in the eu it means unified tax and probably fiscal union
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2387
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the eu it means unified tax and probably fiscal union | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21685 Posts
On October 13 2015 01:13 oneofthem wrote: facebook tax is a point against tax arbitrage and for more intl governance. in the eu it means unified tax and probably fiscal union Fiscal union and/or unified tax does nothing so long as countries somewhere on the world are havens. If you really wanne fix it you would need a global fiscal union which eliminates taxes havens. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 13 2015 00:02 KwarK wrote: It's a shame, certainly. Big business have more money to spend on evading the rules than the government can afford enforcing them. I often wonder if they should just practice in arbitrary and unjustified seizures which just happen to be around an estimate of the tax owed on the earnings. Both sides will know that it's a corporate tax but it won't be justified as such so the lawyers and accountants won't be able to game the system. Although other institutional problems in the UK would probably just exacerbate that. Fun fact, Starbucks UK pays a licensing fee to Starbucks international for the use of the Starbucks brand. The fee varies annually to equal their profits leaving the company declaring no profits. I just pictured a bunch of accountants marching into Facebook and stealing random office equipment. Interesting fact, that would suggest that shifting their profits out of UK is advantageous... so US tax loopholes are even better. Hah, take that UK! (wait, shit, that's not a good thing) | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was uninvited from the first Democratic presidential debate after she appeared on national television and called for more debates, as reported Monday by The New York Times. Gabbard appeared on MSNBC last Monday and said that there should be more than the six sanctioned debate for the Democratic hopefuls. A day later, Gabbard said she received an email sent by the chief of staff to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) — the chairwoman of the national committee — "about her attendance," according to New York Times. An unidentified source told the Times that Gabbard was not uninvited, but that Wasserman Shcultz did not want a "distraction" that could separate the party. The first Democratic debate, hosted by CNN, is scheduled to take place Tuesday beginning at 8:30 p.m. ET. Source | ||
always_winter
United States195 Posts
awkward.gif #staterunmedia #americanpropaganda | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
If legal marijuana were a movie, the $11 million that's estimated to have been taken in during Oregon's first week of retail sales would place it fourth on the list of U.S. weekend box-office receipts, right behind Pan. We're comparing apples and oranges, of course: The Hollywood numbers reflect this past weekend, while the pot figure is for the first five days of legal sales in Oregon. But if we look at seven days of box-office results, pot in Oregon would still take fifth, solidly ahead of Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials. The figure has attracted notice since it was announced last week by a trade group, the Oregon Retailers of Cannabis Association. In part, that's because the retail estimate is higher than pot's legal debuts in Washington and Colorado; it also beat Oregon officials' estimates. ORCA Executive Director Casey Houlihan tells NPR member station KLCC that Oregon had 247 stores take part in its marijuana sales — and that retailers took in $3.5 million on the first day alone. "We're seeing about 500 people a day," Jeff Johnson, who owns a dispensary called Nectar in Portland, tells local TV KGW. Part of the draw, as we reported when recreational marijuana sales became fully legal earlier this month, could be that for now, Oregon's pot is on discount: The state won't start levying a 25 percent tax on retail sales until January. Discussing potential tax revenue from legal pot, Oregon officials previously predicted the state would take in "$10.7 million in revenue for the 2015-2017 biennium." To bring in that figure at the 25 percent tax rate, the state would need around $42.8 million in sales. Source | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 13 2015 02:31 always_winter wrote: www.cbsnews.com awkward.gif #staterunmedia #americanpropaganda The degree to which Obama has been out-maneuvered in the Middle East is hilariously bad. I certainly get that the American people have no desire for continued active participation in the wars over there, but Obama's nearly complete abdication of American authority in the Middle East was reckless and has been disastrous. It's the sort of error that America will be paying for long after Obama leaves office. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On October 13 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote: The degree to which Obama has been out-maneuvered in the Middle East is hilariously bad. I certainly get that the American people have no desire for continued active participation in the wars over there, but Obama's nearly complete abdication of American authority in the Middle East was reckless and has been disastrous. It's the sort of error that America will be paying for long after Obama leaves office. Yeah would be nice if we could still say this, probably would of made maneuvering in the Middle East a bit more practical. How epic of a failure the invasion of Iraq is/was and the lasting consequences can hardly be overstated. Sure it could be more stable if we had a quarter million troops stationed there for half a century but American's simply don't want to do that. They'd rather those trillions be spent here building our infrastructure, that those service men and women be in our country not risking their lives in some shithole dessert outpost, and that the ME countries need to step up and use all that gear we sold/gave them to actually fight | ||
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 13 2015 01:22 Gorsameth wrote: Fiscal union and/or unified tax does nothing so long as countries somewhere on the world are havens. If you really wanne fix it you would need a global fiscal union which eliminates taxes havens. It is amazing the lengths people want governments to go to so they can maximize tax revenue. Why is there never soul searching about why they are being out completed for profits. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10705 Posts
And a company paying "fair" taxes while its competitors aren't would be shooting itself in the foot? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:13 cLutZ wrote: It is amazing the lengths people want governments to go to so they can maximize tax revenue. Why is there never soul searching about why they are being out completed for profits. My families business pays those taxes, I don't know why Facebook can't. We,ll I do and its because they have more money and power. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
I also can't shake the feeling that Maggie wouldn't have put up with this shit from multinationals. | ||
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:28 Plansix wrote: My families business pays those taxes, I don't know why Facebook can't. We,ll I do and its because they have more money and power. You are ignoring the simple, better, option of taxing neither company, because in the end its all a tax on employees, customers, and/or shareholders, and its cleaner to simply tax those transactions directly. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
On October 13 2015 04:34 cLutZ wrote: You are ignoring the simple, better, option of taxing neither company, because in the end its all a tax on employees, customers, and/or shareholders, and its cleaner to simply tax those transactions directly. Only if the business' shareholders are your citizens. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
| ||
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On October 13 2015 04:43 ticklishmusic wrote: Also while we're at it, US stores need to change prices so it includes tax. If i go out for dinner and buy a $12 plate of pasta, my bill should $12, not $14.56 plus tip. Ugh. listing prices before tax is a result of retailers having to deal with multiple states with varying taxes, and everyone follows that convention regardless of whether or not they deal in multiple states | ||
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 13 2015 04:37 KwarK wrote: Only if the business' shareholders are your citizens. Well, if the customers are your citizens, then you are taxing the entire company. (assuming sales tax, company only makes money from sales) If the employees are your citizens, but the shareholders aren't and the customers aren't, then taxing the employees really gets all of the value your country brings to the table (they are only there because you have a good workforce/nice laws) customers are probably he best to tax... although one does have to watch out for "customers" getting something from a business for non-monetary (and hence hard to tax) exchange [like workers getting health insurance/CEOs getting jet rides , etc. instead of salary] | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 13 2015 01:22 Gorsameth wrote: Fiscal union and/or unified tax does nothing so long as countries somewhere on the world are havens. If you really wanne fix it you would need a global fiscal union which eliminates taxes havens. they could simply leverage the power of domestic market access. as for taxing transactions (consumption?) rather than income, it's highly regressive duh. | ||
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 13 2015 06:26 oneofthem wrote: they could simply leverage the power of domestic market access. as for taxing transactions (consumption?) rather than income, it's highly regressive duh. If you tie a regressive tax (say 90% tax on consumption) to a progressive social system (70% of tax revenue is distributed evenly to the poor/unemployed), you can have a very progressive system. (or regressive if you so choose) [I personally favor the 1 flat % tax with 1 flat per capita amount for everyone, as a basic situation] Anyways taxing consumption affects the shareholders and the employees equally, because they combine to sell stuff to get consumed. (and has the advantage of allowing you to tax foreign shareholders/foreign employees) | ||
| ||