[ad_1]
We should not be too strict: a agreement with 130 countries changing global taxes is a big moment. Globalization is not always achieved by means of things that have real consequences.
However while it is true that praise is appropriate, the results are very well mixed. Here are the pros, cons and cons of change.
First, fine. The alliance deals with major tax crises around the world. This is based on the principle that the right to collect taxes is based on where corporations are located. This may make sense when the added value comes from the production of material goods. When a tree is in a state of inactivity and wisdom, then it is a cruel way. It is estimated that, for example, 40% of foreign “money” is designed to reduce taxes not for real business reasons.
Such an invitation to play the game does not mean that all international organizations will pay less than the minimum wage. Governments also impose lower taxes on what they can afford if they do not fear that companies will move their profits elsewhere.
The agreement opposes this by establishing a 15% global tax and moving the right to pay income tax from where they live and to the point of sale.
Economists who have multiplied numbers have found that this makes a huge difference, if not devastating the planet. An upcoming report by EconPol researchers Michael Devereux and Martin Simmler estimates that the $ 87bn tax-exempt tax will be exported to commercial countries. The French Treasury (CAE) is estimating an amount of $ 130bn. In terms of prices, $ 20-30bn is subject to annual tax.
Less taxes, CAE finds, could raise corporate tax revenue by € 6bn- € 15bn in France, Germany and the US.
The result is another way to get rid of the Big Tech look. Political incentives came from European countries who were outraged by the hefty taxes that US merchants made even after earning a lot of money in their markets. The way they support digital-assisted taxes, they also promote international dialogue.
But when it came to finances, it was unreasonable to choose digital services. The wonders of entrepreneurship allow multinational nations to maximize profits from the most practical and functional items, from coffee cups to taxi drivers. Incorporating all major international organizations, which the US wants, was a change in previous plans.
Now on to the worst. This agreement gradually solves the problem. Few international organizations are involved. Even if you have lower prices, the biggest profits for companies still pay taxes depending on where they live. The problems that cause it will also remain. Lower prices leave incentives to move profits to lower tax havens (which have no reason to complain). The conference will not remove strong belts and small taxpayers – even if politicians start looking for solutions to shortcomings in the community.
There are also specials drawing of banks and environmental companies. This may make sense to the latter; it is logical to tax them where they emit hydrocarbons and minerals. For banks, the implication is that they are run and taxed in the markets where they live. But if it were true, they would not be affected by the change in the tax code. Instead, he had a lot to lose: Devereux and Simmler have found that the re-tax rate can be doubled without the bank robbery.
Finally, bad. Governments have lost the opportunity to enforce those laws, abandoning the best and most sophisticated methods to avoid their intentions. Instead of worrying about personalities and limitations, leaders can discuss financial, employment and business issues with the full support of international organizations around the world.
Over time, boundaries can be lowered and forgiven. But not if the agreement is taken to prevent any future changes. The US has ordered some countries to remove digital taxes once the new rules are published. It only makes sense because it does not block the framework of the frame.
The welcome process does not end here. This was a major jump for politicians to make. Yet it is only the first economy in the world.
[ad_2]
Source link
