Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Once again, that's situationally dependent on the particulars of the asset you're invested in.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.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).Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .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.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must payDunno, 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.To be enforced by whom?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.
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.Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
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?
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.
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.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).Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .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.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must payDunno, 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.To be enforced by whom?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.
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.Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
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?
Gee, you actually 'get it'!America's corporations are doing the moving of their corporations to other countries.
Does anybody think that China is forcing them to come to China?
The corporations moving to China are foolish.
Once the Chinese know the trade secrets, they will create better and cheaper competition because they won't have stockholder overhead or as high of labor costs.
But do you really think the corporations moving to China are 'foolish'??
Is it foolish for a corporation to seek out the most lucrative markets and marketplace?
Why Rigby, the corporations have already set up Walmarts across America in which to retail the goods they have made in China!
Yep. The problem is government policies. Rigby5 supports the Biden policy to continue to punish US businesses and block their escape route. Fixing the problem is to Biden/Rigby5 not an option.
But businesses are smarter than politicians. We always find a way. Which is why they are trying to stop us now and why it will yet again fail. The more and more Democrats become like Atlas Shrugged is amazing. Ayn Rand described the cabal of Joe, Nancy and Chuck perfectly.
Of course no country is going to SAY they will defy the US. But this is a policy where we need them to sacrifice for our own good, and no one does that. Especially for someone as weak as Joe Biden
That makes no sense.
The "escape route" you are talking about is moving offshore, and traditionally that is not only bad, but has always been discouraged by tariffs.
And offshoring also is bad for any company, because once they setup in China, eventually China will take them over.
www.marketwatch.com
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.What the probability of slavery ending in what time frame, is irrelevant to the fact that you are a slave, Buckwheat.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?How does the practice of multinationals making profit domestically and then expatriating those profits to foreign tax havens factor into your investment equation?How does this proposal “kill investment”?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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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
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.
Wishful thinking is comforting and all but it doesn't really have any relationship to reality.
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.
How will that help American labor?If american corporations don't want to pay american labor more than what other nations pay then we'll to heck with em. They should move out.
The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must pay
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
In theory . It never seems to come through in my experience.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.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).Its a bit different over here. You would need to be pretty dumb to pay tax on your dividens .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.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must payDunno, 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.To be enforced by whom?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.
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.Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
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?
A share by-back makes your stocks far more valuable when you finally do get around to selling.
Ok you didnt understand. I think you are a bit out of your depth here.The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must payDunno, 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.To be enforced by whom?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.
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.Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
All the so-called climate scientists are making money hand over foot. So are the so-called "green industries."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.
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.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
I guess that mean Trump was right abourt corporate income tax causing manufacturing to leave the country. People have only been screaming about that since it started happening. But in the end it doesn't really matter because a uniform tax on corporatiuons is just a tax on their customers. You and I. Another hidden tax on the people.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.
In theory . It never seems to come through in my experience.
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.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.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
Thanks! You finally absorbed what I keep telling you.
The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 only time corporate profits go back to the stock market is if the corporation decides to buy up its own stock.
Normally the only money in the stock market comes from people wanting to buy stocks.
It is true few stocks pay dividends, but they all would if the alternative was paying corporate income taxes.
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 ?Ok you didnt understand. I think you are a bit out of your depth here.The money spent would have all gone back into the stock market, moron. Few companies pay dividends these days anyway.You seem to be very confused about taxation and its effects.Higher taxes always kill investment, moron. The money collected in additional taxes would have been invested. Even a fifth grader can understand that.How does this proposal “kill investment”?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?God damn bro they are making up a number out of thin air, that you must payDunno, 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.To be enforced by whom?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.
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.Does national sovereignty mean anything at all to you?
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.You don't see anything wrong with this?
Killing investment is a great way to increase jobs. I see why you like it
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 ?
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
Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.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.
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.
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.
I guess that mean Trump was right abourt corporate income tax causing manufacturing to leave the country. People have only been screaming about that since it started happening. But in the end it doesn't really matter because a uniform tax on corporatiuons is just a tax on their customers. You and I. Another hidden tax on the people.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.
Military spending consumes only 18% of the budget, so that claim is obviously false.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.
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?
