Who helps the heroesFollow

I don't know whether to be disappointed that Gbaji didn't accept yet another chance to make a fool of himself or satisfied at the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he saw the light on this one.


/trollbait

]

Yes. Congratulations. Now go read the massive sections on multinational corporations and subsidiaries and controlling stock mechanisms and in 6 months, when you have a better understanding of the issue, you might just realize why this could be a problem.



Your first mistake is assuming that "US subsidiary" means one thing and only one thing and can only be derived within the law in one way. Multinational corporations often break themselves up into a bewildering number of pieces in order to comply with the differing laws in the countries they operate in while still enabling them to make a profit. And yes, that includes things like manipulating the "on paper" controlling interests in said subsidiaries as well.

What can appear to be a "foreign corporation" operating a US subsidiary can in fact be a US corporation, which spun off a foreign structure, which in turn operates branches in other countries (which could include the US btw), any one of which could themselves be fully spun off entities as well.

From a legal point of view, there's almost no correlation between a domestic and a foreign corporation and what the average person thinks when they think of those terms, and it's a mistake to attempt to do so. Don't get me wrong, I get what the law is *trying* to do. My point is that it wont work. It'll just create yet another hoop that corporations will have to deal with. The guys who are actually using this to "***** over" the US (although no one can seem to explain clearly how) aren't going to be stopped by this, but the legitimate corporations who just happen to fall into said category might be.




Yes. That's the way the law works. And we did so deliberately by creating those treaties in the first place. It's not a "loophole". It's deliberate. It was done to foster trade with/through those countries. If we have issues with those countries in turn making deals with third parties we don't like or have agreements with, perhaps we should formalize agreements with them, or be a bit more cautious about the treaties we make?



The last part is problematic. If the loophole needs to be closed because it's such a huge problem, then it should be addressed and closed on its own merits. Surely you see the problem with leveraging a one time short term need for money to pass something with much farther reaching effects, right?

Propose and pass it on its own, if it's that important. It clearly isn't, though. Which is the point.



Of course it is! What else do you call taxing income we didn't tax before? We did not previously apply taxes to those economic transactions and now we are. That's a "new tax".

The label isn't based on whether you like it or not, or think it's a tax we should have. It's whether or not the financial exchange is taxed or not. Currently, it's not. If we pass this law, it is. It's not that complicated.

No, you go read it and quote any relevant section which proves my analysis wrong. Until such time, it's OK to admit that you're just plain ******* clueless. It's pretty common knowledge outside your own little self-deluded fantasy world.

As to the rest of your post, I can't be bothered. Your idiotic mumbling isn't worth the time.