Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Biden Hood - Prince of Plebs

Recommended Posts

@Proudfeet 

Quote

It seems that taking things out of context to make strawmen is your preference. I got you too.

I said it was hardly American exceptionalism to come out for a global minimum tax.  You said it isn't, but "Coming out with their preferred rate and their past history is."  Obviously Biden and Yellen can't do anything about history, so I focused on "coming out with their preferred rate."  That's not taking anything out of context nor a strawman by any measure.  You whining about a strawman, in fact, is more of a strawman.

Quote

So? The point is that it is a convenient rate for the US. Anything lower wouldn't help them and anything higher would be difficult for them.

Well, considering Biden wants to up the US rate back to 28%, I'd imagine his ideal rate would be 28% as well.  Anyway, shocker, the US is going to come out with a preferred rate that is convenient for them.  Show me a country or leader that isn't going to come out with a preferred rate that is convenient for them.  This complaint is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

I said it was hardly American exceptionalism to come out for a global minimum tax.  You said it isn't, but "Coming out with their preferred rate and their past history is."  Obviously Biden and Yellen can't do anything about history, so I focused on "coming out with their preferred rate."  That's not taking anything out of context nor a strawman by any measure.  You whining about a strawman, in fact, is more of a strawman.

You've been picking specific parts in every reply when the argument is made as a whole. And history is history. You don't get a clean slate every four or eight years. To be very clear, I'm not opposed to the global tax. Its that the US is bringing it up and their way of going into the discussion. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, considering Biden wants to up the US rate back to 28%, I'd imagine his ideal rate would be 28% as well.  Anyway, shocker, the US is going to come out with a preferred rate that is convenient for them.  Show me a country or leader that isn't going to come out with a preferred rate that is convenient for them.  This complaint is ludicrous.

Yeah, every country is going to do it. But the point of a global minimum rate is to reduce the incentive of the shifting of profits to lower tax jurisdictions. Its not to benefit any country. Coming out with a rate where you're nakedly saying that you want to be the beneficiary as a lower tax jurisdiction is just a bad look.

See also my first post, where I've already acknowledged that fact and which you apparently didn't read.

Quote

I'm highly sceptical on this. Combating tax avoidance through transfer pricing sounds good in theory, but what rate should be set? I'm sure every country will prefer a rate that is convenient to them where countries below them can't quite use it to compete while they still have the edge over high tax jurisdictions. If it was in good faith, they'd propose a rate higher than their current rate.

Its just that not every country has the power and the history of the US to strongarm their way or attempt to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

You've been picking specific parts in every reply when the argument is made as a whole. And history is history. You don't get a clean slate every four or eight years. To be very clear, I'm not opposed to the global tax. Its that the US is bringing it up and their way of going into the discussion. 

The part of your argument I've objected to is very clear - that this is somehow a perpetuation of US hegemony or "American exceptionalism."  I've been picking those specific parts because that's what I disagree with.  That's not a strawman.

22 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Yeah, every country is going to do it.

So then how is the US doing so a perpetuation of US hegemony or American exceptionalism?  Because they're doing the same thing every country is going to do?  That makes no sense.

26 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

See also my first post, where I've already acknowledged that fact and which you apparently didn't read.

I did read that part of your first post, which is why I found the aspect I quoted so confounding.  You seem to agree that the US is doing what every other country is doing.  Which makes your complaints about perpetuating US hegemony and American exceptionalism very clearly complaining for complaining's sake (and rather syllogistic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DMC said:

The part of your argument I've objected to is very clear - that this is somehow a perpetuation of US hegemony or "American exceptionalism."  I've been picking those specific parts because that's what I disagree with.  That's not a strawman.

You're ignoring the part that its because its the US. And that they have past form? Individually its nothing. Its when you put them together that you get a pattern.

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

So then how is the US doing so a perpetuation of US hegemony or American exceptionalism?  Because they're doing the same thing every country is going to do?  That makes no sense.

Because the US has the ability to do so? That it is a transparent attempt to benefit themselves? That its effect is disproportionate? That it will help solidify their position at the top?

At this point, I think convenient is too kind a word. Its more of a cynical rate.

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

I did read that part of your first post, which is why I found the aspect I quoted so confounding.  You seem to agree that the US is doing what every other country is doing.  Which makes your complaints about perpetuating US hegemony and American exceptionalism very clearly complaining for complaining's sake (and rather syllogistic).

If you're saying that I'm complaining just because its the US, you'd be right. The past has shown that the US and now China are just doing whatever they want, pushing the boundaries as far as they are able, and not only do they not cancel each other out, but everyone else gets caught in the crossfire. I'm just glad that Russia doesn't have quite the same strength and the EU seems more sensible or at least limited by their composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

If you're saying that I'm complaining just because its the US, you'd be right.

Ok then.  This gets back to my original objection - that the US is in a damned if they do damned if they don't position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok then.  This gets back to my original objection - that the US is in a damned if they do damned if they don't position.  

Basically yes, but they put themselves into that position in the first place. And maybe they could have opened with a position that wasn't so nakedly cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Proudfeet said:

And maybe they could have opened with a position that wasn't so nakedly cynical.

What rate, exactly, would make it not "nakedly cynical" in your view?  Or is it that they should not have a preferred rate at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

What rate, exactly, would make it not "nakedly cynical" in your view?  Or is it that they should not have a preferred rate at all?

A rate that isn't their current rate? I don't know how you want to spin it. It's blatantly designed to maximise their benefit. What I proposed, again in my first reply, was that any country propose a rate higher than their own. Lower works as well I guess, but too low and its ineffective. Obviously, this excludes countries at the two extremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

A rate that isn't their current rate? I don't know how you want to spin it.

Well, the "spin" on that is pretty obvious - he wants to increase that current rate to 28% in the same exact proposal:

Quote

The White House and some Senate Democrats are calling for revamping the US tax code’s approach to international taxation and trying to reduce profit-shifting further, including increasing the minimum tax on the overseas profits of American companies from 10.5 percent to 21 percent. Biden also aims to increase the US corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. His administration appears well aware that one element that would make their efforts easier — or at the very least, ease concerns about US competitiveness and actually enforcing its tax rates — would be for the international community to go along.

That’s why the US is also throwing its weight behind the idea of a global minimum tax for countries to put in place worldwide. The hope is that it would stop countries from lowering their tax rates to attract investments and businesses in what many economists and politicians describe as a perpetual “race to the bottom.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On tax policy and global minimum tax:

1.  DMC is correct that this is pillar 2 of the OECD project.  The US hasn’t done much more than show up at meetings (I think we’re there for the snacks).  In terms of the rate, I would like to point out to Proudfeet that 12.5% just happens to be the Irish rate on trading profits.  It also happens to track the rate that the US chose (more or less) for corporate taxpayers on global worldwide operating income (though that is proposed to go up).  There is a REASON that the rate proposed for pillar 2 was 12.5%.  

2.  Proudfeet is correct that the US has managed use its clout to influence global tax policy.  FATCA is the best example of that.  But a lot of our framework has been more or less roundly rejected by the rest of the world.  Our system doesn’t really “talk” well with other systems.  Our treaty network kinda stinks, and our foreign tax credit system is broken.

On other things:

Ted Cruz wrote the most snigger worthy op ed in the WSJ rejecting “woke” corporate money.  It’s like a parody of a parody.  Also, what about our respected friends booing voting rights protections?  Was pretty ... obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

On other things:

Ted Cruz wrote the most snigger worthy op ed in the WSJ rejecting “woke” corporate money.  It’s like a parody of a parody.  Also, what about our respected friends booing voting rights protections?  Was pretty ... obvious?

Cruz is utterly dishonest and a complete coward.  How the Republicans continue to put up with him is beyond me.  I wouldn't want such a sniveling rat as my representative even if I agreed with his nonsense.  Is there really no one else in Texas they'd rather have?  Its a big state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an article this morning in my newspaper that utterly sickened and enraged me. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, hunting and trying to kill an elephant in Botswana. He was unable to kill a wounded, unmoving elephant from mere feet away. There is video online but I am not posting one.

I realize Botswana is a poor country and one way of raising money is to have rich idiots come and hunt elephants, but I have never liked killing any animal for sport. Terrorizing and repeatedly wounding an animal because of fucking stupidity just makes me sick.

I have always suspected that NRA types use firearms as a substitute for a perceived small penis but this is more than that.  Glorifying firearms and then being unable to use one makes me shudder considering how many others are doing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I read stuff that make go "huh"? Today it was the news (maybe not so news) that Lindsay Graham believes climate change is real and man-made. In fact, he has had this opinion for quite a while.

Not only that, he is in favor of carbon pricing, He is also talking to John Kerry a fair bit. One can only dream, but some bipartisan legislature on a climate bill would be awesome. One can dream of course.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Sometimes I read stuff that make go "huh"? Today it was the news (maybe not so news) that Lindsay Graham believes climate change is real and man-made. In fact, he has had this opinion for quite a while.

Not only that, he is in favor of carbon pricing, He is also talking to John Kerry a fair bit. One can only dream, but some bipartisan legislature on a climate bill would be awesome. One can dream of course.....

Lindsey Graham was the leader of the bipartisan climate change talks in 2009 because he'd just been reelected in 2008, saying that CC was an urgent problem, and he was willing to take the political risk supporting it.  I believe when later campaigning for his 2014 reelection he renounced that position (could be wrong about that).  So the rule of thumb is if Graham has 5 years left in his term and the Democrats control WH/Congress, then he believes in climate change.  Otherwise, it's a hoax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maarsen said:

I just read an article this morning in my newspaper that utterly sickened and enraged me. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, hunting and trying to kill an elephant in Botswana. He was unable to kill a wounded, unmoving elephant from mere feet away. There is video online but I am not posting one.

I realize Botswana is a poor country and one way of raising money is to have rich idiots come and hunt elephants, but I have never liked killing any animal for sport. Terrorizing and repeatedly wounding an animal because of fucking stupidity just makes me sick.

I have always suspected that NRA types use firearms as a substitute for a perceived small penis but this is more than that.  Glorifying firearms and then being unable to use one makes me shudder considering how many others are doing the same thing.

I am a fervent believer in the 2nd amendment.  I don't hunt, but I can somewhat 'get' deer/turkey/pheasant hunting. Trophy hunting endangered animals is disgusting and like bull fighting and dog fighting should be retired forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Sometimes I read stuff that make go "huh"? Today it was the news (maybe not so news) that Lindsay Graham believes climate change is real and man-made. In fact, he has had this opinion for quite a while.

Not only that, he is in favor of carbon pricing, He is also talking to John Kerry a fair bit. One can only dream, but some bipartisan legislature on a climate bill would be awesome. One can dream of course.....

Yesterday Graham was one of three Senate Republicans (along with Collins and Portman) to vote with Democrats in using the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Trump-era methane regulation (which was basically a deregulation) and restore the Obama-era regulations. So he is, at least slightly, putting money where his mouth is.

To be some extent it feels like Graham is trying to have his cake and eat it; trying to get back his bipartisan reputation while still being a Trump shill. There's a been a few Biden nominee votes too where's been one of only a few Republicans to vote aye. And he's been involved with the police reform bill negotiations that Tim Scott has been the Republican lead on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I am a fervent believer in the 2nd amendment.  I don't hunt, but I can somewhat 'get' deer/turkey/pheasant hunting. Trophy hunting endangered animals is disgusting and like bull fighting and dog fighting should be retired forever.

We need a new 2nd amendment thread to discuss.

 

Why? The 2nd amendment was created a couple hundred years ago when the state of the art musket took 15 seconds to load and was wildy inaccurate.

Things have changed since then. New rules should apply.

I mean, you don't also think witches should be burned at the stake, do you? Of course not, that'd be silly. Something done by people a few hundred years ago who were far more ignorant than now,

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

We need a new 2nd amendment thread to discuss.

 

Why? The 2nd amendment was created a couple hundred years ago when the state of the art musket took 15 seconds to load and was wildy inaccurate.

Things have changed since then. New rules should apply.

I mean, you don't also think witches should be burned at the stake, do you? Of course not, that'd be silly. Something done by people a few hundred years ago who were far more ignorant than now,

15 seconds?  Try 30 or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...