February 14, 2012

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

From “yes we can!” to “oh yes they are!” — all in the course of 3 years!

From the Weekly Standard blog:

“[Obama] 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.


“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.”

There will be no escape from the reach of government. All money belongs to them, and they will go to the ends of the earth to take it should you try to keep it from them.

Because the truth is, we simply can’t afford to have you people keeping the fruits of your labor — not if that means the government is made to starve.

I look forward to Rick Moran’s explanation about how this is a non-issue, really — all part of a right-wing ideologue’s hyperventilating fantasy intended to calumniate sober Democrats who just happen to disagree with us on some minor issues of governance and how best to fund it equitably.

A position Mitt Romney — to electable candidate who can work with the sober Dems in the state of collegial compromise most Americans demand — might even be able to get behind.

After all, as Politico helpfully points out, this is not about some World Government conspiracy. Instead:

National Economic Council director Gene Sperling’s comments that a “global minimum tax” is necessary to curb outsourcing have caused a stir in the blogosphere — but White House officials say there’s no United Nations-imposed duty in the works.

“He was referring to our proposal in the Blueprint for an American Built to Last that removes tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas,” a White House official said.

Which is different. All they’re saying is that you either pay the highest corporate interest rate in the developed world, or we’ll figure out a way to make you do so by punishing you for moving your money elsewhere.

Which is hardly tyranny. It’s making sure you are compelled to do your fair share! Which you can’t be made to do if you take your money out of the overtaxed US and plant it elsewhere, where those countries have seen fit to charge lower tax rates as a form of competition. Which we despise.

See? It’s for your own moral good!

Meh. We’re fucked.

(thanks to Darleen)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:17am

Comments (10)

  1. we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share

    So, no more zero or less tax bills, then? No more free riders? No more welfare in the tax code?

    Ah, who am I kidding? And who is Sperling kidding?

  2. I spotted #40dollars a month high-fiving the O! as they swaggered down the street with their “free” sixpack and a dozen condoms.

    Sperling could start there.

  3. the president is looking for shared sacrifice

    meaning we sacrifice the producers on the altar of EQUALITY and share the victim among the non-productive

    for teh social justice

  4. So by “Built to Last” they mean “stagnant and impoverished”?

  5. Thanks for the link on the 40dollars tweets geoff! It is very heartening to see what seems to be 80% of the tweets making fun of Obama. That’s a real poll there!


    (extra exclamation points in case you need them)

  6. “Built to Last”.

    Think Pyramids, Pharaohs, and “Water Empire”.

  7. And most of the positives come from three Twits, “The White House”, “The Democrats”, and “Barack Obama.”

  8. Yeah. Not too obvious padding the opinions with tweets from “The Democrats”.

    I think I saw one that said “C’mon guys. Keep those stories coming on how $40 will buy your vote!”

    Then you get “Looks like the response is mostly positive” from “Barack Obama” then right after: “Hey Obama $40 was $80 at the gas station before you took office.” “Keep those stories coming!”

    I could read it all day. Mesmerizing.

  9. A few ragged thoughts: I was at Fortune when Geoff Colvin, a columnist–and former Editor in Chief–wrote the column that sort of kick started this issue, at least for me. The problem was that both sides on the tax debate were willing to gloss over the massive amount of the population (about 47% IIRC) essentially paying no tax. The right wants a lower tax burden on the most economically productive and prolific; the left wants a higher one.

    Both sides ignore the obvious, which is that eliminating 95% of all deductions–save for charity–and creating a system of progressive brackets, say 15%, 20% and 25%, would give Washington DC enough money to do all the things a big, centralized government does so poorly as the populace prospers.

    Its a decent trade off.

  10. And in terms of the revenues, the president is looking for shared sacrifice.

    Sacrifice to be shared amongst all those who don’t contribute to Teh Won’s campaign. Those not sharing the sacrifice include the Fortune 100 companies providing valuable cash and Czars, the third-generation welfare moms, the community organizers who keep them distracted, and the Deputy Assistant to the Assistant Deputy of the Department of Redundancy Department (Northwest Region).