White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'

[billym]

White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax' | The Weekly Standard

Gene Sperling, director of the White House's national economic council, said today at an official meeting that "we need a global minimum tax":

“He supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens," Sperling said.

The White House adviser then said that more details would be forthcoming, though "not in gory detail."

"But we will say more, perhaps not in gory detail, but in more detail, before the end of the month. And in terms of the revenues, the president is looking for shared sacrifice. This budget is a Democratic budget that has savings in Medicaid, it has savings from new beneficiaries, Medicare in 2017, it has agriculture civilian retirement savings. It has a lot of very tough choices."

[GlennO]

[Duncanmc]

If Obama is reelected I believe we will see violence in the streets on a large scale within 6 months of his 2nd inauguration.

[Carl]

of 100% of all income.

[GlennO]

We're on the same page Carl

Israel warns of new global financial meltdown

[KR McKay]

Of course, it is only after such a "Global Minimum Tax" is implemented that the supporters in this nation of the idea that "the rich aren't paying their fair share" will suddenly learn that, compared to MOST of the REST of the world, THEY are "the rich" who "aren't paying THEIR share." Of course, by then, it will be too late... [I might note, by the way, that, without meaning to be, the "class warfareists," to coin a term, are actually RIGHT about one thing in the US. "The rich" are NOT paying their "fair share." They are paying MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE than their "fair share." What would actually be "fair" is to DRASTICALLY CUT their taxes!]

[KR McKay]

Of course, it is only after such a "Global Minimum Tax" is implemented that the supporters in this nation of the idea that "the rich aren't paying their fair share" will suddenly learn that, compared to MOST of the REST of the world, THEY are "the rich" who "aren't paying THEIR share." Of course, by then, it will be too late...


[I might note, by the way, that, without meaning to be, the "class warfareists," to coin a term, are actually RIGHT about one thing in the US. "The rich" are NOT paying their "fair share." They are paying MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE than their "fair share." What would actually be "fair" is to DRASTICALLY CUT their taxes!]

[dave-o]

So who exactly is going to collect and administrate this tax? That's one of "gory details" I'd surely like to know!! Let me guess... he'll start with the US only with every confidence that the rest of the world will happily volunteer to jump on the bandwagon.

When will these nuts realize that taxing corporations is ineffective because they invariably pass the the cost down to their customers? Why not just tax only when individuals spend money on non-essentials? If you're rich and can and do spend more you pay more. If you're poor and buy nothing but food and shelter you pay nothing.

[RanYakumo]

This sounds totally unforceable. That is, with the current world situation.

In the future, there'll probably be much more than just a Global Minimum Tax. Of course, we'll be out of here by then.

[Kenny64]

Of course, it is only after such a "Global Minimum Tax" is implemented that the supporters in this nation of the idea that "the rich aren't paying their fair share" will suddenly learn that, compared to MOST of the REST of the world, THEY are "the rich" who "aren't paying THEIR share." Of course, by then, it will be too late... [I might note, by the way, that, without meaning to be, the "class warfareists," to coin a term, are actually RIGHT about one thing in the US. "The rich" are NOT paying their "fair share." They are paying MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE than their "fair share." What would actually be "fair" is to DRASTICALLY CUT their taxes!]

We are not here to see this.. Luke 21:36

[WKUHilltopper]

If Obama is reelected I believe we will see violence in the streets on a large scale within 6 months of his 2nd inauguration.

I'm not so sure--the majority of people are too concerned about Lindsay Lohan's brush with judges than their own pending tyranny and enslavement. As long as they don't mess with "Family Guy" and NFL, they're fine.

The other day I had a girl in the 7th grade tell me the Constitution had little value. I would guess the majority, if they even heard of the Constitution, would have the same position.

[FaithInChrist]

I was talking to my son and one of his friends that think Obama has some good ideas (I know, it's hard for me not to put that 21 year old over my knee), anyway, they were talking about how "the rich should carry more of the burden, they have too much and most of what they have they have off the backs of hard working people that they so easily discard when they have no more use for them".

Okay, some of what he says is true, there is so much corporate greed it is hard to stick up for the rich right now. I did ask him though, "if we unfairly tax the rich, and become dependent on their money, then what happens if they decide the U.S is too expensive, so they up and move themselves and all their money to another country?" He couldn't answer. I guess Obama thought of this scenario. Love to see how he expects to get all the countries jump on board????

[mattfivefour]

As I read this thread, I perceive that there may be a misunderstanding of the word "global:. For the record, Sperling's use of the word "global" was in the sense of "comprehensive" not in the sense of "world wide". What he was suggesting is that EVERYONE who earns income in the United States should have to pay a minimum tax, without exception and without tax dodges being able to eliminate that minimum ... not that there should be a world-wide minimum tax instituted. Just wanted to clarify. The word "global" is quite easily misunderstood.

[Everlasting Life]

Yes, it's sounding like he's saying something like: Let's not let U.S. corporations get away with not paying their taxes anymore.

In the OP quote he seems to be talking about doing away with loopholes, tax havens and the like that's allowed corporations get away with not paying taxes. That's probably a big reason why our country is in debt to the extent that it is.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Time for some facts here

Corporations already pay taxes

taxes on raw materials
payroll taxes
property taxes
taxes on utility
taxes on invintory
taxes on communications

and the list goes on and on and on

once again the left shows their total ignorance of the situation....

[SteveJM]

Corporations are an easy target for the left. They're identified with wealth and power, and the nice bonus, corporations don't vote. We're taxed till death literally, and almost to death in percentage of income. The federal and state governments have usurped the role of the Church with some of their taxation and related benefits. Many politicians have left the Christian principles of individual responsibility behind, and have come up with, what they would tell us is, a more compassionate plan, "A chicken in every pot." It use to be the role of the Church to take care of the poor, the widows, those who are unable to work, etc, but now it's primarily the role of the government. I think that most of the managers that have been hired at Washington DC need a pink slip. These career lawyers and politicians never tire of making new laws. How many do we need? We are often better off when our legislators do nothing. Many of them are always finding new ways to empty our pockets for our own good, and when they increase taxes on corporations they are in fact still emptying our pockets with higher prices and lost revenue, namely from lost jobs. If they are so brilliant, why do we have a crumbling infrastructure, high unemployment, crashing property values, a huge deficit, and even much larger unfunded liabilities? These incompetent, disingenuous, corrupt, socialists need to be shown the door. There are socialists on both sides of the aisle, by the way. Our Country would be much better with a drastically smaller Federal government, and much stronger individual State governments, one exception though is that we need to maintain a strong defense and position in the world. With stronger State's rights, we would be encouraging more innovation amongst the individual States. As we see what works well in one State, it could be adopted to others if they choose to. This innovation is in effect currently but not where it could be. This one size fits all plan doesn't work, at least not very well. There's my rant for the day. I get stirred up whenever I hear about how we need more taxes.

Smaller Federal Government, balanced budgets, reduced deficits with the goal of being debt free, return to the gold standard, greater individual State's rights, support for American jobs, and more. I know, it's probably not going to happen. Praise the Lord, better days are ahead for us believers. Man will often fail us but God never will.

[Carl]

Only corporations and businesses don't pay tax anyway. They just add it to the price of their product and the consumers pay those taxes too!