Speaking after a meeting with Bavaria’s state Cabinet atop the Zugspitze mountain, Germany’s highest peak, Merz said that continuing with the 15% minimum tax in Europe would put the continent’s economy at a disadvantage.
Speaking after a meeting with Bavaria’s state Cabinet atop the Zugspitze mountain, Germany’s highest peak, Merz said that continuing with the 15% minimum tax in Europe would put the continent’s economy at a disadvantage.
From a game-theory standpoint (which markets are an instance of such a game) he is not even incorrect. If we tax someone at 15%, while the US doesn’t they will take their business there (if possible). This is not a normative statement, this sucks and will lead to the world’s destruction (literally wiht global warming, and the same for arms races and war). But is is correct.
Here is my (semi) hot take: To really change anything in the world you cannot be game-theoretically naive. We cannot just by cynnical like the market-liberals, because they are willing to sacrifice the planet and humans for their goals.
We need to be post-cynical. Recognising that just claiming the morally right thing will never get us the power to change anything and just striving for the power to change will make us just as evil as them. If we want to change things for the better we have to hold them both in mind.
Not necessarily. If that were universally true, all multinational companies would have their seat in the country with the cheapest taxes, which they clearly do not. There are other factors. But yes, it’s one of them.
Anyway, what he should do is fight against the exemption for US companies, especially after Trump now wants to hit the EU with his 30% tariffs anyway, so it doesn’t even get us anything.
Alas, he was, until very recently, a Black Rock employee, which is, you may or may not know it, a US company. He is also a far right neoliberal known for favoring corporations and the rich. It’s very obvious that the US exemption plays right into his cards and dismantling the whole minimum tax, which is easily the single greatest multinational achievement since World War 2, was always on his agenda.
The global minimum tax isn’t that. It literally wouldn’t matter if the USA were in or out, because the broad global agreement means, if the Americans don’t collect the 15%, some other country can and will. Trump just threatened the G7 into granting an exception, which could have been avoided if they had spines and took a stand.
They never intended to follow through, or do it so anyone can easily defect the agreement.
The US has real power. Economically and military power. There is a reason they published their plans to invade the Hague should any American be convicted at the ICC. Some similar arrangement would be found with this.
You have to think as cynically as possible, the people in power will too. Then think of something that all sides avoid that thing or you will be thrown under the bus by however holds power.
You’re correct in that it’s not universally true, but their premise is mostly accurate. Especially in a world which increasingly sees income generated by low-friction IT services. These can be easily relocated.
I’m not sure you understand how this tax treaty is intended to work, or in fact how income taxes work with regards to tax domiciles. Business tax is levied against profit accrued in the location in which the sale is ascribed. Microsoft can sell a German an Office license, and they are liable for zero tax on any profit if the sale is from the U.S. entity. However any products sold in Germany are liable for VAT, and that requires a tax presence. VAT is outside the scope of this tax treaty. It is concerned almost exclusively with tax on profit. By instituting a floor, it doesn’t matter if Microsoft domiciles in Germany or Ireland. They’re subject the same minimum taxation on profit. This avoids situations like the Double Irish Dutch Sandwich.
The user above is correct: if the U.S. won’t impose a tax floor, companies can and will relocate their (at least for tax purposes), if their tax floor (including subsidies and exemptions) is lower.
That is a political decision and can be changed at will.
If it were that simple, Trump would not have had to threaten the G7 for an exception for his companies, he could just have withdrawn from the treaty. This is about the other countries in the treaty not taxing american companies. Because that is the only way you can combat tax havens: by collecting the tax that wasn’t paid there yourself, regardless of company presence. “Wanna do business here? Pay your Tages.” Companies can evade that if it’s just one or two countries doing it, but not if it’s a broad alliance.
How do you propose taxing profits from other countries would work? Send the military in and take it by force? Ban the company from selling products in Germany unless they pay some arbitrary amount like North Korea? Do you pro-rata their global profits? How do you reconcile when some regions are more or less profitable than others? You imply something that is frankly crazy. Not even Zimbabwe tried anything like that, and they stole huge swathes of land and ended up with a starving population.
That is exactly what he did. It’s in the article. Please read it.
How do you think the USA tax their citizens living abroad (they tax by passport, not by residence)? Send in the military and take it by force? Probably not, but if you want to return I guess you should better have paid your taxes each year.
It may come as a surprise to you, but we ban a lot of products from entering the EU for a large variety of reasons. This wouldn’t be the worst reason.
How do you think we are making Apple comply with the EU mandated USB-C charging port? We don’t allow iPhones without it into the shared market, that’s how.
See above. Also, Zimbabwe is one small and rather unimportant country. We are talking about an international treaty with more than 140 member countries. A company can divest from Zimbabwe. Let’s see them do it with these 140 countries.
Frankly, you’re being ridiculous.