The vice president is rolling out her first revenue-raising policy proposal as the Democratic presidential nominee and drawing a contrast with GOP opponent Donald Trump.
:::Unless there is a global minimum tax this will just move headquarters to Ireland or whoever is cheapest. This type of stuff is just to get votes. Sorry to be a negative Nancy 😕
If you disagree pls explain why. Genuinely interested in learning. I promise to discuss in good faith. I am also not an expert on most things. Just a person who has had some experience in broken promises 😉
“Unless this arbitrary impossible thing happens, the problem won’t be fixed. That’s why we have to do nothing.”
No.
Let’s just tax companies that operate in the USA based on their respective revenues related to that business, regardless of where they are headquartered.
To be clear: I do not think we should do nothing. That was not what I was trying to suggest. I’ve just been around a while and seen this type of promise before. I am worried that some people are maybe over optimistic about these types of promises and how it might play out.
Re: your last paragraph: would you be willing to pay more for goods or have US based companies perform worse in your 401k? (I do not have any money in my 401k to be clear I’m pretty poor, but I know that people care about that 😂) I will continue being negative and assume they’d pass that cost onto us
Well. Amazon didn’t make a profit for a long while. Maybe still not? EBITDA? Idk their current numbers, but I’m assuming there’s a lot of Hollywood Accounting happening.
I think closing those types of loopholes is the place we should start. Circling around: these campaign promises are easy to make, hard to keep.
It requires knowledge of accounting, economics, law, tech, politics…few people, if any, have that breadth of knowledge and connections.
I would be impressed with a politician if they had a solid how on these items. Otherwise: talk is cheap.
Congress has access to the brightest economic consultants to navigate everything, that’s not a problem. Closing loopholes is a logical next step. Just need to overcome the narrow margins and procedural fuck you manuevers to actually get things done.
I agree, with the caveat that your last sentence is a little hand-wavey. The word “Just” makes it seem easier than it is. People are easily swayed & bought. It’s wrong, but it is a thing.
Force companies that want to operate in your country to report sales made in your country so they’re taxed on the revenues, kick em out if they don’t report them.
Thank you for the reply! What would this look like realistically? I.e.: Google doesn’t comply. Do we build our own Chinese internet where you can’t use Google products?
Thanks for the reply! Would this work for tech companies? Biggest part of our Sp500. They’re mostly “in the cloud” right? So it’s pretty easy to move. And physical resources they leave behind would just be some data centers or whatever
Would love to see the video you mentioned if you can find it
I imagine it would work much the same way taxing any service industry would.
I wont pretend to understand how the sp500 calculates its value. I personally think the stock market is all smoke, mirrors & vibes. Tech still needs patents and copyrights, a likely vector of attack for a willing government I imagine.
Unfortunately, I have a vague memory of the video maybe its this one?
It’s rough. It’s a great solution on its face, but people don’t like to discuss its weaknesses. It’s an issue that seems particularly bad in the United States since they only have two functional political parties. It’s constantly “us vs them” for them, so anything that is seen as threatening their team results in backlash, even if it’s constructive criticism. They’re very much a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” people. It’s pretty sad.
Title
:::Unless there is a global minimum tax this will just move headquarters to Ireland or whoever is cheapest. This type of stuff is just to get votes. Sorry to be a negative Nancy 😕
If you disagree pls explain why. Genuinely interested in learning. I promise to discuss in good faith. I am also not an expert on most things. Just a person who has had some experience in broken promises 😉
“Unless this arbitrary impossible thing happens, the problem won’t be fixed. That’s why we have to do nothing.”
No.
Let’s just tax companies that operate in the USA based on their respective revenues related to that business, regardless of where they are headquartered.
Thank you! I like this.
To be clear: I do not think we should do nothing. That was not what I was trying to suggest. I’ve just been around a while and seen this type of promise before. I am worried that some people are maybe over optimistic about these types of promises and how it might play out.
Re: your last paragraph: would you be willing to pay more for goods or have US based companies perform worse in your 401k? (I do not have any money in my 401k to be clear I’m pretty poor, but I know that people care about that 😂) I will continue being negative and assume they’d pass that cost onto us
A global minimum corporate tax rate, you say? Agreed to by 137 countries during the Biden administration even? Neat!
Exactly! Good link
One thing I will mention. GMT above focuses on 15% of profits. It is trivial to manipulate that number. Which is why I am also for…
Openly transparent auditable money
Yeah, but gotta start somewhere right?
Well. Amazon didn’t make a profit for a long while. Maybe still not? EBITDA? Idk their current numbers, but I’m assuming there’s a lot of Hollywood Accounting happening.
I think closing those types of loopholes is the place we should start. Circling around: these campaign promises are easy to make, hard to keep.
It requires knowledge of accounting, economics, law, tech, politics…few people, if any, have that breadth of knowledge and connections.
I would be impressed with a politician if they had a solid how on these items. Otherwise: talk is cheap.
Congress has access to the brightest economic consultants to navigate everything, that’s not a problem. Closing loopholes is a logical next step. Just need to overcome the narrow margins and procedural fuck you manuevers to actually get things done.
I agree, with the caveat that your last sentence is a little hand-wavey. The word “Just” makes it seem easier than it is. People are easily swayed & bought. It’s wrong, but it is a thing.
I saw a video about this. I think the next step would be heavier taxes on the corporations that do this kind of stuff.
Then a nationalization of the physical means of that corporation that the entity leaves behind.
“If they leave we just make it work without them, we are American, we can do anything.” -some dude on the internet
Force companies that want to operate in your country to report sales made in your country so they’re taxed on the revenues, kick em out if they don’t report them.
Sounds good to me. I like the idea of making corporations do what we want. I have very little concern for the freedoms of businesses.
Thank you for the reply! What would this look like realistically? I.e.: Google doesn’t comply. Do we build our own Chinese internet where you can’t use Google products?
Uh … doesn’t China actually do that already?
Yep! And people in China VPN around it
Thanks for the reply! Would this work for tech companies? Biggest part of our Sp500. They’re mostly “in the cloud” right? So it’s pretty easy to move. And physical resources they leave behind would just be some data centers or whatever
Would love to see the video you mentioned if you can find it
I imagine it would work much the same way taxing any service industry would.
I wont pretend to understand how the sp500 calculates its value. I personally think the stock market is all smoke, mirrors & vibes. Tech still needs patents and copyrights, a likely vector of attack for a willing government I imagine.
Unfortunately, I have a vague memory of the video maybe its this one?
Thank you for sharing the video! I will take a look 🤠
Absolutely, it was a delight speaking with you. Enjoy the rest of your day friend.
I think you’re being a Realistic Rhonda.
Pessimistic Patricia
This thread has been tough for me tbh. A lot of the things I’m reading here were like what I would say when I was back in college.
I guess I’m the old man now haha
It’s rough. It’s a great solution on its face, but people don’t like to discuss its weaknesses. It’s an issue that seems particularly bad in the United States since they only have two functional political parties. It’s constantly “us vs them” for them, so anything that is seen as threatening their team results in backlash, even if it’s constructive criticism. They’re very much a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” people. It’s pretty sad.