The takeaway about the global minimum corporate tax that Group of 20 leaders approved today is that if these politicians were corporate executives, they would be charged with being charged under the Sherman. Antitrust Act. It is the law that begins with the famous sentence: ?? Any contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or of a conspiracy, restricting trade or commerce between different States, or with foreign nations, * is hereby declared illegal. ??

No doubt our characterization of the situation would be challenged or mocked by the Democrats who concocted this proposed pact to set a minimum price for doing business in participating countries. We, ourselves, have no illusions that, say, Secretary Yellen or other supporters of this regime are going to be docked, although we would not rule out the danger of civil challenges in various courts. It’s the principle of the thing that gets our goat.

Because the objective of the device approved at the G20 is to prevent countries around the world from competing with each other in terms of their tax rates. Plan participants agree not to lower the price of doing business in their country below a 15% tax. Maybe General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, etc. take a page from the international tax-rigging playbook and accept a new universal and exorbitant base price.

We happen to have spent a decade or more as a foreign correspondent covering this issue. Namely, the scramble of companies to find the countries which are fiscally the most attractive to establish their activities there. And the simultaneous scramble of governments in Europe and elsewhere to configure their taxes in such a way as to make them more attractive than the tax rates of neighboring countries or continents. Our editorial advice was ?? and is ?? to go.

And how did governments do it ?? and with beneficial results. The Washington Post estimates that there has been a decades-long decline in corporate tax rates around the world. The story of the Post today ties in with another it published in 2018. It cites a study finding that corporate tax rates across the world have been cut by more than half since 1985. This long drop alarm what the post calls “experts”? who said he didn’t? governments ?? revenue to fund social spending programs. ??

But why should lower tax rates not be a good thing? After all, they sparked the Reagan boom, which brought America and other countries into the 21st century. They helped The Gipper become the big unifier (he won his second term with 49 states). The tax cuts have allowed companies to keep more profits and eventually distribute them, including to public and private employee pension funds. Corporate profits have helped build our middle class. Why mark social spending ?? as the priority for tax taking?

The New York Times ran a particularly biased report regarding the scheme approved today in Rome. He describes the announcement as marking “the most aggressive attempt in the world to date to prevent opportunistic companies like Apple and Bristol Myers Squibb from sheltering their profits in so-called tax havens, where rates taxes are low and companies often maintain little physical presence beyond an official seat. Isn’t The Times an “opportunist” business?

Our own view is that the G-20 tax-setting system is another reminder of the danger of multilateral institutions ?? even informal like the G-20. It is not at all clear that the pricing of the 15% tax will go into effect. It’s a good time to remember why America refused to join, say, the League of Nations. As it turns out, the Senate, in its wisdom, refused to ratify the League Treaty for fear it would limit our constitutional powers. The more countries that join the G-20 tax regime, the more America’s logic is left out.

________

Image: Drawing by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the aritst.

* Emphasis added by the Sun.