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

841–850 of 931 posts

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#841

Post by tablespoon »

bumby wrote: post #445
tablespoon wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I look forward to the day that we punish corporations by removing their freedom (ability to operate) instead of fining them laughably small percentages of their yearly revenue for serious violations of laws and regulations. I agree, but like you mentioned, the externalities on innocent parties would be too great. Also a lot of companies do not issue dividends, so focusing on them would do no good in a lot of cases.…

> Maybe such people could be shared a per-share fine based on shares held at a particular date? I think it’s nearly impossible to expect most shareholders to understand the business underpinnings to this degree within the existing system. Think of pensioners with mutual funds, do you think most even understand all the businesses in those funds let alone the operations of those businesses? To me, this is akin at emplo…

> I think it’s nearly impossible to expect most shareholders to understand the business underpinnings to this degree within the existing system. Think of pensioners with mutual funds, do you think most even understand all the businesses in those funds let alone the operations of those businesses?

That's true, but I don't think that matters. Those same shareholders both profit and lose based on all kinds of other factors they don't understand. Adding new ways to lose tied to illegal activity doesn't really fundamentally change anything.

Also, there's something important to note: pensioners with mutual funds have savvy proxies (fund managers) who should very will understand the business underpinnings to this degree, and vote their shares to avoid losses due to these kinds of fines.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#842

Post by trainsplanes »

alentist wrote: post #837
peteretep wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you trying to claim any G7 country is socialist, while suggesting an administrative division of the one-party socialist People’s Republic of China is a good alternative?

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#843

Post by sumedh »

foepys wrote: post #140
sumedh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both Ireland and Luxembourg have legitimate activities: So those countries need to decide if they want to support legitimate activities or legitimate activities with fair tax policy approved by the US. If they dont like US's demands they can stop trading with US but we know they are not going to do that.

In that case the US should first handle Delaware before throwing the first stone.

Yes they should but they are probably not going to do anything.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#844

Post by skissane »

azernik wrote: post #834
skissane wrote: post #737

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…

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.

To be strict about it, the Senate never votes to ratify a treaty. It votes to give its "advice and consent to the ratification". The actual ratification is done by the Executive not by the Senate. But the Senate's advice and consent is popularly called "ratification" even though it isn't.

And the Senate's consent is not required to ratify a treaty. Ultimately the Executive decides whether to classify something as a "treaty" or an "international agreement". By classifying a treaty as an "international agreement", the Executive is allowed to ratify it without the Senate's consent. Such a ratification without the Senate's consent counts as "ratification" under international law but not under US domestic law. And that's why it is confusing, the meaning of the term "ratification" under US domestic law is a subset of its meaning under international law.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#845

Post by ljf »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #824
MrPowers wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deadweight loss of taxation is much lower for a land tax than an income tax. The deadweight loss is the economic resources allocated to complying with the tax. The armies of tax lawyers would be able to perform other economically productive activities if they weren't pouring over the tax code. Pigovian taxation is even better. Taxing gas is a great example. Gas consumers emit carbon which has a cost for society.…

> Taxing gas is a great example. Gas consumers emit carbon which has a cost for society. This isn't even why gas is tax heavily in developed economies. First, gas taxes pay for roads. Second, the negative externality that Europe, at least, is trying to reduce is dependency on Middle Eastern oil, since that opens a huge can of worms with respect to world stability. If they really cared about air pollution, they wouldn…

In many countries gas does not pay for roads, but goes into a general taxation 'bucket'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#846

Post by skissane »

praptak wrote: post #839
anovikov wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In international law, this is known as monism vs dualism.

Monism says that international law and domestic law form a single cohesive whole. International law automatically applies domestically, and domestic law which contradicts international law is automatically invalid.

Dualism says that international law and domestic law are two independent systems. International law only applies domestically if domestic legislation is passed or amended to make it applicable. Domestic law and international law can contradict each other, and in cases of contradiction the domestic courts will follow the domestic law and ignore international law.

Some legal systems have adopted monism and others dualism. And yet others, like the US, are actually a hybrid – US law is mostly dualist but with a few monist elements.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#848

Post by brazzy »

technick wrote: post #847

Wouldn't this be considered Collusion? I heard some other president was accused of the same thing...

No, openly agreeing with other government to prevent tax evasion and thereby benefiting all countries involved is not the same thing as clandestinely using resources of a foreign government to influence an election for your personal benefit.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#849

Post by gambiting »

walshemj wrote: post #738
gambiting wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue about the "very easily" point for IT workers in the UK, as 100k+ salaries are very rare, and if you get shares instead of cash it's still taxed as income and doesn't trigger a self assessment. Only if you hold onto them and only if you make more than the capital gains threshold, you have to fill out a self assessment. But in either case - sure, but the system means absolutely no worries about your tax retur…

Normally shares are not taxed as income in the UK dependent on how they are structured -dividends are though. To follow on it is easy to hit the limit on dividend allowance if you have shares outside of your ISA

I've received shares several times from the company where I work in the UK and every single time they have been taxed as income. If you are just given shares straight up then yes, they are subject to income tax on their worth at the time of acquisition.

Re: G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

#850

Post by wildfire »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #768
kinkora wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Every journey of a 1000 miles begins with 1 step" Maybe we should laude and celebrate that at least loads of effort was put into getting all the G7 finance ministers in one place and actually have a discussion + agree to a next step? Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk". I sometimes think people in the la…

> Feels unnecessary negative and very arm chair criticism to just hand wave the whole endeavour and say "oh nothing was done and all they did was talk" They don't have the authority to negotiate the agreements that were described in the headlines as already being made. That's called bullshit. Doesn't matter which side politically you are on, it's bullshit. Why is the BBC printing bullshit? They don't have that author…

No, as has been pointed out to you - multiple times - reaching a deal is not equivalent to a contract.

The fact that your experience tells you that "deal equals contract" is strange.

In my experience I have had plenty of "deals" not materialise for one reason or another.

To extrapolate that the BBC is printing bullshit is basically to say that if you have not experienced something, then it is worthless.

The BBC is not lying. You are being shrill for no good reason and are relying on and extrapolating from your limited experience of deals.

Post reply on HN