130 nations agree to support U.S. proposal for global minimum tax on corporations

[NightFox]

God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must pay

Are you referring to the proposed 15% minimum GMT? If so, are you aware that’s significantly LOWER than the current U.S. corporate tax rate? Are you also aware that there is a possibility that U.S. citizens will pay LESS in taxes and retain MORE domestic business activity from this proposal. Again, why do you want to pay taxes to subsidize foreign countries?

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.

NightFox thinks that if money is double taxed and you eliminate one of those taxes that means the money isn't taxed. He won't explain where he thinks his business knowledge comes from. I think he's making it up because he flat out doesn't know what he's talking about

There kaz goes again, apparently the only way he thinks he can "win" an "argument" is by inaccurately defining the argument of the person that's opposing his, hmmm.. what's that practice called again?

Oh yeah...STRAWMAN.

 

[Rigby5]

Is there anything in the world that these stupid uneducated greedy Libtards like better than taxes? I don't think so. It has to be tops on their list.

Most government spending, so then most taxes, are for the military. Which is right wing, not liberal or left wing.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The US spends more on defense than any other country on the face of the earth and it is typically about $500 billion out of about $4-5 trillion in Federal spending. Even in times of military buildup like Trump had to do after Obama fucked up the military to get back to strength is never more than $700-800 billion.

I know you stupid uneducated Moon Bats are not very good in math but that is not "most" spending as you claim. It becomes even a lower percentage when you throw in a like amount of State and Local spending.

By the way dipshit. Defense is one of the very few legtimate expenditures of the Federal government. A lot more legtimate than giving Illegals welfare, bailing out GM and Chrysler or giving grants to companies like Solyndra..

Pull your head out of your Libtard ass. You are just embarrassing yourself by showing your ignorance.

Totally wrong.
There is not a single person who does not admit the military accounts for more than half the US federal spending of tax dollars.
I just put up the piechart proof for someone else, so am not going to repeat it, as it should be well known.

And no, military spending is not at all legitimate.
We have never been attacked since 1812, so the military is entirely offensive, useless, and a danger to ourselves and others.

Bailing out Chrysler and GM did not cost us a cent because they repaid it all, and was a huge benefit in jobs and future income taxes paid.

Stop lying! It is less than 20% of the budget.

Why do you asshole Libtards have to lie so much?

Wrong.
Once you include VA, GIBill, interest on past military borrowing, etc., actually the military eats up over 75% of our tax money.
Things like Social Security do not count because they are self funding.

 

[kaz]

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens . Most folk invest through their pensions or ISAs which are tax free.
Companies are more likely to invest,pay down debt or buy back shares. that would depend on their position at the time.

You can't invest what the government has taxed away. What debt would Apple pay off? Companies buy back shares only when the price is declining. That means they aren't in good shape.

Companies buy back shares when management believes the stock price is undervalued. It's not really whether it's declining or not. Think about that, if the stock price is undervalued, that means they are getting a deal and the owners benefit by buying and retiring stock below its values and management's options and incentives are worth more.

Then you get into gaming. When management announces a buyback, the market recognizes management is saying the shares are undervalued. The market typically has a "fool me once" take on that. It works the first time. The second time depends on whether management told the truth or lied (or was wrong) the first time.

There is no reason to buy back stock if the price is fair or high. In fact if it's high, they may issue new shares to sell for a high value and drive up the cost of shares for existing shareholders at the expense of new ones. The shares they issue may be ones they previously bought back and are holding.

It's not worth doing unless management is pretty sure. Just buying and issuing shares without there being a reason is a waste of money and diversion of time

 

[bripat9643]

Is there anything in the world that these stupid uneducated greedy Libtards like better than taxes? I don't think so. It has to be tops on their list.

Most government spending, so then most taxes, are for the military. Which is right wing, not liberal or left wing.

Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.

Depends on how well one tries to hide the real cost of military spending?
First of all, one can hide military spending by talking about total federal spending instead of discretionary spending.
That is because then you can include things like Social Security, which really should not be included because it is self funded and not paid for by taxes.
Then one can also hide military spending, like VA, GIBill, etc., by calling them social service, and hiding them under welfare when they really are military spending.

This is more accurate at 54% instead of the 18% you suggested.
But even then, the dark blue should also have the grey, Veterans' Benefits of 6% added, to give you 60% going to the military.
It still is even more than that, but that much should be obvious and not controversial.

You stupid Moon Bat.

You are taking away unnecessary government spending like entitlements and claim it shouldn't be considered. That is dishonest.

Pull your head out of your Moon Bat ass. You are embarrassing yourself

The fucking government spends 80% of expenditures on things other than defense so you were lying when you said it was the "most". You were wrong. Just admit instead of doubling down on your lies.

Stop being a fucking liar. Why do you Litards always have to lie about everything?

Wrong.
The only things taken out are not discretionary, like interest on the national debt, Social Security, or incurred by treaty.
ADC and disability is being paid by the Social Security surplus, so is not paid by taxpayers yet, even though it will have to be eventually.
Interest on the national debt IS military spending, because almost the whole national debt came from financing wars or military projects like SDI.

There is no "surplus." Obama admitted that they couldn't pay SS for a day without the revenue that comes in every day.

 

[kaz]

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

OK, think about it.

A company has say a profit of $100 million. They plan to pay their shareholders $50 million. That means they have a $50 million profit.

They don't want to pay taxes on $50 million. Let's say their tax rate is 20%, so they would pay $10 million in taxes.

They have already calculated all their taxes and they can't get out of paying less unless they reduce profit and the only way to do that is spend the money.

OK, now they don't want to throw the money away, so what is the other option? To INVEST the money. That means there are higher future profits by investing in positive NPV profits.

Frankly it's pretty obvious, I can't believe you're creating threads and leading discussions on this without even knowing the basics about how companies operate

How does the practice of multinationals making profit domestically and then expatriating those profits to foreign tax havens factor into your investment equation?

Corporate taxes should be zero. Investors pay taxes now on their profits. Either dividend taxes (distributed profits) or capital gains taxes (retained profits).

The reason companies go to "tax havens" is to escape belligerent government.

I always find people like you who think you're an expert in economics and finance based on nothing fasinating. You have no business education or experience, yet you know everything about everything.

Do you talk to doctors this way about medicine? Do you give them what fer based on your utter lack of medical knowledge?

Corporate taxes should be zero.

Likewise, individual income taxes should be zero.

If there are to be any taxes at all (a premise I reject) gubmint should be limited to surviving off of lawful fees, imposts, and duties, which are specific charges levied to pay for specific services.....This idea of having taxes thrown into a big pot, where politicians and bureaucrats wrangle over them, has given us the mess we have now.

I have always said all income taxes and direct taxes should be zero.

When you get into indirect taxes, I'll let you sit in a tower all day with a gun protecting your property and living your whole life within a quarter mile of where you are born because there are no roads and your neighbors shoot at you every time you try to leave your yard

 

[kaz]

Source: CNBC.COM
Link to story: 130 nations agree to support U.S. proposal for global minimum tax on corporations

“WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced Thursday that a group of 130 nations has agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations, part of a broader agreement to overhaul international tax rules.

If widely enacted, the GMT would effectively end the practice of global corporations seeking out low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland and the British Virgin Islands to move their headquarters to, even though their customers, operations and executives are located elsewhere.

“For decades, the United States has participated in a self-defeating international tax competition, lowering our corporate tax rates only to watch other nations lower theirs in response. The result was a global race to the bottom: Who could lower their corporate rate further and faster? No nation has won this race,” said Yellen in a statement on the accord.

“Today’s agreement by 130 countries representing more than 90 percent of global GDP is a clear sign: the race to the bottom is one step closer to coming to an end,” Yellen said.

The deal also reportedly includes a framework to eliminate digital services taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies.

In their place, officials agreed to a new tax plan that would be linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered”

Interesting, I’m surprised the GMT proposal is moving this quickly after it was endorsed by the G-7 just a short time ago, looks like that now 90% of the worlds GDP has agreed to it in principle. Frankly I didn’t really believe it would get this far given all the hurdles. The agreement on digital service taxes is also an important plus for the American Tech Sector, surprised the EU is going along with it.

This will be a big foreign policy win for the Biden Administration if it does actually come to fruition, of course there is still a long way to go.

To be enforced by whom?

Dunno, there aren’t any details of the enforcement mechanisms that have been made available yet. If I had to guess, the enforcement mechanisms will center around tariffs.

Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?

Where is the problem with “sovereignty” here? This is something that nations are free to agree to or not agree to, not to mention each nation still retains direct authority over its own tax code. It’s no more a violation of sovereignty than an international arms limitation treaty.

God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must pay

Are you referring to the proposed 15% minimum GMT? If so, are you aware that’s significantly LOWER than the current U.S. corporate tax rate? Are you also aware that there is a possibility that U.S. citizens will pay LESS in taxes and retain MORE domestic business activity from this proposal. Again, why do you want to pay taxes to subsidize foreign countries?

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .

Not at all, if the IRR for reinvestment is 2% in a mature market company why would I want to lock away capital in that when I can make say a compounding 10% elsewhere just to avoid one off capital gains? This is why you see most companies in mature markets paying out substantial portions of profits in dividends, their IRR is generally too low to justify not paying them out, if they didn't pay them out people wouldn't want to invest in them in the first place (i.e. lower demand for equity shares = lower stock price).

You see Amazon reinvesting profits because their growth rate and thus IRR is so high, you see General Motors distributing attractive dividends because its growth rate is so low (mature market), if GM wasn't offering an attractive dividend yield who the heck would want to invest in them over investing in Amazon?

You're mixing terms.

If your discount rate is 8%, then an IRR of 2% would be a 10% return

 

[kaz]

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens . Most folk invest through their pensions or ISAs which are tax free.
Companies are more likely to invest,pay down debt or buy back shares. that would depend on their position at the time.

You can't invest what the government has taxed away. What debt would Apple pay off? Companies buy back shares only when the price is declining. That means they aren't in good shape.

This debt you idiot Go and play with your lego.

Apple Debt to Equity Ratio 2010-2023 | AAPL

Current and historical debt to equity ratio values for Apple (AAPL) over the last 10 years. The debt/equity ratio can be defined as a measure of a company's financial leverage calculated by dividing its long-term debt by stockholders' equity. Apple debt/equity for the three months ending...

www.macrotrends.net

Your chart has no units. IT's worthless.

Apple owes about $100 billion in short and long term loans. Apple is worth over $1 trillion. Their debt is trivial.

Interest rates are so low that debt money is practically free to these corporations. Only reason to pay back debt is if the debt ratios were affecting stock price.

True except that there are other reasons to retire debt. You may be planning to replace one type of debt with another or lower interest rates you're paying on the debt.

In the end, you look at all the options and make the best decision. Dividends, retiring debt, buying back stock, investing in new projects, investing in other securities or joint ventures, there are a lot of options

 

[donttread]

Entire global warming thing is a giant massive fraud that is all about $$$$

Tell that to people in the state of Washington and Canada, with 125 degree F weather this week.

There is no money to be made by trying to stop Global Warming.
The only way to stop Global Warming is to burn less fossil fuel, and that makes no money for anyone else.

All the so-called climate scientists are making money hand over foot. So are the so-called "green industries."

Green industries earn their profits.
When I put in solar photovoltaic, my electric bill went from about $75 to $20.
Sure there is a 10 year payoff return on the $13k initial cost, but it is worth it I think.

That is exactly why the change is nerither evil ( some conservatives) nor needing to happen yesterday (CC alarmist) . I'm the first one to say that we need a paradigm shift because we have been burning stuff to produce energy since we were able to produce energy ( fire) .
But it cannot happen overnight. If that was possible it would of happened by now. It takes time and profits to drive innovation. If we let market forces work ( including adding the cost of our military presence in the ME to fossil fuels cost of goods sold if we kill energy independence as we appear to be doing) then it will happen at a manageable pace.

 

[kaz]

Source: CNBC.COM
Link to story: 130 nations agree to support U.S. proposal for global minimum tax on corporations

“WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced Thursday that a group of 130 nations has agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations, part of a broader agreement to overhaul international tax rules.

If widely enacted, the GMT would effectively end the practice of global corporations seeking out low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland and the British Virgin Islands to move their headquarters to, even though their customers, operations and executives are located elsewhere.

“For decades, the United States has participated in a self-defeating international tax competition, lowering our corporate tax rates only to watch other nations lower theirs in response. The result was a global race to the bottom: Who could lower their corporate rate further and faster? No nation has won this race,” said Yellen in a statement on the accord.

“Today’s agreement by 130 countries representing more than 90 percent of global GDP is a clear sign: the race to the bottom is one step closer to coming to an end,” Yellen said.

The deal also reportedly includes a framework to eliminate digital services taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies.

In their place, officials agreed to a new tax plan that would be linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered”

Interesting, I’m surprised the GMT proposal is moving this quickly after it was endorsed by the G-7 just a short time ago, looks like that now 90% of the worlds GDP has agreed to it in principle. Frankly I didn’t really believe it would get this far given all the hurdles. The agreement on digital service taxes is also an important plus for the American Tech Sector, surprised the EU is going along with it.

This will be a big foreign policy win for the Biden Administration if it does actually come to fruition, of course there is still a long way to go.

To be enforced by whom?

Dunno, there aren’t any details of the enforcement mechanisms that have been made available yet. If I had to guess, the enforcement mechanisms will center around tariffs.

Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?

Where is the problem with “sovereignty” here? This is something that nations are free to agree to or not agree to, not to mention each nation still retains direct authority over its own tax code. It’s no more a violation of sovereignty than an international arms limitation treaty.

God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must pay

Are you referring to the proposed 15% minimum GMT? If so, are you aware that’s significantly LOWER than the current U.S. corporate tax rate? Are you also aware that there is a possibility that U.S. citizens will pay LESS in taxes and retain MORE domestic business activity from this proposal. Again, why do you want to pay taxes to subsidize foreign countries?

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .

Not at all, if the IRR for reinvestment is 2% in a mature market company why would I want to lock away capital in that when I can make say a compounding 10% elsewhere just to avoid one off capital gains? This is why you see most companies in mature markets paying out substantial portions of profits in dividends, their IRR is generally too low to justify not paying them out, if they didn't pay them out people wouldn't want to invest in them in the first place (i.e. lower demand for equity shares = lower stock price).

You see Amazon reinvesting profits because their growth rate and thus IRR is so high, you see General Motors distributing attractive dividends because its growth rate is so low (mature market), if GM wasn't offering an attractive dividend yield who the heck would want to invest in them over investing in Amazon?

It depends on the circs of the company at that point in their cycle. Most investors would prefer the cash in their account than, for example, a share buyback. Well I would anyway.

Too much cash can drag down the returns of the company. Think about it.

Actually investors generally want our money at work. If the company doesn't have uses for it, then we want the money back to invest in other companies.

If the investor wants cash to sit on, they can do that themselves by selling shares. Generally the company sitting on too much cash is not usually the best options for investors

 

[Flash]

Is there anything in the world that these stupid uneducated greedy Libtards like better than taxes? I don't think so. It has to be tops on their list.

Most government spending, so then most taxes, are for the military. Which is right wing, not liberal or left wing.

Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.

Depends on how well one tries to hide the real cost of military spending?
First of all, one can hide military spending by talking about total federal spending instead of discretionary spending.
That is because then you can include things like Social Security, which really should not be included because it is self funded and not paid for by taxes.
Then one can also hide military spending, like VA, GIBill, etc., by calling them social service, and hiding them under welfare when they really are military spending.

This is more accurate at 54% instead of the 18% you suggested.
But even then, the dark blue should also have the grey, Veterans' Benefits of 6% added, to give you 60% going to the military.
It still is even more than that, but that much should be obvious and not controversial.

You stupid Moon Bat.

You are taking away unnecessary government spending like entitlements and claim it shouldn't be considered. That is dishonest.

Pull your head out of your Moon Bat ass. You are embarrassing yourself

The fucking government spends 80% of expenditures on things other than defense so you were lying when you said it was the "most". You were wrong. Just admit instead of doubling down on your lies.

Stop being a fucking liar. Why do you Litards always have to lie about everything?

Wrong.
The only things taken out are not discretionary, like interest on the national debt, Social Security, or incurred by treaty.
ADC and disability is being paid by the Social Security surplus, so is not paid by taxpayers yet, even though it will have to be eventually.
Interest on the national debt IS military spending, because almost the whole national debt came from financing wars or military projects like SDI.

You dumb shit.

Social Security is a large part of government spending so you were lying. You don't get to remove it because it makes you a liar to include it. It is even worse than that because the interest on the debt comes close to being what we spend on defense and you removed that.

Why do you have to be dishonest? Are you a liar because you an idiot Libtard or are you an idiot Libtard because you are a liar?

Then you were even more dishonest because you haven't included the State and Local cost of government, which is about equal to that of Federal spending.

Defense spending is about 20% of the Federal cost of government but is only about 10% when you include all the cost of government in this country. That is not the "most" as you lied about and then doubled downed on when called on your lie.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about Economics than you know about History, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution, do you?

 

[kaz]

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

OK, think about it.

A company has say a profit of $100 million. They plan to pay their shareholders $50 million. That means they have a $50 million profit.

They don't want to pay taxes on $50 million. Let's say their tax rate is 20%, so they would pay $10 million in taxes.

They have already calculated all their taxes and they can't get out of paying less unless they reduce profit and the only way to do that is spend the money.

OK, now they don't want to throw the money away, so what is the other option? To INVEST the money. That means there are higher future profits by investing in positive NPV profits.

Frankly it's pretty obvious, I can't believe you're creating threads and leading discussions on this without even knowing the basics about how companies operate

How does the practice of multinationals making profit domestically and then expatriating those profits to foreign tax havens factor into your investment equation?

Corporate taxes should be zero. Investors pay taxes now on their profits. Either dividend taxes (distributed profits) or capital gains taxes (retained profits).

I agree, the concept of income taxes is second only to fiat currency in terms of the most heinous, exploitive and invasive practices ever invented by the institution of the state. However in order to make them zero you would have to eliminate ALL income taxes since how can you justify levying taxes on the incomes of one group (wage earners) while not doing so on another group (businesses)? Do you see that happening any time soon? I don't. Thus in the meantime I'll consider a proposal that has the potential to materially benefit me and my fellow citizens at the expense of foreigners using differential tax rates in order to foster capital outflows that benefit THEIR citizens. As a former President of the blonde persuasion once said "AMERICA FIRST", foreigners attempting to use their domestic tax code to manipulate comparative advantage come in a DISTANT second in my book, how about yours?

The reason companies go to "tax havens" is to escape belligerent government.

LOL, really? doesn't have anything to do with privatizing profits and socializing costs? If they're going there to escape "belligerent government" why do they choose to generate profits in markets controlled by those "belligerent governments"?

I always find people like you who think you're an expert in economics and finance based on nothing fasinating. You have no business education or experience, yet you know everything about everything.

LOL, talk about PROJECTION. You're the one that doesn't appear to understand the basics of what you're arguing against, which explains your penchant for attempting to deflect any question that would cause you to actually defend your own argument.

Do you talk to doctors this way about medicine? Do you give them what fer based on your utter lack of medical knowledge?

ROFLMAO! so you're a doctor now?

You disappoint me kaz, I thought you capable of formulating an argument based on reason and evidence, not this hodgepodge of non-sequitur fluff mixed with invective, oh well.

You are master of everything, you know everything about everything.

LOL, thanks, would you like an autograph? Or perhaps I should ask for yours since you're an such an all-pro, future hall of famer in deflection and prevarication.

Not to mention your amazing talent for getting exceedingly angry and overtly hostile towards anyone that deigns to disagree with your unsubstantiated, highly subjective arguments.

You have repeatedly proven you don't even understand basic business concepts

Such as?

God, now you're a mind reader too. You keep going on about how you know everything about everything, but you can't come up with the actual knowledge to back that up

 

[NightFox]

Source: CNBC.COM
Link to story: 130 nations agree to support U.S. proposal for global minimum tax on corporations

“WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced Thursday that a group of 130 nations has agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations, part of a broader agreement to overhaul international tax rules.

If widely enacted, the GMT would effectively end the practice of global corporations seeking out low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland and the British Virgin Islands to move their headquarters to, even though their customers, operations and executives are located elsewhere.

“For decades, the United States has participated in a self-defeating international tax competition, lowering our corporate tax rates only to watch other nations lower theirs in response. The result was a global race to the bottom: Who could lower their corporate rate further and faster? No nation has won this race,” said Yellen in a statement on the accord.

“Today’s agreement by 130 countries representing more than 90 percent of global GDP is a clear sign: the race to the bottom is one step closer to coming to an end,” Yellen said.

The deal also reportedly includes a framework to eliminate digital services taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies.

In their place, officials agreed to a new tax plan that would be linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered”

Interesting, I’m surprised the GMT proposal is moving this quickly after it was endorsed by the G-7 just a short time ago, looks like that now 90% of the worlds GDP has agreed to it in principle. Frankly I didn’t really believe it would get this far given all the hurdles. The agreement on digital service taxes is also an important plus for the American Tech Sector, surprised the EU is going along with it.

This will be a big foreign policy win for the Biden Administration if it does actually come to fruition, of course there is still a long way to go.

To be enforced by whom?

Dunno, there aren’t any details of the enforcement mechanisms that have been made available yet. If I had to guess, the enforcement mechanisms will center around tariffs.

Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?

Where is the problem with “sovereignty” here? This is something that nations are free to agree to or not agree to, not to mention each nation still retains direct authority over its own tax code. It’s no more a violation of sovereignty than an international arms limitation treaty.

God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must pay

Are you referring to the proposed 15% minimum GMT? If so, are you aware that’s significantly LOWER than the current U.S. corporate tax rate? Are you also aware that there is a possibility that U.S. citizens will pay LESS in taxes and retain MORE domestic business activity from this proposal. Again, why do you want to pay taxes to subsidize foreign countries?

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .

Not at all, if the IRR for reinvestment is 2% in a mature market company why would I want to lock away capital in that when I can make say a compounding 10% elsewhere just to avoid one off capital gains? This is why you see most companies in mature markets paying out substantial portions of profits in dividends, their IRR is generally too low to justify not paying them out, if they didn't pay them out people wouldn't want to invest in them in the first place (i.e. lower demand for equity shares = lower stock price).

You see Amazon reinvesting profits because their growth rate and thus IRR is so high, you see General Motors distributing attractive dividends because its growth rate is so low (mature market), if GM wasn't offering an attractive dividend yield who the heck would want to invest in them over investing in Amazon?

You're mixing terms.

If your discount rate is 8%, then an IRR of 2% would be a 10% return

*sigh* IRR represents the annual growth rate an investment is expected to return, I'm sorry my example was too complicated for you to the point that you felt the need to interject something I didn't say, next time I'll remember to include one involving crayons so you can keep up.

Here endth the lesson and your 15 minutes, I'm tired of your constant attempts to build strawmen.

 

[kaz]

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .

Not at all, if the IRR for reinvestment is 2% in a mature market company why would I want to lock away capital in that when I can make say a compounding 10% elsewhere just to avoid one off capital gains? This is why you see most companies in mature markets paying out substantial portions of profits in dividends, their IRR is generally too low to justify not paying them out, if they didn't pay them out people wouldn't want to invest in them in the first place (i.e. lower demand for equity shares = lower stock price).

You see Amazon reinvesting profits because their growth rate and thus IRR is so high, you see General Motors distributing attractive dividends because its growth rate is so low (mature market), if GM wasn't offering an attractive dividend yield who the heck would want to invest in them over investing in Amazon?

It depends on the circs of the company at that point in their cycle. Most investors would prefer the cash in their account than, for example, a share buyback. Well I would anyway.

A share by-back makes your stocks far more valuable when you finally do get around to selling.

That's ONLY true if management believes the shares are undervalued and they are right. Buying back shares if they are not undervalued does not increase the share price, you own a larger percent of a smaller business

 

[kaz]

Corporate taxes should be zero.

Likewise, individual income taxes should be zero.

If there are to be any taxes at all (a premise I reject) gubmint should be limited to surviving off of lawful fees, imposts, and duties, which are specific charges levied to pay for specific services.....This idea of having taxes thrown into a big pot, where politicians and bureaucrats wrangle over them, has given us the mess we have now.

Great, what's the probability of this happening in your lifetime? Do you see any indications of society and public opinion going in this direction?

Wishful thinking is comforting and all but it doesn't really have any relationship to reality.

What the probability of slavery ending in what time frame, is irrelevant to the fact that you are a slave, Buckwheat.

And you have Stockholm syndrome so badly that you are whining and crying that others aren't as equally enslaved.

Your economic and historical illiteracy are only exceeded by your weapons grade know-it-all haughtiness.

LOL, okay Mr. Marx, whatever you say. I do sincerely hope all your wishful thinking and foaming at the mouth manage to break you out of your enslavement post haste.

Happy Trails.

"Anybody can become angry, that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody's power and is not easy." -- Aristotle.

Interesting, so now he's angry too. So everyone who disagrees with you is according to you angry.

So what's the common denominator in that? You're seeing anger in all directions? Who is really the one who's angry?

 

[whoisit]

Is there anything in the world that these stupid uneducated greedy Libtards like better than taxes? I don't think so. It has to be tops on their list.

Most government spending, so then most taxes, are for the military. Which is right wing, not liberal or left wing.

Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.

Lawfully aka constitutionally ,its one of the 3 we are suppose to spend on. Not one of the social services legally get a cent. Maybe SSI since it is 'insurence'.

 

[kaz]

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .

Not at all, if the IRR for reinvestment is 2% in a mature market company why would I want to lock away capital in that when I can make say a compounding 10% elsewhere just to avoid one off capital gains? This is why you see most companies in mature markets paying out substantial portions of profits in dividends, their IRR is generally too low to justify not paying them out, if they didn't pay them out people wouldn't want to invest in them in the first place (i.e. lower demand for equity shares = lower stock price).

You see Amazon reinvesting profits because their growth rate and thus IRR is so high, you see General Motors distributing attractive dividends because its growth rate is so low (mature market), if GM wasn't offering an attractive dividend yield who the heck would want to invest in them over investing in Amazon?

It depends on the circs of the company at that point in their cycle. Most investors would prefer the cash in their account than, for example, a share buyback. Well I would anyway.

A share by-back makes your stocks far more valuable when you finally do get around to selling.

In theory . It never seems to come through in my experience.

Yes, you are correct. Most of the time it doesn't raise prices. Management has to believe the stock is under values AND they have to be right. It's a great option, but only in that specific case

 

[kaz]

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

That's only partially accurate Tommy , generally speaking a corporation will only invest profits back into itself if the Internal Rate of Return makes sense to shareholders for it to do so, otherwise it will distribute those profits back to shareholders in the form of dividends so that shareholders can invest in other assets that offer higher rates of return.

Thanks! You finally absorbed what I keep telling you.

LOL, all I've ever learned from you kaz is how an irrational person behaves when they're WAY out of their depth, thanks for being such a cooperative subject.

Once again proving my point that you don't even recognize basic finance principles.

Your doctor loves you lecturing him about medicine, doesn't he? Your mechanic is like God, that moron is going to tell me how I should be fixing cars again. And don't even start on your proctologist ...

 

[Flash]

Is there anything in the world that these stupid uneducated greedy Libtards like better than taxes? I don't think so. It has to be tops on their list.

Most government spending, so then most taxes, are for the military. Which is right wing, not liberal or left wing.

Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.

Lawfully aka constitutionally ,its one of the 3 we are suppose to spend on. Not one of the social services legally get a cent. Maybe SSI since it is 'insurence'.

The legitimate spending at the Federal level would only be Defense, Federal courts, expenditures for the Presidency and Congress, State Department, Patent Office, Post Office and a few minor agencies like that.

Anything else is just nothing but entitlement/welfare bullshit and is unnecessary.

 

[kaz]

You don't see anything wrong with this?

I see all kinds of potential things wrong with it, however I see A LOT more wrong with the current system of exploitation being practiced by large multinational corporations.

Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it

How does this proposal “kill investment”?

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.

Ok you didnt understand. I think you are a bit out of your depth here.

I feel you. If you want to understand capitalism, ask a socialist. Clearly you're the expert, LOL.

Again, you actually agreed with him that companies reinvesting creates jobs and you didn't realize that, that was the point he was addressing.

Your saying higher taxes is good for jobs was pretty ridiculous though, you are wrong about that

Im a bit baffled as to the point you are making. This tax will actually make companies invest more. Not having this tax enables them to send money to Panama. Where is the benefit there ?

There is no benefit to driving companies to Panama with high taxes, that's actually the point I'm making.

Double taxation is a terrible idea. Investors pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Making them pay corporate taxes again on the same money is a terrible idea.

And the companies don't pay those taxes, their customers do. Think about that, corporate taxes are regressive because lower income spend a higher percent of their earnings than higher earners.

It also disadvantages our own companies against foreign competitors.

Raising corporate taxes all around is shooting ourselves in the arse

 

[kaz]

Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.

You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.

A tax like this will actually increase investment because corporations would rather spend money on their company than pay it in taxes. Any management that didnt feel like that would not be in place for long.

So the money gets invested in R and D or new plant or refurbs or more people. Its all good as it generates growth in the economy.

Do you understand this or shall I try and simplify it for you ?

The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.

NightFox thinks that if money is double taxed and you eliminate one of those taxes that means the money isn't taxed. He won't explain where he thinks his business knowledge comes from. I think he's making it up because he flat out doesn't know what he's talking about

There kaz goes again, apparently the only way he thinks he can "win" an "argument" is by inaccurately defining the argument of the person that's opposing his, hmmm.. what's that practice called again?

Oh yeah...STRAWMAN.

You have a pattern of denying you said what you said. Even after your quotes are shown to you.

BTW, you don't know how to quote / paraphrase