politics

Global tax reform deal to require U.S. participation to be effective

17 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

“Global Tax” heh. Looks as if the New World Order is a reality.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

to ensure major international firms including IT giants pay their fair share

Fair share hasn’t been defined, this term is just nonsense.

People pay taxes.

I’d have a zero rate of tax on business. There are no good paying jobs without business so the more the merrier.

The employees of businesses who get the good pay can pay income tax. And the consumers who pay for the products via broad based low rate consumption tax. And investors who pay tax when they realize a gain on the investment.

Japan of all places with a stagnant economy ought abolish its business taxes. Boosting the local job market and thus wages and thus income and consumption tax, and taxes on investment.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Tech giants 'based' in the USA, though a registered corporation in Ireland or worse, Delaware (where a subservient certain former Senator represented corporate interests, but now does so as el jeffe).

Such profit a the expense of the many and hire a bevy of law firms to ensure taxes are at a minimum or zero. Add into that formula the politicians they outright own through various means.

And then there are the Libertarians who essentially have the ethics of nihilists and oppose any and all taxes on business.

Not gonna happen.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

And then there are the Libertarians who essentially have the ethics of nihilists and oppose any and all taxes on business.

Have you ever run a business, either as an individual or employing others?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Taxes on business is a tax on employment.

Stupidest thing one ever heard, if seeing lots of people gainfully employed and making their way in life is a goal.

Gotta think people who agree with taxing business don’t think that carbon tax or tobacco taxes are good ideas either, because it’s the same principle.

Tax something more, and you get less of it.

Tax something less, and you get more of it.

Everyone knows this is plain true like the sun rising in the east, but some choose to ignore it because they put their wacky theories ahead of what matters in reality.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The employees of businesses who get the good pay can pay income tax. And the consumers who pay for the products via broad based low rate consumption tax. And investors who pay tax when they realize a gain on the investment.

But meanwhile, the companies' profits can accumulate in a tax haven somewhere - profits generated by employees and consumers in other countries. What happens to those profits? Please explain slowly - I find economics far more complex than physics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Actually the profits don’t sit there in a tax haven.

When my investments make money, the money is reinvested, making for more job opportunities, except to the extent I need to pay tax to the government on my capital gains. It’s a virtuous cycle, except for the government getting my taxes and wasting it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Big Tech are huge Democrat supporters, surely they are already paying "their fair share" based on their political leanings that the government is the best steward of money.

Or, could it be they just want OTHERS to find the dream?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Tax something more, and you get less of it.

Tax something less, and you get more of it.

Everyone knows this is plain true like the sun rising in the east, but some choose to ignore it because they put their wacky theories ahead of what matters in reality.

Some people are not acquainted, or chose to ignore, the history of the last 40 years of cuts in corporate taxes, falling real earnings for workers and skyrocketing corporate profits.

And the Panama and Pandora Papers about tax havens for the ultra rich and connected in politics and business. Taxing businesses and the .01% at the previous high rates before the 80s will force reinvestment in human capital and research instead of mountains of wealth used for luxuries and political influence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Tax on Business is a on the obscene profit. There is not one Muti-National company in Japan that could double the employee minimum wage and still make a handsome profit. Workers believe their bosses lie of in the present climate the company can not afford to pay you any more and actually we looking at down sizing. It doesn’t matter what the business climate is like. Companies will alway spit this line to their minimum wage earners. Don’t believe their total BS. Organisation’s a better bigger union and start collective bargaining.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Actually the profits don’t sit there in a tax haven.

When my investments make money, the money is reinvested, making for more job opportunities, except to the extent I need to pay tax to the government on my capital gains. It’s a virtuous cycle, except for the government getting my taxes and wasting it.

Meanwhile in the real world we inhabit, firms are very much accumulating large unspent cash balances that are not being re-invested, to the tune of some $2 trillion dollars while the velocity of money, the measure of how often a Dollar, Yen, Euro or what have you changes hands in a business transaction continues its decades long decline. The number of registered corporations in the US has declined by the thousands since the 1980s due to mergers and acquisitions. What that means is market consolidation and the high prevalence of oligopoly in major consumer markets. Oligopolies price a bit like monopolists, raising price and reducing output from what they would have to in a fully competitive market where prices and profits are driven down to their bare minimum while production is maximized as they seek that point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, not where supply equals demand. Marginal revenue and marginal cost intersect at a higher price and less output than where supply equals demand. The oligopolist charges a higher price, a pricing many consumers out of the market and reducing how much those who do buy can afford. The higher price represents a wealth transfer from consumers to producers, which is why those firms are sitting on $2 trillion in unspent cash balances. It also represents a deadweight loss to the economy. Money sitting in an oligopolists bank accounts isn't changing hands or being invested, which we see in the steady decline of the velocity of money. The wealth really is accumulating and not being re-invested.

In the supermarket today nearly every aisle is dominated by two or maybe three big oligopolies. Bread, beer, snack foods, health and cleaning products, soft drinks, all dominated by one or two firms. Sure there are a lot of different brand names but they all belong to two or three big multinational firms. Soft drinks are dominated by Coke and Pepsi. Both Miller-Coors and Anheiser Bush own about 50 different beer brands between them. Lots of different beers but they all belong to two big oligopolies. The snack foods isle is dominated by Frito Lay brands, but Pepsico owns Frito Lay. They dominate two food aisles. All your soaps, shampoos, dish detergents, toothpastes and the like are owned by Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever or Proctor and Gamble. As a result most western democracies do not see the notional benefits of a competitive market economy because in too many critical sectors the market is dominated by a handful of big powerful oligopolies. Without regurgitating over 50 years of econometric studies there has to be at least six firms with roughly equal market share in a given market to have a fully competitive market. Darn few big consumer markets have this. There are anti-trust laws founded in sound economics that can address this problem but the political will to do so is not there.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

capital Tax should be set at 30% Company Tax set at 30% world wide. Employee income tax set at 20% and 70% tax on luxury goods etc like cars over $100,000 USD under $100,000 set at 15% boats over $100,000 70% under $100,000 set at 30% jewelry at 50% no tax on sporting goods and no tax on food No tax on small business farming machines and small business machinery. Every business pay 15% of every employee gross wage in super. With the government covering for universal healthcare. That is my answer to world taxation. Do not believe Company or Government saying it will ruin ( they are paid a contract to lie ) them because such a system exist and no company went bankrupt. Companies lie and cheat with help of bean counter ( accountants) to deceive their employees. Remember Without employee there is no business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another dumb internationalist notion that will likely go nowhere.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Looking at these comments, I never realized there were so many multi-millionaires and billionaires making comments on this site, or those supporting their interests for free.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Looking at these comments, I never realized there were so many multi-millionaires and billionaires making comments on this site, or those supporting their interests for free.

Even stranger to me is how often the poor vote against their own interests for politicians whos stated policy goals actually make them poorer than they already are. There are apparently an awful lot of people who think if the rich get richer more crumbs will fall their way. Real life doesn't work that way.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

capital Tax should be set at 30% Company Tax set at 30% world wide. Employee income tax set at 20% and 70% tax on luxury goods etc like cars over $100,000 USD under $100,000 set at 15% boats over $100,000 70% under $100,000 set at 30% jewelry at 50% no tax on sporting goods and no tax on food No tax on small business farming machines and small business machinery. Every business pay 15% of every employee gross wage in super

Tax rates should not be arbitrary but based on careful economic analysis of their effects both in terms of revenue to the collecting agency and their effect on economic activity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another dumb internationalist notion that will likely go nowhere.

The internationalism you so detest was deliberate, intended to prevent a repeat of WWII and the conditions that led to that war. Remember how many tens of millions of Russians and Chinese died in that war, and the destruction of many great European cities. There was a conscious effort at the end of the war to build an international order to tie nations together economically with trade as a means to increase standards of living. It worked. We have avoided another world war for 76 years and a great many formerly poor nations including many former colonies are now wealthy and prosperous. Tearing that down and returning to the beggary thy neighbor trade policies of the 1920s and especially the 1930s and a return to tribalism risks a tragic and unnecessary repeat of the horrors of WWII. Let's think before reacting. The world has economic problems but not due to trade. It is due to oligopoly and the US habit of never ending budget deficits and financing these by selling bonds to their trade partners. Global trade has made the world much wealthier than would be possible without it.

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