What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[garbon]

He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.

Not succumbing to black people?

Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.

You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?

I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.

Frankly, I really could not fucking care less if you pretend to be "hurt" while you accuse me of being a closet GOP racist every fucking time a conversation comes up that I don't align with your views, even when it is a subject that I don't even consider to be ABOUT those views. It's exhausting, and I am done.

Funny how you say I called you a racist when the only mention of that was me saying that I know people using the term on Languish are not racist.

But yeah dick it is. Explains the genocide stance too.

[Valmy]

Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.

And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price.  It's all going on the national debt.

I don't want it to to the national debt, I want taxes raised to cover the necessary expenses. But I lack dictatorial powers.

However even if it goes into the debt we will be paying the price eventually.

However the future security of the state is on the line. If these problems are not corrected the whole rotten structure is due for a reckoning.

[Sheilbh]

Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.

Isn't this just a GOP talking point though? They don't consider broadband (telecoms) or water (utilities) or EVs "infrastructure". Which is a take - that allows them to say that actually only the spending on roads, or rail or ports is "infrastructure" which is a small (but not insignificant) bit of the bill.

And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price.  It's all going on the national debt.

Generally yes - but doesn't that bill actually also include tax increases?

Edit: And from a European perspective the really striking thing is how timid the European proposals are in comparison both the EU recovery fund and the UK government's decisions (though both are welcome).

[crazy canuck]

But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.

What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.

Necessary. Especially with regard to infrastructure.

I wish I had a magic wand to wave away all the challenges we are facing but unfortunately we have to pay the price.

Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.

And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price.  It's all going on the national debt.

How is the price not being paid.  Isn't that exactly what debt represents?  I think what you are really saying is the price should not exceed the present ability to pay.  And that is an entirely different discussion.

I am not sure how one can characterize that spending as not being infrastructure spending, unless one takes a very narrow view the GOP is trying to sell.  We are not living in the 19th century.  Instructure includes a lot more than roads.

[Barrister]

Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.

Isn't this just a GOP talking point though? They don't consider broadband (telecoms) or water (utilities) or EVs "infrastructure". Which is a take - that allows them to say that actually only the spending on roads, or rail or ports is "infrastructure" which is a small (but not insignificant) bit of the bill.

And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price.  It's all going on the national debt.

Generally yes - but doesn't that bill actually also include tax increases?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html

It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development

Bill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore.   Good luck with that.

[Valmy]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

[Sheilbh]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html

It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development

Right - which is collectively around a third. So even if you say there's no infrastructure in that chunk it's hardly right to say that the amount spent on infrastrucutre is only a small percentage if it's about two-thirds.

Bill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore.   Good luck with that.

There's a corporate tax rise.

I don't agree that the rest is about hiding income offshore, I think that is an approach goverments take about cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance schemes or artificial corporate structures solely designed to reduce the tax bill. That's been going on in Europe for the best part of the last decade with some results. We've not really seen before an American president aiming to collect more corporate tax globally so there may be some results on that but I think Biden's approach is more ambitious with trying to get the big economies to agree to a minimum global tax rate and then punish countries who don't help. Again this is something that's already started to be tried in Europe (and this is in part Biden's offer on this) where big tech companies make a lot of revenue but don't pay any tax. I think that approach is actually simpler and more likely to result in more revenues than the cracking down on tax avoidance schemes/very artificial corporate structures.

Having said that I know that tax lawyers in the UK can't do things they'd routinely propose ten years ago and spend a lot of time trying to work out what structures are acceptable to European revenue authorities and which ones will prompt an investigation.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

[Valmy]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

I am open to any solutions.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html

It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development

Right - which is collectively around a third. So even if you say there's no infrastructure in that chunk it's hardly right to say that the amount spent on infrastrucutre is only a small percentage if it's about two-thirds.

Bill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore.   Good luck with that.

There's a corporate tax rise.

I don't agree that the rest is about hiding income offshore, I think that is an approach goverments take about cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance schemes or artificial corporate structures solely designed to reduce the tax bill. That's been going on in Europe for the best part of the last decade with some results. We've not really seen before an American president aiming to collect more corporate tax globally so there may be some results on that but I think Biden's approach is more ambitious with trying to get the big economies to agree to a minimum global tax rate and then punish countries who don't help. Again this is something that's already started to be tried in Europe (and this is in part Biden's offer on this) where big tech companies make a lot of revenue but don't pay any tax. I think that approach is actually simpler and more likely to result in more revenues than the cracking down on tax avoidance schemes/very artificial corporate structures.

Having said that I know that tax lawyers in the UK can't do things they'd routinely propose ten years ago and spend a lot of time trying to work out what structures are acceptable to European revenue authorities and which ones will prompt an investigation.

Yep, same thing in Canada.  It looks like the US is now moving in that direction, so looks hopeful.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

I am open to any solutions.

As Sheilbh mentioned, there is a lot of good work going on in the rest of the world on this point.  A large part is having the political will to actually create a tax code that works.  I think that public policy makers are now coming around to that.

[alfred russel]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

What is a profit?

[crazy canuck]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

What is a profit?

?

[alfred russel]

Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.

Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.

What is a profit?

?

The reason I'm skeptical this is going to happen is that there is no common definition of profit for tax purposes. I think most jurisdictions use something like "revenue less expenses", with those terms being defined by (in the US case) thousands of pages of tax rules and regulations. Those aren't going to be replaced by a global tax code any time soon and we aren't going to get a global taxing authority with its own rules etc.

What seems more likely is individual jurisdictions extending their reach globally, and large countries pressuring small tax advantaged jurisdictions into playing by their norms.

[Tonitrus]

Why not just tax the individuals that make up those corporations appropriately (however one thinks is fair), instead of taxing entities that we should not be treating as something akin to "persons"?