61–70 of 931 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If private companies would start to imprison shoplifters, it would be illegal and they would be prosecuted. A private company is not government and government is not a private company. What is your point exactly?
https://www.wikihow.com/Legally-Detain-a-Shoplifter
Even if the state does it in NL, there is a difference between imprisonment and detainment. They are even physically different : they are different buildings.
Also, there are countries that are not in the G20 that could quite easily undercut an agreement, notably, Switzerland. It already acts as a tax haven for personal income (and corporate income), so an expansion of this haven seems forseeable.
Despite this, I don't think this is a reason to not act. There will be reasons why multinationals will not want to be domiciled in Switzerland.
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.
Welcome to Iran...
The deal - from the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan - will put pressure on other countries to follow suit, including at a meeting of the G20 next month. I can imagine what those other nations responses will be.
This sounds like it will be hell for small software companies with customers all over the world. Paying taxes differently for each country of the customer you sell to is a ridiculous hardship. It only benefits the large multinationals to reduce their competition. These sorts of rules centralize markets to fewer and fewer companies able to spend the resources to fulfill more and more complex rules. The end result is h…
Summary: > Firstly, the G7 want a global minimum tax rate so as to avoid a "race to the bottom" where countries can undercut each other with low tax rates. > Secondly, the rules will aim to make companies pay tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits. Good. It’s a shame that Biden had to back down from the initial 28% because of do…
Good. I didn't think such a global minimum was politically possible. There was recently an article on HN where the author claimed that high tax rates don't impact high net worth individuals because they have already made their money. It just makes it harder for others to join the club. Perhaps what we need is a global maximum wealth (rather than income) cap, as a multiple of global median per-capita wealth. Perhaps s…
It will then take slightly over 229 years until the multiplier has shrunk from 10,000 to 1,000.
After another 229 years the multiplier will have shrunk another order of magnitude, from 1,000 to 100. And it makes sense mathematically that if it shrinks an order of magnitude in the first 229 years then it will shrink another order of magnitude in the next 229 years.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y+%3D+10000+*+0.99%5Ex...
As a layperson this seems reasonable I think. But I also think there is no "right" or "wrong" in this case, and it will boil down to personal views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd ask some economists if thus is net negative or net positive for developing economies. If the principle is you pay tax in the economy you supply service, then a lot of service is supplied over mobile devices to emerging economies. Maybe their tax revenues will rise?
Ah, economists, those who pretend to know things.
Irish are gonna be pissed. Also and not ironically, what a huge win for the workers over capital.