On Saturday, the G20 (Group of 20, very creative) met, with the end of their meeting scoring a big win for Joe Biden, who got an endorsement from the rest of the world leaders, on a minimum 15% global corporation tax (though he had originally tried getting 21%, that had been too high for them to agree upon). The Ministers of Finance for the G20 had already agreed on a 15% tax in July, and 136 nations agreed on it at the start of October, but the endorsement was the final piece of the puzzle, making sure that the rest of the world powers were also in support of the idea.
However, countries have left it up in the air as to how they will implement the policy, and as such they are taking it into their own hands to implement it, meaning that any political hurdles that they have to overcome have to be done on their own. Joe Biden's own economic plan, part of which will include the 15% tax, his own party has left the fate of the proposition up in the air, meaning that it may take time, and a lot of it, to get the tax in place.
During the G20 meeting, world leaders also discussed the current pandemic, energy price crises (especially in the wake of the previous event), helping out developing (and recovering) countries by sending aid, and other topics that world leaders are so fond of talking about.
Questions:
1. Do you think that this 15% tax will really help with the climate crisis? Why or why not?
2. Are there more important topics that you think should have been discussed during the first G20 meetup?
3. The democratic party is infighting currently. Will this have any long-term effects on the political landscape in America? How do you think the Republicans will react?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/30/politics/joe-biden-g20-summit-saturday/index.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/g20-leaders-endorse-global-corporate-minimum-tax-at-rome-summit/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/30/biden-g20-global-minimum-tax/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/politics/congress-spending-bill-president-joe-biden-italy-g20-democrats/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/politics/president-joe-biden-economic-agenda/index.html
17 comments:
The agreement among the G20 Summit of Biden's tax proposal is significant because it will help halt the global decline of corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are important because they play a large role in funding government spending. If they were to continue to decline, the government would have limited funds to spend on social services. As we come out of a global pandemic in which many people were thrown out of work, a large portion of the population is struggling financially. This present issue highlights the necessity of effective social services to help guard against the growth of the poverty percentage. And because the G20 makes up 80% of global GDP, I believe that this minimum tax requirement will help majorly in the long term for global health and happiness.
https://www.businessinsider.com/g20-leaders-endorse-15-percent-global-corporate-minimum-tax-finance-2021-10
https://www.g20.org/about-the-g20.html
I think that this tax will definitely help with the climate crisis especially by pushing companies for more action. This kind of decision will be a way of slowing down the current path. I feel that this will not be enough for real change as a way to totally eliminating climate change. Climate change is probably the most important issue we as a world are facing. If there is no action we will be heading down a path to global catastrophe for the future. With the Democratic party partially divided on the necessary action in response to climate change, it will likely lead to no action with not enough Republican support and part of the Democratic party. I feel like an issue about these new decisions is that it only puts off real change. For example, many promises are being set to 2050 which only puts off the problem from leaders that will likely die before we get to 2050.
I wholeheartedly agree with Liam's statements. There is no doubt that this corporate tax minimum will provide lots of money to combat the climate crisis. The problem is, it is a climate CRISIS, which means the damage to our environment has already happened and is worsening at this moment. Any legislative changes made now will not lead to results for a while, so for many Americans it is difficult to visualize the immediate benefit of the corporate tax minimum (because there is no immediate benefit, but future benefits from behavioral changes). This connects to Liam's concern that lawmakers are just pushing the problem out... Greta Thunberg, as memeified as she has become, has recently made headlines for iterating how world leaders are making "empty promises." Here is her entertaining "blah, blah, blah" speech from last month: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryIL4kUcx8. She has a good point. In one CNN article that Amogh referenced, some outlined climate goals that the tax money will be used for are "a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by the end of the decade." Also, from the same article, "$320 billion for clean energy tax credits. This includes 10-year expanded tax credits for utility-scale and residential clean energy, transmission and storage, clean passenger and commercial vehicles and clean energy manufacturing." Prioritizing clean energy could very well be the catalyst in paring back on the effects of climate change. In my opinion, just like it is better to treat the cause of a disease rather than just the symptoms, it is better to change the behavior that leads to climate change rather than masking the scale of the situation with conventional rhetoric.
As Danielle explained, the agreement on the 15% tax is significant because it halts the global decline in corporate taxes, which "many economists see as a 'race to the bottom' according to the CBS article linked in this original post. This has happened because corporations obviously want to move to the country with the lowest corporate taxes, and the countries also want the corporations to move there for the jobs they bring plus possibly other economic benefits. So, the countries lower their corporate taxes, but it becomes a competition between countries, with each lowering their taxes more and more to attract the corporations. With this trend that's been going on for decades, the corporations win, and overall all the countries involved lose (well, some get the benefits of hosting the corporations but they also are missing out on a lot of tax money). So it makes sense that the 15% minimum should break that trend, and lead to much more tax money for these countries.
I don't see any direct effect this 15% minimum has on the climate crisis though — yes it should get more money to the Govt., who can spend it on climate action, but that's about the most significant effect I've come up with after brief consideration.
As Liam mentioned, I do believe that the tax will allow more awareness for companies to take action. Ultimately, discussion for change is put into place when there are tangible outcomes. Such, Sicily’s cyclone was a warning about the complacency of political action regarding climate change. The importance of climate change is pretty high considering the effects it has in everyone’s everyday lives. And although there may be critics about it, this doesn’t mean that it should not be addressed. Another important topic is the distribution of COVID vaccines, but according to a New York Times article, Biden already mentioned this issue. What’s interesting to note is that Biden plans to travel to Glasgow for a UN climate conference where they will consider how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Because such figureheads are prompted to take action over climate change, it ultimately urges the public to pay attention to the topic. Briefly acknowledging the last question, I believe that although that dispute within the democratic party has the potential for larger arguments, I can’t necessarily envision an extreme effect such as a party split. Conflicts within parties have the potential to provide a more developed plan and compromise, even if it may result in tensions.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/31/world/g20-summit-2021-biden#what-is-the-g20
I definitely agree with Nicky that focusing on renewable energy can be a key to solving climate change. This new 15% global corporation tax can help with our battle against climate change by giving governments more money to help fund renewable energy projects and research. For example, in other countries where diesel is more common in cars, biodiesel could become a good alternative to regular diesel because it can be placed in cars that run on diesel with little to no need for changing the engineering of the preexisting diesel car. However, one problem that they’re having is that biodiesel gels up in cold climates, so if governments can provide more money and resources to solving this problem, biodiesel and electric cars can be a huge help to helping reduce our carbon footprint. In the U.S., NASA is working on projects such as trapping greenhouse gases and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from air travel. If the U.S. federal government can fund more businesses and projects like these, we could possibly fight climate change more efficiently. Everyone needs to work together to help the climate. Whether that be through reducing our individual carbon footprint by taking public transportation, leading research and technology projects that are based on renewable energy, or funding climate change research and projects, we can all do something to help. Hopefully, the new money coming into the government from this tax will all be used for finding ways to help the environment.
Research links:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_basics.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/3075/nasa-technologies-spin-off-to-fight-climate-change/
In response to question 1, I believe that the new 15% corporate tax endorsement from the world's 20 major economies sets a strong precedent for change, as big companies will be paying a much higher tax than they currently do and won't be able to evade taxes by relocating to low-tax locations, as their home countries will be able to require that these corporations pay the difference regardless of where they are. As Elizabeth and Danielle pointed out, this tax will contribute greatly to government spending, and if that funding is used towards purposes like cutting down carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy use, it'll be beneficial to combatting the climate crisis. However, like the writer of this post points out, if Biden's party faces disagreements about the details of enacting the deal, there's no telling when its implementation will go through and how long it'll take before change can really be effected. Implementing the agreement by 2023 may require adjusting international tax treaties, which would need some Republicans' backing and further complicate the matter. Thus, while the endorsement is a step in the direction of addressing the climate crisis, how much change it'll create and how effective it is depends on a variety of factors.
Research links:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90692067/g20-global-minimum-tax-rate-explained
I agree with the others that this tax is a step in the right direction, however, it cannot be considered the solution to the climate crisis. I think Nicky made a good point saying that we need to do more than simply tax companies and use that money towards preventing global warming. We need to take immediate action now in order to fully heal the earth, and although this tax helps us get there, it does not provide the immediate solution that we so desperately need. Therefore, the US and the other countries part of G20 must continue with this momentum and use this money to find more permanent solutions to the climate crisis. Additionally, after reading this NBC article debriefing the summit, I concluded that a repeating theme is that countries must come together and lean on each other to end this climate crisis. There is no way that one country can single handedly end climate change while every other country in the world is continuing with their same habits of supporting large corporations and using an excessive amount of fossil fuels. Therefore, although not every country is part of the G20, it is a crucial group because these countries are holding each other accountable to create real change, something that is not possible if countries only made individual policies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/world-leaders-set-endorse-global-corporate-minimum-tax-g-20-n1282769
I agree with others that while I believe that the 15% tax will help efforts to combat the climate crisis, results from its implementation will not be seen for quite some time. This deal will have a positive impact especially as it can be used to offer aid to developing countries by helping them shift from a fossil-fuel based to a renewable energy based energy infrastructure. While I do believe the climate crisis is an important topic, other possible problems that could have been addressed during the G20 meetup are the number of vaccinated people in poorer countries, like Crystal mentioned, and long-lasting crises such as the growing rates of child labor and trafficking and the refugee crisis. To address the third question, Republicans have already shown strong disapproval towards Biden’s agenda and the 15% tax deal believing that it will further hurt America’s economy that has been impacted by the pandemic and rising inflation.
- Sakshi Thoutireddy
Summits like the G20 are important first steps, but nowhere near getting to actually hold countries accountable. I think especially noticeable as an advantage of the G20 summit and others is their unique ability for smaller countries to urge larger countries to do their duty. For many of the smaller, less wealthy countries will become climate refugees if action is not taken quickly, yet even if they do everything right, their fate is still in the hands of the larger Western countries to do their bit. It allows countries to prove the urgency of the situtation and bring a more human consequence to not following thier set goals. However, teh summit is not without its pitfalls of course: China and Russia in specific are not setting as ambitious as goals as necessary to keep below the 1.5 degree celcius goal, and the US as a whole is placing the blame on other countries more while portraing themselves as heroes. All considered, it's a step in the right direction.
I agree with the others and believe that the G20 summit is taking steps in the right direction towards combatting climate change and the 15% tax will help but it is not a solution. Climate Change is a continuing issue that requires more effort than a tax to alleviate it. As a result, countries should look towards the next step and drafting legislation, organizing programs, and looking to invest in combatting the issue. This tax would hold companies accountable and it would cultivate funds for combatting climate change. I want to build on Maya's point about China and Russia because their economies are heavily dependent on industries such as manufacturing which emit high amounts of pollutants. As a result, it will be difficult for them to fully comply and agree with climate change approaches. However, both nations have worked to negotiate compromises and agreements with other nations. Despite these points, I think that the tax is not a bad starting point and it will provide economic benefits for the government and it would be collecting funds from prominent companies.
In response to question one, I agree that the 15% tax will help with the climate crisis. Granted this meeting represented some of the most powerful nations, this agreement of 15% tax certainly sets the precedent that climate change is an important topic and issue on the political agenda. However, because this is simply another tax that corporations must pay, there is little attention on the cause itself, and it seems instead like a transaction. Therefore, in order to ensure that our goal of staying below 1.5 degrees is met, action must be implemented so that everyone can actively participate in the greater initiative of mitigating climate change.
In addition, one obstacle that may come with this tax is implementation and polarization. Because each country has the responsibility of regulating this tax, the tax will only be as effective as it is enforced. Furthermore, because this tax is loosely structured, and it is merely an agreement, it may be difficult to regulate the tax especially with corporations reluctance to abide by the new implementation. One point that the article touched on that I find critical to understanding is the increasing political polarization on climate change in the US and its future effects on implementing climate change policy. In a piece of Pew Research data I found that while 67% of Americans felt the government needed to do more to help climate change, 71% of democrats felt that government policies had an effect while only 34% of republicans felt the same way. Therefore, considering the strong republican presence in congress as well as the split support from democrats on this tax, it is clear that regulating and carrying this tax will be another barrier to face as Biden pushes to enact climate change policy.
-Lauren Mok
In response to question one, I agree that the 15% tax will help with the climate crisis. Granted this meeting represented some of the most powerful nations, this agreement of 15% tax certainly sets the precedent that climate change is an important topic and issue on the political agenda. However, because this is simply another tax that corporations must pay, there is little attention on the cause itself, and it seems instead like a transaction. Therefore, in order to ensure that our goal of staying below 1.5 degrees is met, action must be implemented so that everyone can actively participate in the greater initiative of mitigating climate change.
In addition, one obstacle that may come with this tax is implementation and polarization. Because each country has the responsibility of regulating this tax, the tax will only be as effective as it is enforced. Furthermore, because this tax is loosely structured, and it is merely an agreement, it may be difficult to regulate the tax especially with corporations reluctance to abide by the new implementation. One point that the article touched on that I find critical to understanding is the increasing political polarization on climate change in the US and its future effects on implementing climate change policy. In a piece of Pew Research data I found that while 67% of Americans felt the government needed to do more to help climate change, 71% of democrats felt that government policies had an effect while only 34% of republicans felt the same way. Therefore, considering the strong republican presence in congress as well as the split support from democrats on this tax, it is clear that regulating and carrying this tax will be another barrier to face as Biden pushes to enact climate change policy.
Lauren's comment got deleted so I'm copying it below:
In response to question one, I agree that the 15% tax will help with the climate crisis. Granted this meeting represented some of the most powerful nations, this agreement of 15% tax certainly sets the precedent that climate change is an important topic and issue on the political agenda. However, because this is simply another tax that corporations must pay, there is little attention on the cause itself, and it seems instead like a transaction. Therefore, in order to ensure that our goal of staying below 1.5 degrees is met, action must be implemented so that everyone can actively participate in the greater initiative of mitigating climate change.
In addition, one obstacle that may come with this tax is implementation and polarization. Because each country has the responsibility of regulating this tax, the tax will only be as effective as it is enforced. Furthermore, because this tax is loosely structured, and it is merely an agreement, it may be difficult to regulate the tax especially with corporations reluctance to abide by the new implementation. One point that the article touched on that I find critical to understanding is the increasing political polarization on climate change in the US and its future effects on implementing climate change policy. In a piece of Pew Research data I found that while 67% of Americans felt the government needed to do more to help climate change, 71% of democrats felt that government policies had an effect while only 34% of republicans felt the same way. Therefore, considering the strong republican presence in congress as well as the split support from democrats on this tax, it is clear that regulating and carrying this tax will be another barrier to face as Biden pushes to enact climate change policy.
I hope that this 15% tax will help with the climate crisis, but I don’t think anyone’s under the impression that this tax is going to significantly slow down climate change, let alone solve the crisis altogether. (In reality, we need tons of sweeping structural reform to actually effectively slow climate change; simply taxing the system is not enough at this point, as the system will probably need to be torn down and redone altogether if the climate crisis is to be defeated.) I agree with most of the commenters that there is much more work to be done before we see significant change.
It’s unfortunate that the climate crisis has become a political issue, although considering how inextricably tied to the economy it is, it was somewhat inevitable. I think reducing the climate crisis to “another political issue” severely undermines the gravity of the situation; this is something that all of our descendants, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, will have to face the consequences of. In my opinion, there isn’t any topic that can be more important than this topic because the state of the economy and social issues and culture wars mean absolutely nothing if humans are all extinct. I think our inability to recognize the extent of the crisis we’re in is a culmination of several things: 1) greed 2) denial and cognitive dissonance and 3) ignorance. And unfortunately, without some sort of reckoning in the near future, I doubt this will change, and humanity will surely continue to walk into the fire.
Post a Comment