-EU, and I hope that we are up to the task coming forth.
- saubeidl 1y agoI don't see vassalage as something worth preserving. It's time for a Pax Europeana on European soil.
- consumer451 1y ago> It's time for a Pax Europeana on European soil. I support this 100%, and have said nearly these exact words in the past. However, the concept of Pax __ applies to the entire "world." Even the USA's supposed enemies benefited from the rules based global order, a lot of the time. If Pax Europa is to be a thing, it needs to have effects beyond Europe's borders. The democratic European way, surviving and thriving, is the last hope for a bright near-term future for all of humanity. I truly believe this. note: I edited my gp comment prior to seeing your response.
- muro 1y agoI think this is completely reasonable, services should use the same customs / duties mechanism on "import" as any other goods. The income tax should be also paid the same way. And if the product is created in multiple countries (licenses, Software Components etc), they are part of the whole product and tarifs for parts of goods should similarly apply.
- globalnode 1y agoSo do the rest of the world's companies still have to pay the minimum 15 percent tax if they operate in America?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]