Biden Vrs Trump

Washington Post: “Biden set for G-7 boost in bid for all nations to impose minimum global corporate tax”
The new minimum tax, one half of a two-pronged global reform effort, is designed to halt a cycle of corporate tax-cutting that has sapped government revenue around the globe. As part of a package deal, negotiators are also wrestling with European demands to tax American technology giants such as Google and Facebook, which earn substantial revenue in countries where they have little physical presence.

Biden catalyzed the global tax debate in late May by proposing a worldwide minimum tax of at least 15 percent, which was lower than many tax specialists had expected. If he can secure agreement from the world’s leading democracies — en route to a broader global consensus later this year — it could eventually produce the most significant global tax shift in decades.

Putting a floor beneath multinationals’ tax bills in other countries would help the president raise the corporate rate at home to 28 percent by reducing the incentive for corporations to continue shifting hundreds of billions of dollars in profits to low-tax venues.

Along with opposition from corporate lobbyists, additional obstacles loom, including objections from low-tax countries such as Ireland as well as likely noncompliance from China and Russia. After more than three decades of factory offshoring, any global minimum levy also might only minimally reshape the map of global production and investment.

“Fundamentally, the goal for all of us is to make sure companies that are multinationals are paying their fair share of taxes,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in an interview. “Anything we can do to close the gap is going to be a boon to the American economy and business.”

Biden confronts a complex chore, which blends rewriting the tax code’s eye-glazing arcana with the diplomatic puzzle of satisfying the interests of both advanced and developing nations. The varying domestic and global political calendars mean administration officials may end up asking Congress to change U.S. tax law before other nations.

Negotiators are simultaneously wrestling with both the global minimum levy and the challenge of taxing digital companies. Several global bodies such as the G-7 and the G-20 are involved. The U.K., which hosts Friday’s finance minister session and a leaders’ summit in June, insists that the digital and minimum tax issues be resolved in a single bargain. Securing E.U. agreement, meanwhile, requires unanimity among its 27 nations. And the international talks are occurring as the United States gears up to rewrite its domestic tax laws.

Amid all these moving parts, the expected G-7 endorsement “is good news in terms of the possibility of a global agreement,” said Michael Mundaca, U.S. national tax department leader for Ernst & Young. “But it’s still very early.”

Biden’s time-consuming multilateral strategy signals a departure from President Donald Trump’s preference for unilateral tariffs.

The Democrat’s determination to use a tax code overhaul to reset the terms of global commerce is reflected in the addition to his Treasury Department team of several prominent academic tax specialists, including Kimberly Clausing of Reed College, Rebecca Kysar of Fordham Law School and Itai Grinberg of Georgetown University.

The president’s aim is to shrink the role that tax calculations play in corporate investment decisions, boosting economic efficiency and income. But even some supporters caution that the immediate gains may prove modest.

“We will get some revenue by shrinking the use of tax havens, especially for intangibles, and we will get the benefit of multinationals locating any start-ups in the U.S.,” said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “But I don’t think we’ll see the end of factories and jobs leaving America. To the extent that’s done now, it’s more because of other factors such as technology and wages. It’s not done for tax rules.”

Under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, 137 nations have been wrestling since 2013 with the question of how to tax corporations in a globalized, digital economy.

The pandemic’s budgetary impact, coupled with an American president determined to narrow the gap between rich and poor, have given momentum to the idea of a global minimum corporate tax, U.S. officials and tax specialists said.

Governments around the world spent an estimated $16 trillion battling the novel coronavirus over the past year, according to Vitor Gaspar, director of the International Monetary Fund’s fiscal affairs department. All those bills for health care and economic support drove the average country’s public debt to 99 percent of gross domestic product this year, up from 83.7 percent in 2019.

That has left governments thirsty for revenue. Changing the way corporate taxes are collected could harvest between $100 billion and $600 billion annually, according to published estimates.

“The benefits are tremendous. Once we have it, the race to the bottom that is depriving emerging markets and developing countries from revenue is going to stop,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said recently. “I get a strong sense of confidence that this is going to be done and we would all breathe a sigh of relief when it is done.”

Even without action by other nations, the Biden administration expects to reap more than $533 billion over the next decade by reducing incentives for U.S. corporations to shift assets and incomes abroad, according to the president’s budget proposal released Friday.

The global debate over raising government revenue caps a generation of collapsing corporate tax rates. Since 1980, the global average rate set in national laws, weighted according to economic output, has fallen from more than 46 percent to 26 percent, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

In 2017, the Trump administration lowered the U.S. corporate rate to 21 percent. But what corporations actually pay — the effective rate — is less than 8 percent, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Annual revenue from corporate taxes relative to the size of the economy is now less than one-quarter as large as in 1967, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee of Taxation. The Biden administration sees raising the corporate share as an essential way to pay for its “Build Back Better” agenda of infrastructure and social spending.

 
I never said a word about trend. I simply said that gas prices were going up under Trump until the pandemic and posted the annual average prices. That said, the trend line pre pandemic for Trump’s 3 years, was up. There is zero debate about that.
Maybe you should have someone read YOUR post #38 to you.
You are right about one thing.
There is zero debate with an amoral whore like you. Just your ignorant, dishonest lies.
 
Maybe you should have someone read YOUR post #38 to you.
You are right about one thing.
There is zero debate with an amoral whore like you. Just your ignorant, dishonest lies.
I simply responded to Gulliotine's false statement that gas prices trended down pre pandemic during Trumps' term. They trended up. That is a fact.
 
I simply responded to Gulliotine's false statement that gas prices trended down pre pandemic during Trumps' term. They trended up. That is a fact.
What was the average price per gallon Trump vs. Obama Presidencies?
 
What was the average price per gallon Trump vs. Obama Presidencies?
Based on price alone, Obama. That said, you are asking the wrong questions. Better questions: 1. Who was president over one of the most massive increases in history? 2. What president reversed that trend? 3. What president killed Obama's progress?

Answers: 1. Bush 2. Obama. 3. Trump

1622567635807.png
 
Last edited:
Based on price alone, Obama. That said, you are asking the wrong questions. Better questions: 1. Who was president over one of the most the most massive increases in history? 2. What president reversed that trend? 3. What president killed Obama's progress?

Answers: 1. Bush 2. Obama. 3. Trump

View attachment 17703
?
 
Based on price alone, Obama. That said, you are asking the wrong questions. Better questions: 1. Who was president over one of the most the most massive increases in history? 2. What president reversed that trend? 3. What president killed Obama's progress?

Answers: 1. Bush 2. Obama. 3. Trump

View attachment 17703
So it's clear from your graph that the average price was less during Trump's Presidency.

Thanks once again for refuting one of your own arguments,
 
I'll take an average lower price over four years all day long.
Well...that is because you are not too smart if that is the only way you look at it. You see, prices are a relative thing. Gas prices doubling under Bush does not mean it is better than prices under Obama just because they never reached $3.50 a gallon. I think this is beyond your capability to understand but thought I would try anyway.
 
Well...that is because you are not too smart if that is the only way you look at it. You see, prices are a relative thing. Gas prices doubling under Bush does not mean it is better than prices under Obama just because they never reached $3.50 a gallon. I think this i9s beyond your capability to understand but thought I would try anyway.
You back pedaler, you
 
Well...that is because you are not too smart if that is the only way you look at it. You see, prices are a relative thing. Gas prices doubling under Bush does not mean it is better than prices under Obama just because they never reached $3.50 a gallon. I think this is beyond your capability to understand but thought I would try anyway.
I thought this was Trump vs. Biden?

Where does Bush come in?
 
Top