Biden/Yellin Agreed To 'International Tax' On Businesses

[Kathianne]

That the 'community' deems do not pay enough taxes! Seriously, WTF!!!!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-score-partial-reprieve-from-global-minimum-tax-deal-c5c14d87?st=ahjn0l5l2y9q54o&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


ECONOMYU.S. Companies Score Partial Reprieve From Global Minimum Tax Deal
New agreement will delay until 2026 some potential tax increases under the deal
By
Richard Rubin
Follow
Updated July 17, 2023 5:15 pm ET


Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had hailed the 2021 tax deal as an achievement in international cooperation. PHOTO: AJIT SOLANKI/ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON—U.S.-based companies won relief from two pieces of the global minimum tax deal, and the changes will delay or reduce the taxes they are set to pay to foreign countries.


Under the updated agreement negotiated by the Treasury Department, companies will have an extra year—until 2026—before foreign countries can start imposing new taxes on any U.S. companies deemed to pay too little tax in the U.S. And the clean-energy tax credits at the core of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act will be counted in a more favorable way than some companies had feared, offering certainty as a tax-credit trading market gets under way.


The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is leading the talks, detailed the changes Monday in technical guidance after negotiations among countries.


The U.S. and about 140 other jurisdictions agreed in late 2021 to impose a 15% minimum tax on large companies in each country where they operate. Negotiators, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, hailed the deal as a landmark achievement in international cooperation and a bulwark against corporate tax dodging.


But implementation has been slow and messy.


The 15% minimum tax must be calculated consistently across countries and companies, requiring clear definitions of income and taxes. That has led to a series of technical rules, including Monday’s 91-page update.


Some countries—Japan, South Korea and members of the European Union—are forging ahead with minimum taxes under the deal, but the U.S. isn’t. After negotiating the deal, the Biden administration couldn’t push the changes through the Democratic-controlled Congress last year. Republicans, who now lead the House, oppose the deal, calling it a global tax surrender.


The U.S. has a 10.5% minimum tax on U.S. companies’ foreign income that was created in 2017 and a 15% minimum tax on large companies’ global profits that was enacted last year. Neither conforms to the global deal, however. So as the OECD hammers out the rules, the U.S. has looked for ways to make the country’s system fit the international framework.


“The U.S. hasn’t done anything to adopt these rules and yet it’s clear that they are still able to exercise some leverage over how these rules are being adjusted to accommodate U.S. considerations,” said Daniel Bunn, president of the Tax Foundation, a Washington group that favors lower tax rates and a simpler tax system.


If other countries move ahead and the U.S. doesn’t, the U.S. could lose $122 billion in revenue over a decade compared with less widespread implementation, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.


Part of Monday’s guidance addresses a provision scheduled for 2025 called the Undertaxed Profits Rule, or UTPR. The UTPR is a way to make sure companies based in countries outside the deal still have to pay 15%.

...

[AHZ]

That the 'community' deems do not pay enough taxes! Seriously, WTF!!!!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-score-partial-reprieve-from-global-minimum-tax-deal-c5c14d87?st=ahjn0l5l2y9q54o&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


go globalism.


:dance:

[Gunny]

That the 'community' deems do not pay enough taxes! Seriously, WTF!!!!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-score-partial-reprieve-from-global-minimum-tax-deal-c5c14d87?st=ahjn0l5l2y9q54o&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This is unacceptable. Probably unconstitutional. The government can wrongly agree to pay taxes to others, whether or not we like it, but I question its ability to allow foreign Nations to directly tax private citizens.

[AHZ]

This is unacceptable. Probably unconstitutional. The government can wrongly agree to pay taxes to others, whether or not we like it, but I question its ability to allow foreign Nations to directly tax private citizens.
international business will be constricted to the preselected oligarch club.

you see where dum dum globalism leads. it;s not for little people like us.

there's a big club and you ain't in it. -- George Carlin pbuh

[revelarts]

Ok wait minute some folks keep telling us (FJGunny) us that the globalist are not to be concerned about, a bunch of ineffective eggheads.

international taxes?. nonsense.
like everything else that the globalist have been talking about for decades... it will never happen (chortle chortle) because they are to incompetent to make it happen.
And of course the constitution will protect us.

You know the like the constitution has already protected us from so well from:
the gov't spying on all citizens phones/email/mail/,
jailing and killing citizens without trials,
forced medical treatments,
Vaccine passports/work permits,
blocking the use of legal medical treatments,
stop & frisk,
police check points,
Travel without papers within or without the U.S.,
warrantless searches,
Presidents going to war without congressional approval,
Supreme court making laws,
slow trials,
Presidential/executive BS 'laws' via executive orders and bureaucratic diktats,
Excessive fines (coughAlexJonesEtccough),
Cruel and unusual punishments (torture),
Free speech zones
and our permit-less lemonade stands.
to name a few things


But for some reason i'm wondering if Fj might actually be with us on this one.
Because taxing corporations to much is extremely dangerous to FREE TRADE! can't let that get a foot in the door.
Because some people seem to think that FREE TRADE is a FAR higher priority than the so-called "freedom" the constitution's supposed to protect for every citizen.
that's the way it comes across to me anyway.

[AHZ]

Ok wait minute some folks keep telling us (FJGunny) us that the globalist are not to be concerned about, a bunch of ineffective eggheads.

international taxes?. nonsense.
like everything else that the globalist have been talking about for decades... it will never happen (chortle chortle) because they are to incompetent to make it happen.
And of course the constitution will protect us.

You know the like the constitution has already protected us from so well from:
the gov't spying on all citizens phones/email/mail/,
jailing and killing citizens without trials,
forced medical treatments,
blocking the use of legal medical treatments,
stop & frisk,
police check points,
Travel without papers within or without the U.S.,
warrantless searches,
Presidents going to war without congressional approval,
Supreme court making laws,
slow trials,
Presidential/executive BS 'laws' via executive orders and bureaucratic diktats,
Excessive fines (coughAlexJonesEtccough),
Cruel and unusual punishments (torture),
Free speech zones
and our permit-less lemonade stands.
to name a few things


But for some reason i'm wondering if Fj might actually be with us on this one.
Because taxing corporations to much is extremely dangerous to FREE TRADE! can't let that get a foot in the door.
Because some people seem to think that FREE TRADE is a FAR higher priority than the so-called "freedom" the constitution's supposed to protect for every citizen.
that's the way it comes across to me anyway.

for the west, globalist zealotry is just chinese mercantiism.

tariiffs and regulations are important to attenuate possible negative effects of trade.

this used to be standard bipartisan obivious fare.

[Gunny]

Ok wait minute some folks keep telling us (FJGunny) us that the globalist are not to be concerned about, a bunch of ineffective eggheads.

international taxes?. nonsense.
like everything else that the globalist have been talking about for decades... it will never happen (chortle chortle) because they are to incompetent to make it happen.
And of course the constitution will protect us.

You know the like the constitution has already protected us from so well from:
the gov't spying on all citizens phones/email/mail/,
jailing and killing citizens without trials,
forced medical treatments,
Vaccine passports/work permits,
blocking the use of legal medical treatments,
stop & frisk,
police check points,
Travel without papers within or without the U.S.,
warrantless searches,
Presidents going to war without congressional approval,
Supreme court making laws,
slow trials,
Presidential/executive BS 'laws' via executive orders and bureaucratic diktats,
Excessive fines (coughAlexJonesEtccough),
Cruel and unusual punishments (torture),
Free speech zones
and our permit-less lemonade stands.
to name a few things


But for some reason i'm wondering if Fj might actually be with us on this one.
Because taxing corporations to much is extremely dangerous to FREE TRADE! can't let that get a foot in the door.
Because some people seem to think that FREE TRADE is a FAR higher priority than the so-called "freedom" the constitution's supposed to protect for every citizen.
that's the way it comes across to me anyway.

Incorrect. I have never agreed with this, and in fact, have used something along this line as an example of REAL globalism that I am 100% against. I also have been expressly clear that this shit starts at home and needs to be fixed at home. Without OUR, at home sell-outs selling us out, it isn't a concern. Looks to me like a couple of commie Demtards exactly that.


There's a whole LOT of people putting words in others' mouths going on as of late. Just like the above, I suggest it stops where it's starting before it has to to be handled. It is unfair to ALL users.

What I don't take seriously is fantasy, rabbit hole shit and go-nowhere what-iffery.

[Gunny]

for the west, globalist zealotry is just chinese mercantiism.

tariiffs and regulations are important to attenuate possible negative effects of trade.

this used to be standard bipartisan obivious fare.This garbage has nothing to do with the topic and is bullshit. Address the topic. If you can:rolleyes:

[AHZ]

Incorrect. I have never agreed with this, and in fact, have used something along this line as an example of REAL globalism that I am 100% against. I also have been expressly clear that this shit starts at home and needs to be fixed at home. Without OUR, at home sell-outs selling us out, it isn't a concern. Looks to me like a couple of commie Demtards exactly that.


There's a whole LOT of people putting words in others' mouths going on as of late. Just like the above, I suggest it stops where it's starting before it has to to be handled. It is unfair to ALL users.

What I don't take seriously is fantasy, rabbit hole shit and go-nowhere what-iffery.


you appear to be all for sending all the jobs away.

or, well... you can't mount a defense against it, you just go all 'tarded when people bring it up.

so you're against real globalism but for "fake globalism"?

please explain.

[AHZ]

yes. it's new asshole time.

i will chew you one.

[AHZ]

protectionism = bud light boycotts on a global scale.

if we're a consumer society, tariffs are all we have.

[Black Diamond]

yes. it's new asshole time.

i will chew you one.

You add nothing to this board.

[Kathianne]

you appear to be all for sending all the jobs away.

or, well... you can't mount a defense against it, you just go all 'tarded when people bring it up.

so you're against real globalism but for "fake globalism"?

please explain.

How are we sending ALL the jobs away? Not self-employed. Not grocers. Not schools or police or builders. I'm sure there's another job or two not being sent out in name of globalism or fake globalism or one world order or what have you.

[AHZ]

You add nothing to this board.


im the lightning.

[AHZ]

How are we sending ALL the jobs away? Not self-employed. Not grocers. Not schools or police or builders. I'm sure there's another job or two not being sent out in name of globalism or fake globalism or one world order or what have you.

so you're searching for the exceptions?

some people call that cherry picking data.

[Kathianne]

so you're searching for the exceptions?

some people call that cherry picking data.

Not searching, just knocking out your hyperbole. Granted it matches up with your overestimation of your knowledge of topics, yourself, and Trump.

[fj1200]

Ok wait minute some folks keep telling us (FJGunny) us that the globalist are not to be concerned about, a bunch of ineffective eggheads.

international taxes?. nonsense.
like everything else that the globalist have been talking about for decades... it will never happen (chortle chortle) because they are to incompetent to make it happen.
And of course the constitution will protect us.



But for some reason i'm wondering if Fj might actually be with us on this one.
Because taxing corporations to much is extremely dangerous to FREE TRADE! can't let that get a foot in the door.
Because some people seem to think that FREE TRADE is a FAR higher priority than the so-called "freedom" the constitution's supposed to protect for every citizen.
that's the way it comes across to me anyway.

Yes, nonsense. These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations.

And it seems you're still not understanding of the hows and whys of free trade. Free trade protects freedom, it doesn't diminish it.

[AHZ]

Not searching, just knocking out your hyperbole. Granted it matches up with your overestimation of your knowledge of topics, yourself, and Trump.

right. i know.

you globalist fucktoids ignore all downsides of outsourcing/ offshoring.

you think you're in the club.

you are a model. I know what you mean.

and you do your little turn on the catwalk.

[Gunny]

im the lightning.Yes, you are. See how fast you left this thread?

Get some self-control please.

[revelarts]

Yes, nonsense. These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations.

And it seems you're still not understanding of the hows and whys of free trade. Free trade protects freedom, it doesn't diminish it.
So OK, are you saying that MORE taxes (foreign & domestic) HELP "FREE TRADE"? (peace be upon it)
that's how i should understand it?

So If more taxes HELP then you're not against Taxes/Tariffs etc?
So No, i'm not understanding your POV here.



Help a brother out here.
you SAY:
"These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations."
the article Kath posted says
"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,....The U.S. and about 140 other jurisdictions agreed in late 2021 to impose a 15% minimum tax on large companies in each country where they operate. Negotiators, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, hailed the deal as a landmark achievement in international cooperation and a bulwark against corporate tax dodging.... So as the OECD hammers out the rules, the U.S. has looked for ways to make the country’s system fit the international framework."

I'm not sure how this isn't an international tax? please explain.
when an international org is negotiating rules to apply to U.S. corporations on TAXES.
is it a local tax?
No?
is it U.S. tax that foreign countries get to help to design? according to the constitution? (please give me clauses)
Is it a Tax that each individual foreign country made up on their own?
No.

it's internationally DEVISED by....
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/thmb/Zop7UI49FtGjZAiR_bnSMxVr1U8=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc() :format(webp)/organization-economic-cooperation-development-3305871_FINAL-81bb8a751d4049d18093746d7b1a200b.png


"....This process of joining the OECD is long and complicated. A nation must be reviewed by different member committees. They make sure it conforms with OECD instruments, standards, and benchmarks. It must be willing to reform its economy to meet standards in different areas, like corporate governance, anti-corruption, and environmental protection.5 The countries designated as key partners, but not members, are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa....."

JUST LIKE the CONSTITUTION SAYS! right FJ?

but it's NOT international law or globalism... it's just "co-operation" right?
Sorry I'm not buying the smoke you're selling man.

it's INTERNATIONAL LAW/TAX imposed on U.S. corporations.
the fact that it negotiated to delay EVEN MORE or worse global rules doesn't means it's not globalism or an international taxation.
https://taxfoundation.org/global-tax-agreement/
C'mon be real man.
It's international TAX LAW.


Concerning our understanding of Free Trade
Free Trade doesn't protect anything.
Slavery thrives in Free Trade, Sweat Shops work fine with free trade, Free trade works great in China where there's a "social credit system", where religious and other freedoms are becoming LESS.

Maybe we should narrowly define "free trade" or use another term when we talk about "free trade"
At this point ... correct me if i'm wrong... but it seems you present "free trade" as anything that's good for major corporation's bottom line.
If that's not it please give me a clear narrow definition so i know what you mean by the term.
Because here it's not people & corps being able to practice free to trade OUTSIDE of International law, Just outside of the constitution.

[Black Diamond]

Yes, you are. See how fast you left this thread?

Get some self-control please.

:laugh:

[fj1200]

So OK, are you saying that MORE taxes (foreign & domestic) HELP "FREE TRADE"? (peace be upon it)
that's how i should understand it?

So If more taxes HELP then you're not against Taxes/Tariffs etc?
So No, i'm not understanding your POV here.

...

Please point out where I said that or intimated that. I'm not in the mood to try and follow your stream of conscience thoughts and rhetorical questions that you don't really want answers to.

[revelarts]

Incorrect. I have never agreed with this, and in fact, have used something along this line as an example of REAL globalism that I am 100% against. I also have been expressly clear that this shit starts at home and needs to be fixed at home. Without OUR, at home sell-outs selling us out, it isn't a concern. Looks to me like a couple of commie Demtards exactly that.

There's a whole LOT of people putting words in others' mouths going on as of late. Just like the above, I suggest it stops where it's starting before it has to to be handled. It is unfair to ALL users.

What I don't take seriously is fantasy, rabbit hole shit and go-nowhere what-iffery.


you know,
I was Scratching my head trying to remember your older commentary on Globalist and almost didn't put your name in the post you reference.
probably shouldn't have.
My apologies Gunny.

[revelarts]

Please point out where I said that or intimated that. I'm not in the mood to try and follow your stream of conscience thoughts and rhetorical questions that you don't really want answers to.

My questions & comments are clear and on point.
I'm sure they're a lot clearer than the international TAX LAWS and Globalist Orgs you're trying to dismiss/minimize with obviously false statements.

[Gunny]

Yes, nonsense. These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations.

And it seems you're still not understanding of the hows and whys of free trade. Free trade protects freedom, it doesn't diminish it.Correct me if I am wrong, but in clearly states in the OP words to the effect of US-based corporations paying a global tax to this global organization.

That sounds, looks and smells like signing us up to global taxation. Or, it allows a global organization authority over US-based companies that do business with member companies. Correct me where I am wrong.

[fj1200]

My questions & comments are clear and on point.
I'm sure they're a lot clearer than the international TAX LAWS and Globalist Orgs you're trying to dismiss/minimize with obviously false statements.

They are absolutely not clear or on point. Any time you end a question with "... right?" You don't want an answer or don't care what it is in the first place because you've made up your mind.

And I haven't made any false statements. If you're asking about international taxes, then any taxes that domestic corporations are already paying to foreign countries are already international taxes. I'm saying that there aren't any international taxes paid to an international organization, like say the UN. And I never suggested that these "ridiculous machinations" are positive to free trade.

[fj1200]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in clearly states in the OP words to the effect of US-based corporations paying a global tax to this global organization.

That sounds, looks and smells like signing us up to global taxation. Or, it allows a global organization authority over US-based companies that do business with member companies. Correct me where I am wrong.

My understanding is that all these countries came together and decided that there should be a minimum tax threshold for every country (we had a prior thread about this). Biden couldn't get this passed domestically but it doesn't mean that other countries won't adjust their foreign tax rates to be in conformance to this agreement. But it's paid to the countries in question and not to a global organization that I saw.

In the OP.


companies will have an extra year—until 2026—before foreign countries can start imposing new taxes on any U.S. companies deemed to pay too little tax in the U.S.

[Black Diamond]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in clearly states in the OP words to the effect of US-based corporations paying a global tax to this global organization.

That sounds, looks and smells like signing us up to global taxation. Or, it allows a global organization authority over US-based companies that do business with member companies. Correct me where I am wrong.

This is the part of globalization that is frightening. We all agree to stop climate change so Americans must buy electric cars. We all agree to imprison those who assume genders. We all agree to a 30 percent global tax rate. We all agree to ban hate speech so the first amendment goes out the window Sovereignty will eventually erode.

[fj1200]

This is the part of globalization that is frightening. We all agree to stop climate change so Americans must buy electric cars. We all agree to imprison those who assume genders. We all agree to a 30 percent global tax rate. We all agree to ban hate speech so the first amendment goes out the window Sovereignty will eventually erode.

I, for one, am not to worried about the eggheads.

[revelarts]

They are absolutely not clear or on point. Any time you end a question with "... right?" You don't want an answer or don't care what it is in the first place because you've made up your mind.
Huh? seems it must have been clear if you:
1 got the meaning
2 understood that my mind was made up
3 disagreed so strongly to the point of not even wanting to give a reasoned reply. just an insulting comment.



And I haven't made any false statements. If you're asking about international taxes, then any taxes that domestic corporations are already paying to foreign countries are already international taxes. I'm saying that there aren't any international taxes paid to an international organization, like say the UN. And I never suggested that these "ridiculous machinations" are positive to free trade.
The article is talking about an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT on TAXES. An international Tax LAW. That the U.S. via Biden-etal are a party too.
Niether you or I said anything about "international taxes paid to an international organization".

you falsely stated :
---"These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations."---
As if the they aren't working together creating a global framework for all nation states to adhere too.
something that adds to the totality of global "unity".
It's not some comicbook style globalism ...yet..., it's being created by a thousand little international agreements and patchwork unions of different elements of INTERNATIONAL laws.

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller

But the eggheads have you thinking that it's nothing to worry about & just random "free trade"

[Gunny]

My understanding is that all these countries came together and decided that there should be a minimum tax threshold for every country (we had a prior thread about this). Biden couldn't get this passed domestically but it doesn't mean that other countries won't adjust their foreign tax rates to be in conformance to this agreement. But it's paid to the countries in question and not to a global organization that I saw.

In the OP.Foreign countries that are members of the OECD, a global organization. All matters of conflict between member countries will be decided by who? (rhetorical). It in fact gives this global organization final authority on taxation of US-based companies.

These US-based companies already have individual trade arrangements with foreign countries themselves or they wouldn't be trading, no? They don't need a(nother) bureaucracy sticking its fingers in the till.

Biden signing us up through the back door what he couldn't get through the front. I'm already not okay with the US government's misuse/abuse of our Rights. The least it could do is keep them in house.

[fj1200]

Huh? seems it must have been clear if you:
1 got the meaning
2 understood that my mind was made up
3 disagreed so strongly to the point of not even wanting to give a reasoned reply. just an insulting comment.


The article is talking about an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT on TAXES. An international Tax LAW. That the U.S. via Biden-etal are a party too.
Niether you or I said anything about "international taxes paid to an international organization".

you falsely stated :
---"These aren't international taxes, it's foreign countries taxing US companies more because we don't agree with their ridiculous machinations."---
As if the they aren't working together creating a global framework for all nation states to adhere too.
something that adds to the totality of global "unity".
It's not some comicbook style globalism ...yet..., it's being created by a thousand little international agreements and patchwork unions of different elements of law.

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller

But the eggheads have you thinking that it's nothing to worry about & just random "free trade"

Oh my good lord. You have your mind made up. It's folly to believe otherwise especially when you bring up the Rockefellers.

Nothing I have said is untrue or false. To clarify for you. There are no international taxes, there are taxes paid to foreign governments.

[fj1200]

Foreign countries that are members of the OECD, a global organization. All matters of conflict between member countries will be decided by who? (rhetorical). It in fact gives this global organization final authority on taxation of US-based companies.

These US-based companies already have individual trade arrangements with foreign countries themselves or they wouldn't be trading, no? They don't need a(nother) bureaucracy sticking its fingers in the till.

Biden signing us up through the back door what he couldn't get through the front. I'm already not okay with the US government's misuse/abuse of our Rights. The least it could do is keep them in house.

They don't have final say because we haven't signed on in the first place nor made any changes to our tax laws in the second.

Companies don't have individual agreements with foreign countires, domestic companies must abide by foreign countries tax laws when they do business. Those (some?) foreign countries are modifying their tax laws to conform to this agreement.

The administration is trying to figure out how to fit a square peg in a round hole.


So as the OECD hammers out the rules, the U.S. has looked for ways to make the country’s system fit the international framework.

It's all very stupid. Let's diselect any Democrat so we can not have these things in the future.

[Gunny]

Oh my good lord. You have your mind made up. It's folly to believe otherwise especially when you bring up the Rockefellers.

Nothing I have said is untrue or false. To clarify for you. There are no international taxes, there are taxes paid to foreign governments.

Adding to my previous comment: It could be ANY topic. My biggest issue on this topic was Clinton sending US troops to the Balkans under a UN banner. I didn't sign up to fight for the UN. Nothing in my contract states a word about the US government subcontracting me out. Some took a court martial rather than go. I didn't because I wasn't sent. But the issue still remained with me and does to this day.

The US government is supposed to protect us from foreign governments, not let them exploit us.

This to me, regardless what it states who is doing what, quacks like a duck. It's a toe in the door toward global taxation on trade. Where's that idjit asking for reasons why I'd move my company out of the US? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Adding to my previous comment: It could be ANY topic. My biggest issue on this topic was Clinton sending US troops to the Balkans under a UN banner. I didn't sign up to fight for the UN. Nothing in my contract states a word about the US government subcontracting me out. Some took a court martial rather than go. I didn't because I wasn't sent. But the issue still remained with me and does to this day.

The US government is supposed to protect us from foreign governments, not let them exploit us.

This to me, regardless what it states who is doing what, quacks like a duck. It's a toe in the door toward global taxation on trade. Where's that idjit asking for reasons why I'd move my company out of the US? :rolleyes:

No disagreement whatsoever.

[revelarts]

Oh my good lord. You have your mind made up. It's folly to believe otherwise especially when you bring up the Rockefellers.

Nothing I have said is untrue or false. To clarify for you. There are no international taxes, there are taxes paid to foreign governments.
so taxes paid to foreign gov'ts ...following the rules of an unelected international body are NATIONAL taxes?
Why are you trying to blow smoke.
Look
it's taxes created/organized by an unelected international body to be paid to foreign countries... that is "international" by definition.
just to be clear
international adjective
between or among nations; involving two or more nations:
'international trade'.
of or relating to two or more nations or their citizens:

What's the alternate definition of "international" that you're using exactly FJ?
or are you really trying to gaslight people?

[fj1200]

so taxes paid to foreign gov'ts ...following the rules of an unelected international body are NATIONAL taxes?
Why are you trying to blow smoke.
Look
it's taxes created/organized by an unelected international body to be paid to foreign countries... that is "international" by definition.
just to be clear
international adjective
between or among nations; involving two or more nations:
'international trade'.
of or relating to two or more nations or their citizens:

What's the alternate definition of "international" that you're using exactly?

Oh my good lord. Why are we arguing about semantics?

[revelarts]

Oh my good lord. Why are we arguing about semantics?

Just pointing out the normal use of words.
seems I have too since you're pretending that 'international' doesn't mean 'international' if you put the word "TAX" next to it.

[fj1200]

Just pointing out the normal use of words.
seems I have too since you're pretending that 'international' doesn't mean 'international' if you put the word "TAX" next to it.

:rolleyes: Not really. I'm sure France doesn't deem the extra taxes that they're allegedly going to receive as international; they're just domestic to them. Under your definition every tax US based companies pay overseas to other countries is international.