Live data from Hacker News

G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

bbc.co.uk

831–840 of 931 posts

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#831

>> 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…

Except it doesn't require the status of a treaty for the United States. Since the current corporate tax rate in the US is above the 15% agreed upon, it doesn't really matter if the senate signs on the deal or not. And the senate has little reason, even as republican-majority, not to when it's mostly a deal restricting small countries for offering tax rate too low.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#832
post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. The parliament (for the US the Senate) ratifies the treaty, making it binding. Under international law, ratification happens when a state’s international representatives (head of state, ministers, ambassadors) formally lodge instruments of ratification with the depositary. (See Article 2(1)(b), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.) When the US Senate "ratifies" a treaty, that is not ratification under inter…

International law is very much a gentlemen's agreement, though. It's not like domestic law. Domestic law always wins.

Until 2020, Russian constitution had a provision that international treaties have a priority vs domestic law.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#833
post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't ratifying a treaty something completely different?

If they want to make this a formal treaty, yes. But it could be an informal agreement between the leaders of these countries, that they will all pass such laws. In that case, passing a law that changes the corporate tax rate would fit into a reconciliation package with no issues. Though, if it’s an informal agreement then no such law even needs to be passed, since our corporate tax rate is above the agreed minimum.

Offhand, does someone know which countries that belong to the G7 and made this "historic agreement" have higher tax rates than that agreed upon?

Edit In an alternate universe I wish the title was"G7 agrees to carbon tax" that would certainly level the playing field...I mean surely intrinsically FANG's are highly carbon intensive if you took into account the pollution they help generate through added energy usage (delivery trucks every day, lots of packaging, server farms etc) and the highly paid jobs which fuel inflation, consumption and speculation...(p.s. please don't feel ruffled)

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually many steps. In this case: 1. The finance ministers reach an agreement. This is what has happened. 2. A treaty is written and signed, normally by the head of state, but sometimes by the head of government (for the US in both cases the President). At this point the treaty in not yet legally binding, although according to international law the signatory country has an obligation "to refrain, in good f…

> 3. The parliament (for the US the Senate) ratifies the treaty, making it binding. Under international law, ratification happens when a state’s international representatives (head of state, ministers, ambassadors) formally lodge instruments of ratification with the depositary. (See Article 2(1)(b), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.) When the US Senate "ratifies" a treaty, that is not ratification under inter…

I would quibble that the name collision of the US Senate's "ratification" power is intentional and not confusing. When the Senate votes to "ratify" a treaty, it is authorizing the US government to perform the international act of ratification.

i.e. US domestic law governs the procedures by which the state can perform the internationally-recognized act of treaty ratification.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#835

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off eliminating corporation tax entirely. The revenue of a corporation can, roughly, be: 1. Spent on goods or services from another company (including freelancers, contractors, etc.) 2. Spent on rent 3. Spent on capital purchases 4. Spent on wages 5. Spent on debt repayment or other forms of financing 6. Paid out in dividends 7. Spent on share buybacks 8. Invested in something els…

Didn't uber, lyft, et. al just spend $100 million on getting prop 22 passed?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries competing with each other to offer attractive business environments with the lowest taxes is a race to the top, not the bottom.

Countries competing with each other to lower environmental standards, workers rights and social programs is a race to the bottom.

Economic freedom reduces poverty.

https://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230114319_3

> Compared to those that were less free, countries with higher economic freedom ratings during 1980–2005 had lower rates of both extreme and moderate poverty in 2005. More importantly, countries with higher levels of economic freedom in 1980 and larger increases in economic freedom during the 1980s and 1990s achieved larger poverty rate reductions than economies that were less free. These relationships were true even after adjustment for geographic and locational factors and foreign assistance as a share of income. The positive relations between the level and change in economic freedom and reductions in poverty were both statistically significant and robust across alternative specifications.

> Some fear that growth propelled by economic freedom will leave the poor behind. This was not the case during 1980–2005. During this quarter of a century, the developing countries that moved the most toward economic freedom achieved both strong economic growth and substantial reductions in poverty. This indicates that an institutional and policy environment consistent with economic freedom is an important ingredient for progress against poverty.

https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/the-relationship-betw...

> We study the relationship between economic freedom and poverty rates in 151 countries over a twenty-year period. Using the World Bank's poverty headcounts of those living on less than $1.90 per day, $3.20 per day, and $5.50 per day, we find evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates. We also test the effect of various components of the Index of Economic Freedom. We find that a government's integrity and a country's trade freedom are associated with lower poverty rates. We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices.

See also https://cei.org/blog/why-economic-freedom-is-the-best-weapon...

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do move there. Singapore picks up a ton of US expats, as did Hong Kong before it got swallowed by China. Bermuda and the Caymans have tons of companies and restrict immigration so tightly that they are less attractive.

Are you trying to cite Singapore and Hong Kong as countries that aren’t neoliberal?

Are you trying to cite Singapore and Hong Kong as countries that are socialist?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, those countries are extremely popular places to base your business activities or start a company or manage your finances from. Ever been to Bermuda? Or the Virgin Islands? You can't move for wealthy industrious Western expats and their business ventures. And also to a lesser extent Ireland, the Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, etc. These are all some of the most popular countries to move to in the…

Are you implying Ireland, Luxembourg, Bermuda (part of the UK), the Virgin Islands (part of the US and UK), Singapore, and Switzerland aren't western countries part of or at very least allied with and influenced by other western "neoliberal" countries/G7? Because that's a very, uh, unique idea. Also weird to jump from implying escape from western influence doesn't exist to listing western countries as a way to escape…

Are you implying they're socialist?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#839
post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International law is very much a gentlemen's agreement, though. It's not like domestic law. Domestic law always wins.

Until 2020, Russian constitution had a provision that international treaties have a priority vs domestic law.

Which is how it should work in principle. Why would parties to an agreement care about each other's internal matters?

Without such a provision you open up to scenarios where a parliament sabotages international treaties by making laws that are in conflict with them.

That's worse than actual official termination of the agreement because the threshold is much lower.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#840

Why are governments allowed to collude like this? Isn't this the same idea as price fixing? Exploiting their monopoly (governments' monopoly on the right to do commerce) to unfairly raise prices (taxes)? The world needs at least somewhere where you can opt-out from Western neoliberalism and socialism.

There are some countries that you can move to that are generally free of the laws of western nations. For some reason, people from “western neoliberal and socialist” countries generally don’t move to them, though.

for some reason everyone from socialist companies moved to the US and not the other way around.
Post reply on HN