EU Members To Slap Tariffs On US Tobacco, Electronics, And Toys -- But Not Bourbon
www.rferl.org
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.

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.

  • SkilurosEnglish
    11·
    4 days ago

    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.

    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?

    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.

    What’s the gross oversimplification? Perhaps the gross oversimplification is your "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es? Have you thought about that?

    • Ideonek@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      Ok. Let’s take a step back

      You have companies in Poland. Let’s call them A, B and C.

      And we have company D in USA.

      One of those A,B,C is a “child” of company D. Other two simply do business with company D.

      Company D in they finacial statmet - that is a 3rd party statment that you have no rights to audit in any way, in some cases it want even be avaible to you - claim that they earned $10M from each A, B and C. (This is the “hearsay” becouse it’s an information form outside your bouble of control. You have no way of verifying it. US gov have, but they are 3rd party to you and company A, B and C)

      A, B, and C each in their tax reports created for you claim that those $10M is their cost.

      In case of one you say “no, it’s not your cost, it’s your profit”.

      What specific difference between A, B, C makes you say that? One is similarly named to D? It won’t be, by next tax year. All all registered in Poland. All have polish board. All spand money at company D. What’s the difference? What parameter would you choose to tax one of those but not the other?

      • SkilurosEnglish
        11·
        4 days ago

        Let’s go with what you are saying, even though you didn’t address a single point that I mentioned. Define what you mean by “rule of law”, be clear and specific, don’t hide behind polemics! What is your definition of rule of law? You brought it up, define it. I never acted high and mighty and brought up “rule of law”. I said the Americans need a taste of their medicine.

        Back to your example.

        You have 3 polish companies that interact with a US corp. One is the actual subsidiary and two other are clients.

        You’re saying you can audit ABC, but you can’t figure out which one is the subsidiary and which ones are clients? Are you serious? I have zero professional experience in accounting and even I would be able to tell the difference between a client and subsidiary if I had access to their internal accounts (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow statement over multiple quarters).

        I am not an expert on tax scamming methods, but I would argue I may have more knowledge than the average person (or not).

        Why would Corp D even use the model you describe? Why would they try and hide within Polish ABC? Why not just openly say C is our subsidiary, make it a cost centre and redirect the actual money to Company E in Luxembourg or Isle of Mann. Subsidiary C always fails to make any profit. Top American brand D that everyone in the world knows, has a poor subsidiary C in Poland that is never able to make a profit. The crocodiles are crying about poor Polish subsidiary C. You ask a crocodile about subsidiary C and the crocodile says “it is such a gross oversimplification that subsidiary C’s losses are a tax scam. We are trying to develop professional experience in Poland via subsidiary C. Don’t you believe in the rule of law?”

        You have no way of verifying it.

        This is where your lack of imagination and inability to think beyond rules set by American oligarchs comes into play.

        Let’s say we made a thought experiment and assumed your ABC model is viable (it is not viable because the profits will be re-directed to a tax shelter jurisdiction and Company D won’t bother with local-only schemes because they are not efficient). Nevertheless, you do have a way of verifying the total sales by company D in Poland. This applies to both B2C (shipments into channel, POS data) and B2B sales (VAT calculations, government stats agency research).

        What you are arguing is nothing can change, nothing should change and we should always kiss the feet of the oligarchs that run company D.

        I am saying the arguments by the army of lawyers are bullshit and if you really want to, you can make their jobs redundant. It’s all about gumption and willingness to rock the boat.