It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Americans don't know this but this is just the way it is

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2021 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Russia
China
Japan and the following

Much to the disappointment of the Italian hosts, the leaders of China, Japan, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia refused to attend the meeting, which will be held in a suburb of Rome called EUR

are not going to the Climate Conference
they weren't about to waste their time because they know something about Biden we don't know yet

yes, they will be on Zoom though

Many of the leaders coming to Rome, including US President Joe Biden, will immediately fly to Scotland for the United Nations climate summit, known as COP26, which is seen as essential to tackling the threat. of rising temperatures.

And what is this: G20 leaders will also approve a minimum global tax rate of 15% for large corporations – a deal that was finalized earlier this month and which Italy has hailed as a major achievement of its presidency of a year of the G20.



posted on Oct, 29 2021 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It isn't about saving our world, it is about money going to and through a group of people who like to grease the palms of their friends and companies they hold stock in. That fifteen percent tax will be paid by the people buying products, and those big corporations also include big food corporations. Prices will raise five percent across the board for consumers probably.

The way they are structuring this will not help our ecosystem, in order for the earth to heal we need to make things more simple and make things to last years. Technology will be the downfall of this planet, not people living simply and being conservative. Remember this, conservatives actually are more conservative and liberals are enticing change and change increases destruction of the earth's ecosystem more. They will be building windmills till the cows come home because they will be blown apart by high winds in this changing world we have created. Shipping stuff half way around the world is one of the worst things for the environment too.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I don't agree with most current and recent policy changes... But a world wide adoption of 15% corporate tax rates isn't the end of the world.

I wish I only had to pay 15% in taxes.

As for them raising prices, the only way that works is if they all do it in unison. But I venture to guess they still have to compete for customers.

Assuming they do still all raise prices, than they lose out on more sales. If everyone has less money, the companies do less business.

Personally I don't see the reason to be held hostage by large corporations. Them raising prices shouldn't be a threat to us. Small businesses have to pay more taxes most of the time, they don't have the luxury of access to loopholes by accountants, lobbyists, and lawyers.

This would level the playing field a bit. Corporations just got a huge leg up because of covid. Forcing them to do what every other entity in society has to do seems fitting.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:41 AM
link   
So what is an entity like the UN going to do with all that cash? When the WHO is already a sold out big pharma puppet promoting death jabs and covering up treatments this trend ain't looking good. With this kind of money for a bunch of globalists and the path they are on, reaching that 1/2 Billion population cap is on the radar.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

The 15% minimum tax rate goes to countries where the corps are headquartered, not the UN.

The idea is if everyone has that minimum, there are no countries companies can hide cash.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



The idea is if everyone has that minimum, there are no countries companies can hide cash.


I guess they have not meet Hillary Clinton's accountants. The non for profit foundation is a great loophole, works great for Bill Gates too as he is buying up nations, tax free. If people like this are finally one day help to account I will be a bit more supportive of it. Till then just looks like another scam for the big fish to take out more competition.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

It's a minimum 15% tax rate on companies with over a billion in profit a year.

Ideally that should mean 15 regardless of loopholes.

And I hate to be the one to bear bad news... But those corporations don't have competition, if anything, this will make small companies more able to compete.
edit on 30-10-2021 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Sounds a lot like the Venusproject.
“Resource Based Economy”

www.thevenusproject.com...




a reply to: rickymouse



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's not 15% in taxes. It's an additional 15% in taxes on unearned income for people.

A corporation is not a person. They have some of the same abilities legally as a person, like the ability to sign a contract, but a corporation is actually a group of people who all contribute to it to earn money from it. It's a pretty simple idea in theory: each person who contributes something of value (money) to a pool owns a part of that pool, based on how much they contributed. Stock is simply partial ownership.

Many different people own stock, not just hedge fund managers and power brokers. Most retirement accounts also are based in stock, since stock is a good way to earn a passive income. Smaller retirement accounts may own a part of a stock fund, instead of actual stock, but they still own a part of a company somewhere.

So when a corporation is taxed on profit, that tax is above and beyond what the stockowners pay.

Let me give an example: United Thingamabobs (UT) is a corporation that makes thingamabobs. It was started by a group of, say, 100 people who pooled their money to start it. Each person who helped start it received stock commensurate to what they put in to start it. Once UT started up, everyone with stock voted for someone to run it, and the winners became the Board of Directors. They hired a CEO, who hired the employees and bought the equipment, and the people who contributed to it just sat back to let their investment pay them back.

So UT spends a year making thingamabobs. At the end of that year, the accountant for UT figures up their profit. Say they made $1,000,000. Now, there's 10,000 shares of stock on UT, spread among those who own it. Each share of stock entitles the stockholder to 1/10,000 of that million, or $100. So let's say UT's Board of Directors decides to pay out all of that profit as dividends.

UT has to pay taxes first. 15%, say. So that's $150,000 they pay in taxes. Now the profit is less, only $850,000. That means that when UT pays out dividends, each stock entitles the holder to only $85 instead of $100. The money is sent out, and now the stockholders pay their income tax on that $85 per share. Let's say that's another 15%. Now each stock has netted them a return of $72.25.

Here's the problem, now. One of the stockholders makes $1,000,000 a year and lives well. Another one makes $15,000 a year and is barely able to make ends meet eating cheap food. Yet, both of them just paid 15% on that part of their income. There is no allowance for this person who makes so little they don't need to be taxed as heavy as the millionaire... the money is taxed before anyone knows whose it is.

The little old lady eating dog food is supposed to pay nothing in taxes, but in this case she still paid 15% The millionaire may be supposed to pay 40%, but he pays 49%. So instead of that tax schedule being from 0-40%, it is instead 15-49%. In short, the corporate tax hurts the little person more than the wealthy. Worse, the little old lady with stock from way back when is depending on that stock, which was her retirement, for everything she has. That's how she planned for her retirement. The millionaire makes money from all sorts of things... maybe he's a CEO of another company. So UT's taxation is taxing the old retired woman's retirement, everything she has, but it is only taxing a small percentage of the millionaire's income at the higher rate.

All corporate taxation is a tax on retirements.

At the same time, the corporate tax is keeping UT from expanding. Maybe they want to make sparkly green thingamabobs in addition to the colors they already make. Well, that takes more equipment and employees. They make a profit, yes, and they could use it to get what they need to expand and hire more people, but if they did that the stockholders wouldn't get enough in dividends that year. The little old lady wouldn't get any money to live on! So they can't expand as rapidly.

Or maybe they decide to expand anyway. Remember, that millionaire is a CEO of another company, so UT's CEO probably has stock in other companies too. He is the guy who makes that decision to pay out dividends. Now, is he going to look at the little old lady who needs that money to get by? Or is he going to look at it like, if we do this this year, then next year we'll be able to pay out $150 a share! He doesn't even know the little old lady, but he knows how to reinvest to increase profits.

So the result is the little old lady dies from exposure that year, but next year UT pays the millionaires $150 per share. Now, maybe if UT hadn't had to cut that $15 per share from their dividends, they could have still paid more out and started making sparkly green thingamabobs. So the corporate tax, in return for overtaxing the poor and undertaxing the wealthy, has also slowed the economy!

Now, if that's what you think we need to do, overtax the poor, undertax the wealthy, and slow the economy, then higher corporate taxes is the way to go. I personally think we should abolish all corporate taxes and instead tax the individuals directly, so we can make the taxation more fair and not slow the economy in the process.

(Oh, and the corporate tax rate is already something like 20%, plus or minus. We're taking about an additional 15%.)

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


It's not 15% in taxes. It's an additional 15% in taxes on unearned income for people.


I'm speaking specifically on countries agreeing to a 15% minimum corporate tax. Not an additional, but minimum.

I'm not for taxing unrealized gains for individuals or companies no matter how rich they are. Take Musk for example, he built Tesla so it makes complete sense he can have controlling interest. If unrealized gains were able to be taxed and they have a good year, he could be forced to liquidate some stake losing control of the company. This goes for Bezos and other Billionaires too whether I like them or not.

To your point on taxing corporations trickling to us inevitably, I'm sure to an extent that's true. But keep in mind it's the profits that are taxed. They still have to compete even though they are being taxed, and if they try and pass it right to the consumer, I'm sure someone to stay competitive would only pass 10%, and a new comer 5% until the free market finds the happy medium. Plus they can't just keep passing it to the customer, as that would just change the taxable amount.

Some of the large corporations pay little to no taxes. These are some of the same entities accounting for a good percentage of shipping traffic which puts more strain on the infrastructure than we as individuals do.

But these megacorps paying far less than other entities, using more, and paying less (subsidized by welfare for workers) all means we're ultimately subsidizing the same corporations who edge out the competition. We pay to get screwed again. It's also the antithesis to a free market.

I'm not for massive new spending. I'm not for unrealized gains tax. I'm not for many other tax increased. But corporations doing the bare minimum most other entities including individuals seems fair.

And regarding retirement and share holders, all of America shouldn't subsidize that either. Not everyone holds those specific financial products for retirement (I do in some respects), but there's ways to mitigate that too, you shouldn't only be holding bluechip stocks in your retirement anyways. So that is really minuscule when we're talking scope of impact for Americans. Most don't solely hold those assets for retirement. And, those companies are only getting taxed if they're turning a profit, so the shareholders still get rewarded.
edit on 30-10-2021 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

If they were to come up with a strategy to solve their "climate crisis" that didn't involve a tax I would still be suspicious. I fail to see how the usual suspects grabbing money modifies the atmosphere in any way.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 05:37 AM
link   
-
edit on 10/30/2021 by VierEyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I'm speaking specifically on countries agreeing to a 15% minimum corporate tax. Not an additional, but minimum.

But that's not what is being discussed. Corporations already pay more than 15%, at least legally. In actuality, many do not pay any tax, and that has nothing to do with rates. That's loopholes where corporations can hide wealth, hopefully until the tax laws allow them to disburse it cheaper. If you want to stop the loopholes, raising the tax rate won't do anything.


I'm not for taxing unrealized gains for individuals or companies no matter how rich they are.

I'm not talking about unrealized gain. I'm talking about profit. Unrealized gain (increase in the value of a stock) is a completely different subject than disbursements.


And regarding retirement and share holders, all of America shouldn't subsidize that either.

The people receiving disbursements aren't subsidizing the companies; the companies are subsidizing them. How do you expect anyone to save for retirement if they don't invest? That's crazy talk. No one would ever have enough to retire.

You really should look at how corporations really work and what they really are. Your explanations are making no sense. You seem to be confusing "corporation" with maybe CEO actions?

Let's say you want to make something. You need a factory with 50 employees and $1,000,000 of equipment. If you had that factory, you could make a lot of money. So how do you do it? Save up a few million bucks to buy a factory? No, most people can't do that... very few people can do that. But if you can find 10,000 people willing to invest just $500 each, that's $5,000,000! So you sell each one of them a part of your new company. That means they own your company. They paid for it.

No one is going to just hand you $500 so they can say they own something. They want something real in return. That's the profits, or the disbursements. Every time your company makes enough profits, those investors get their share of them. Not the corporation... it isn't really a person. It doesn't want a nice house, a fine car... all it does is make whatever and sell it for a profit.

So when you tax a corporation, you are actually taxing the shareholders. It was their money to start with and they own the corporation, including those profits you are taxing.

Think of it this way... what if your paycheck was taxed once before you got it, and then taxed a second time after you got it? Say, you 40 hours a week at $25 an hour. That's $1000 gross per week, right? But wait... your work is taxed at 20% when you do it, so instead of $25 an hour, you only get $20 an hour. At the end of a week, you get $800 gross instead of $1000. Then when you get that $800, you get hit with another 20% tax on the money, leaving you with $640... wouldn't that be double taxation? Well, that's exactly what a corporate tax is to those who own stock.

I say if we have to tax, tax the people. It's fairer. You can tailor the tax to hit the wealthy that way and leave the people trying to get by on retirement alone.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




I'm speaking specifically on countries agreeing to a 15% minimum corporate tax. Not an additional, but minimum.


You are correct. This is to try stop global corporations setting up a HQ in a country with a lower corporation tax.
It happens here in the UK, a lot of these large companies set up a HQ in Ireland which has a lower corporation tax even though most of there business is done here.

BBC News article about Irish tax levels

UK Vs Ireland tax rates
edit on 30-10-2021 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

So what is to stop Amazon or Tesla or any of these companies affected by the minimum tax to setup headquarters in a non G20 country?


edit on 30-10-2021 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Kurokage

So what is to stop Amazon or Tesla or any of these companies affected by the minimum tax to setup headquarters in a non G20 country?



A military force? 😎



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just because people own a corporation doesn't mean the corporation shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Not every corporation is 100% owned by the public. Not even every company that is publicly traded has all of their shares available to the public. I'd even say most of the time most of the shares are held by insiders, institutions, hedge funds, the corporation itself, ect. And the investors often times didn't bankroll the whole corporation as you said. Most companies start off private since you usually have to show financials before going public, and even then you can put up as little as 10% of the company to be traded publicly.

But even if it was only owned by people with their retirement accounts, I still wouldn't see a problem with corporations paying 15% on profits.

Let's take Amazon. Just because people likely have it in their retirement accounts doesn't change the fact that they have a large footprint in our country. Their warehouses often go into a locality with huge tax breaks or outright exemption with the implicit argument those jobs will generate income tax. Their massive shipping operations are straining the roadways. Now, they don't always pay 15% tax on their profits, but they use publicly funded infrastructure. And their sweetheart deals often mean they can undercut a small business that does things properly.

People who are invested would still make money, because if only profit is taxed, there is still profit. And again, most people diversify their retirement, so this shouldn't impact their whole portfolio.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Yup, and some of those corporations that hide massive amounts in tax havens still expect (and get) access to public resources here at home.

And that's not just access to roadways, but often times public land mineral rights, or even as far as expressing eminent domain on private individuals.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Kurokage

So what is to stop Amazon or Tesla or any of these companies affected by the minimum tax to setup headquarters in a non G20 country?



Probably nothing.

In all reality any law that gets passed will likely carry little enforcement power. Or worse, be a part of a much larger package with a whole bunch of BS attached.

Even though I'm talking about the specific part of taxing corps a minimum on profit, I know I likely won't mind seeing any bill it's a part of shot down. At the end of the day, I'm just discussing the hypothetical of the policy, and don't care for the politics or politicians behind it. Hell, a bunch of those politicians are inside trading. Nancy Pelosi is beating most hedgefunds with her investments. Seeing as she has intimate knowledge of policy to come, that should be very suspicious.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
Russia
China
Japan and the following

Much to the disappointment of the Italian hosts, the leaders of China, Japan, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia refused to attend the meeting, which will be held in a suburb of Rome called EUR.

They weren't about to waste their time because they know something about Biden we don't know yet.


This meeting was billed as a big deal. I was wondering if these leaders recognized Joe Biden as being a U.S. President with any authority. I guess the answer is here. They know what we know. He's a FAKE, who can be waited out.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join