Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 931 posts

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#641

Post by anoncake »

reasonabl_human wrote: post #635
anoncake wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are responsible for your property. If you own stock, you own part of a company so you are responsible for its actions. In the case of mutual funds, it's the funds' job to understand the businesses it invests in for you. There could be an exception for non-voting stock though.

Well this is just false. You are not at all responsible for a company’s actions just because you are a shareholder. HN is evidently quite out of its depth with these kinds of threads.

Why not? Don't shares represent ownership of a company? Aren't you responsible for your property?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#642

Post by rufus_foreman »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #631
rufus_foreman wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think Yellen's agreement does count as in this is the US's (sort of foreign policy?) No it doesn't work like that. To get anything done, you need Republican votes. I have no idea, I haven't checked this afternoon, how many Republican votes do you have for a minimum corporate tax? That's what I want to know, I'm guessing it is zero, but let me know what the number is.

Reconciliation requires no Republican votes. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/02/05/what-is-r...

You think the Constitutional right of Congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" can be wiped out with reconciliation?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#644

Post by selimthegrim »

dkersten wrote: post #508
mohanmcgeek wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Exactly this. Except the reason it's not done today is because back in the 90s, people argued that it's not possible to tell if/when services/IP crossed borders because there's no fixed port of entry. (They were making this argument because software CDs were subject to import duties but downloads were not and that they were unfair) Today it's still the case and services/IT are not subject to duties.. but I think…

The solution is simple enough: look at the companies books, if money is leaving the country, duty is charged unless it can be accounted for by something else (like the existing duty on physical goods). IRS: Hey Google, you said you made this much money, so you owe us tax. Google: No, see, here we paid it to Google Ireland as IP license fees, so we in fact made $0 IRS: Great, you owe us duty on that payment

All rise, court is now in session. The honorable Lina Khan presiding. The case of U.S. vs. 10 Billion Wrapped Individually Marked Bills.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#645

Post by rayiner »

ncallaway wrote: post #593
rufus_foreman wrote: post #540

>> 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 ot…

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 contr…

Your analogy is flawed because you seem to be assuming that the people with execution authority are the ones who reached an agreement in principle. You’d expect them to succeed in papering it up.

That’s not the case here. The agreement in principle was reached by someone who has no power to do anything with regards to corporate taxes. Congress sets U.S. tax law and agrees to treaties. To do that, you need 60% or 66% of the Senate. It’s like the CFOs reaching an “agreement in principle” to something that requires Board approval—and a big chunk of the Board is hostile to management.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#646

Post by clairity »

specialist wrote: post #600
clairity wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rather than simple placeholder variables, we should employ placeholders for smoothly continuous functions over the relevant parameter space. for taxes, the parameter space might include revenue and profit, over which the tax is smoothly continuous. discontinuities just beg to be exploited.

I eagerly await the broad recognition that economies are non-linear complex adaptive systems.

exactly. social phenomena in general are many orders more complex than physical phenomena for which mathematical models are generally deployed effectively.

but even so, a zero- (e.g., a single tax rate) or quasi-first-order (like a limited number of tax brackets) model makes no sense, when we can much better fit the desired effect with a slightly higher-order function for only a small complexity trade-off. better fit means reducing the exploitation surface.

tangentially, this is a relevant application of basic linear algebra and calculus to civics, which could be used as concrete motivation in the high school education of those subjects.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#647

Post by [deleted] »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #642
toomuchtodo wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reconciliation requires no Republican votes. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/02/05/what-is-r...

You think the Constitutional right of Congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" can be wiped out with reconciliation?

[deleted]

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#648

Post by rufus_foreman »

wolverine876 wrote: post #626
rufus_foreman wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what it says in the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" Crystal clear.

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…

No.

The United States Constitution is not "only a framework".

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#650

Post by cm2187 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #625
YZF wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> I think Yellen's agreement does count as in this is the US's (sort of foreign policy?) No it doesn't work like that. To get anything done, you need Republican votes. I have no idea, I haven't checked this afternoon, how many Republican votes do you have for a minimum corporate tax? That's what I want to know, I'm guessing it is zero, but let me know what the number is.

Though if it is sold as a missile against big tech...
Post reply on HN