European Union leaders will consider imposing 25 percent tariffs on a range of US imports, including steel, clothes, and food, but not bourbon or other alcoholic drinks, following US President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from the EU.
While this is true, it’s also a matter of desire and commitment.
Case in point, the US companies all publish consolidated accounts and often break out Europe, albeit sometimes it’s EMEA not Europe.
You can target the final consolidated accounts and focus on revenues if the companies don’t provide actual numbers for Europe (or if it looks like there is something fishy going on, which there is).
Company A is in Poland. You regulate law in Poland. Company B is in USA. You don’t regulate a law in USA.
You want to tax company A, based on company B report, that was created for 3rd party government?
I recognize that this is not exactly a reasonable approach.
But sometimes (when the situation is dire and you’re dealing with unreasonable, profoundly corrupt individuals that lack humanity) you need to take an active (not reactive) approach.
Literally just say “You made $20B (revenue) in Europe as per your 10-K, you will pay $4B and we don’t care what you have to say because we both know you are dishonest and corrupt. Lying is not going to work!”
I am not saying that now is the time to use such measures. But to completely deny any active postures and solely leverage a reactive approach does not work.
That’s not unreasonable. That’s a law-suit. They will get back all this money with surplus.
Imagine that you have a company A. And you legitimately licens something from 3rd party company B. That’s your cost.
And you license something else from company C… that’s your profit some how?
On paper your relationship with company B and C is identical. There is nothing tangible linking you to company C more than B.
And if you manage to find something, they will shift the structure and change it.
You probably pay higher taxes than some of those companies.
Pirates. Enemies of the human kind.
See, you’re still thinking on their terms. It’s a fundamentally a reactive approach. You let American oligarchs (and their supporters among the American population) define the rules of the game. I will note that I agree with you that you’ll never beat their army of lawyers (on their own terms).
I am saying develop and implement approaches where the lawyers don’t matter. You tell the US oligarchs that they must pay X billion additional tariff fees based on data that identifies their commercial activity in Europe (I worked in tech market research at one point and there are reliable private data sources that allow you to make relatively accurate estimates around US company sales in Europe; irrespective of legal structure).
You tell them that they are welcome to say no and you’d happy for them to engage in lawsuits or bawsuits or do whatever they want. But you warn them that they might not like the outcome.
When they do say “no!” you go all in and de facto ban all American IT services and shut down their business in Europe.
Now I am not saying this has to be done immediately (or done at all). You can initially try and work with them for a long time, but all throughout this process you keep a full menu of options open, including de facto seizing their assets and implementing a blanket ban (either explicit or a fee structure that makes their business non-viable) on all American IT services.
I am just saying that we need to expand our horizon of capabilities beyond the rules set by Americans. It stupid to come to a gun fight with boxing gloves.
I’m thinking “rule of law”. Is that their terms? You can’t arbitrary tax someone with “I know how much you REALLY earned” alone.
And when you quantify it they will beat it in your own game.
I would argue “rule of law” is not relevant to American oligarchs. There is no difference between say a russian oligarch and an American oligarch with the exception that American oligarchs have a stronger preference for theatrics/PR and copytext that references terms like “freedom” and “rule of law” and “personal responsibility”. Russian oligarchs just don’t bother because paradoxically they are more honest than American oligarchs.
It’s not a matter of knowing how much they REALLY earned. It’s about telling them that they will pay this much and if they don’t, they are welcome to go along with lawsuits or whatever they feel like.
They can make a statement in the UN about discrimination against the most discriminated group in the world; freedom loving American billionaires. Tell them they can get Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Snoop Dog to perform a modern supergroup track as a legacy to the 40th year anniversary of We are the World called “We are Silicon Valley” (or “We are Wall Street”).
Just warn them that if “We are Silicon Valley” doesn’t change the course of human history (let alone become #1 in every single country in the world), things might not work out for them as they would like.
I agree. But it’s relevant to me.
I want my government to work within the rules. I don’t want my government to be able to tax people on "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es.
I’m not saying that taxes can’t be improvement. But taxing international companies is extremely complex problem. No one found completely bulletproof solution yet, and it’s almost impossible to do unilaterally without multiple sides collaborating. Everytime someone say “the should just…” it’s a gross oversimplification that present reality where solution is obvious and everyone not implementing it gave bad will or lack competency or gut.
How is it a strongly held opinion and “everyone knows”? Various tax avoidance schemes are extremely well documented both in general media reporting, NGO reporting and even academia. Are you saying that even something as simple as the wikipedia article on the Dutch Sandwich was just made up on the spot? Did the Wikipedia editors find a local hardcore alcoholic that is known for making up crazy stories and decided to document one of his claimed escapades where he got wasted with a recently divorced senior financial accounting executive who told him about the dutch sandwich?
You say “rule of law” is relevant to you. What does this mean? Can you define this specifically.
You are acting somewhat high and mighty on this topic (just a little bit, although I will admit such a rhetorical approach is fair considering the topic), but on what basis should one take your alleged commitment to “rule of law” at face value?
What you are saying is that we must tolerate corporate criminality no matter what. We are not allowed to challenge their methods and any and all information on corporate tax avoidance is inherently hearsay.
I will admit I am being a little bit hyperbolic, but how else should once interpret "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es?
What’s the gross oversimplification? Perhaps the gross oversimplification is your "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es? Have you thought about that?