politics

G20 ministers take up plan to deter cross-border tax dodging

22 Comments
By DAVID McHUGH and MARTIN CRUTSINGER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


22 Comments
Login to comment

CoVid is equally important as tax-evasion. Will they also deter cross-border quarantine-dodging? (Seems a lot if that is happening just for ‘so-called’ VIP’s,)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Mr Aso is a bit of a bumbling idiot but the man has style.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The crooks are chasing the crooks

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Another jamboree for the elites like our FM in nice glamorous locations (this time Venice) where they get first class VIP treatment all the way while local residents in Japan are asked to do gaman, more sacrifice and stay indoors

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Please come after Canada, the Panama Papers revealed we're a tax haven for a lot of criminals. But I doubt anything will happen

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Nah it's all about getting more out of the little guy. It's designed that way, and it's getting worse, and with more regulation to come.

Governments know they are basically f'ed since we are seeing the rise of the privacy coins. Peer to peer transactions that are untraceable, and unstoppable.

And McAfee was right.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Pepper lunch

A bit of a bumbling idiot ? That's the understatement of the year!!

As for his fashion sense..all I can say is those shoes! Ha

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It'd only be selectively enforced, such as when they need to bring some renegades into line. Otherwise, business as usual.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nah it's all about getting more out of the little guy. It's designed that way, and it's getting worse, and with more regulation to come.

Governments know they are basically f'ed since we are seeing the rise of the privacy coins. Peer to peer transactions that are untraceable, and unstoppable.

And McAfee was right.

Business lobbyists paid off legislators to gut the funding of tax agencies. So they only go after the little guys. The big guys can lawyer up and it is too costly to prosecute.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A sweeping effort to deter cross-border tax dodges by multinational companies that have cost governments billions tops the agenda as finance ministers from the world's major economies meet in Venice.

Add the good-for-nothing IOC to the top of the list of tax dodgers.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Didn't Trump's top boy just get hit with tax evasion?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Countries have lowered their tax rates to attract the revenue,

This clownish interpretation is seemingly ignorant of the changes in economic behavior that lower tax rates incentivize.

And even the OECD itself has found in its own research that corporate tax is the most damaging of the big taxes for economic growth.

It’s out of control governments versus free people here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Here come the clowns of the world! Their stupid statements will not change anything.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This clownish interpretation is seemingly ignorant of the changes in economic behavior that lower tax rates incentivize.

And even the OECD itself has found in its own research that corporate tax is the most damaging of the big taxes for economic growth.

Except that has not been proven by history. Under the taxation schemes of the Eisenhower/Kennedy years with maximum tax rates of between 75% to 90% there was spectacular, broad-based growth of middle class wealth.

Trickle down tax cats and subsidies have only concentrated wealth in the .01% obscenely.

Supply side economics is a farce that unfortunately some who never benefit from it have bought.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Trickle down tax cats

Mixed up my trickle down tax cuts and fat cats.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Kennedy years

Kennedy nicely proves my point. Thank you.

Kennedy proposed cutting of marginal tax rates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964

“Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.”

Except that has not been proven by history. 

History shows otherwise…

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The act cut federal income taxes by approximately twenty percent across the board, and the top federal income tax rate fell from 91 percent to 70 percent. The act also reduced the corporate tax from 52 percent to 48 percent and created a minimum standard deduction.

From your source.

Nothing like after decades of trickle down measures the situation that exists now as revealed recently by Propublica.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-08/u-s-billlionaires-faced-tax-rates-as-low-as-0-propublica

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kennedy proposed cutting of marginal tax rates.

Who cares what he proposed, Dagon was pointing out what he actually did.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kennedy proposed cutting marginal tax rates, and marginal tax rates were cut after his assassination.

And tax revenues increased, debunking the baseless claims that tax cuts never in history resulted in increased revenues.

Tax more of something and you get less of it.

Want less business? Tax it some.

Kennedy was right. As are others who understand these basics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And tax revenues increased, debunking the baseless claims that tax cuts never in history resulted in increased revenues.

Tax more of something and you get less of it.

Want less business? Tax it some.

Kennedy was right. As are others who understand these basics.

Corporate tax rate is currently 21% after the Trump tax cuts, down from the 52% under Kennedy.

Has tax revenue increased or deficits? One thing that has happened over this time with tax cuts for the rich is the middle-class and poor getting poorer and the .01% capital holding class richer.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/07/6-facts-about-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Deficits are not a function of tax revenues alone.

Tax revenues are high now, but spending is higher still.

Japan is a similar case with record tax revenues of 60 odd trillion. But of course you get a deficit if spending is in excess of 100 trillion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites