

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM)
Oxfam reaction to European Commission proposals related to corporate tax, released on 22 December 2021:
Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam's EU Tax expert, said:
Oxfam reaction to European Commission proposals related to corporate tax, released on 22 December 2021:
Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam's EU Tax expert, said:
"After almost two years into the global Covid-19 pandemic, that has increased inequality across Europe and poured billions of taxpayers' money into keeping businesses afloat, it's high time that the European Commission proposes to make big companies pay more taxes. Still, the level of ambition is a far cry from fair. Now, EU Member States must ensure that companies pay a fair share of taxes to help fund our hospitals and green public investments."
On the Proposal on implementation of the OECD global agreement on minimum effective taxation:
"Regrettably, the Commission bailed on going beyond the unfair and unambitious OECD agreement on minimum tax and instead replicated all the faults of the deal, including the very low effective tax rate of 15 percent, that will become even lower because of significant exemptions. The good news is that the minimum tax will be extended to domestic companies, so an affiliate of TotalEnergies in France will be subject to the same minimum tax as an affiliate of TotalEnergies in Germany. This is coherent and will assure that more companies have to pay a minimum level of taxes.
It is essential now that as many Member States as possible fight tooth and nail against some corporate lobbyists and tax haven Member States that will no doubt try to weaken the directive even more. Those Member States that are serious about making multinational companies pay a fair share should not hesitate to go beyond the directive and adopt a higher minimum tax with fewer exemptions and more companies covered, and with a more equal division of revenue with developing countries.
On the Initiative to fight the use of shell entities:
"Shell companies were once again at the heart of the biggest tax scandals of 2021, as disclosed by the Openlux and Pandora Papers. Multinationals and the worlds' wealthiest individuals use letterbox companies to hide money or escape taxes. It is about time for the European Commission to act.
However, the shell company initiative risks to not solve the problem. Financial services are excluded and a company is believed to have a real economic activity even if it records very high revenues with very few employees and machines. This will leave several shell companies off the hook.
On the Own resources package:
"In principle, requiring big biz and major polluters to pay for the EU recovery makes sense, but not if it the EU is asking the poorest countries to foot the bill, which is what the Carbon Border tariff risks doing if the lowest income countries are not exempted.
Moreover, the new OECD rules to make multinationals pay taxes where they have sales, merely brings crumbles to the EU. Only a few companies and a very small percentage of their profits will be taxed, and EU countries have to renounce existing and planned digital taxes under the OECD agreement. The Commission and Member States must step up the taxation on big companies by speedily agreeing on a common EU tax base for all corporate profits with a reallocation formula among Member States."
Note to the editors
Last week, Oxfam launched a manifesto with recommendations on tax and tax-related files to the French Presidency, including on the minimum tax, the shell companies initiative and CBAM.
Oxfam considers the effective tax rate of 15% agreed at OECD level and proposed again by the European Commission as far too low. Moreover, the OECD agreement and the EU proposal includes a so-called 'substance carve-out', which allows companies to pay a lower tax rate than 15 per cent in countries where they have many employees or tangible assets such as factories and machineries.
The minimum tax agreed at OECD only applies to companies that are not resident in a country, while domestic entities are excluded. The European Commission proposes to apply to domestic companies too, to not introduce a discrimination in treatments between domestic and foreign affiliates and risk legal controversy. The US is also currently discussing it.
The OECD agreement grants almost all the tax revenue generated from the global minimum tax to "residence" countries, e.g. those countries where the multinational companies have their headquarter, which overwhelmingly tends to be in rich countries. There is however a possibility for low-income countries to gain more revenues from the minimum tax, through the Subject to Tax Rule (STR). To be applied, this rule requires a change in bilateral tax agreements.
The OpenLux scandal in 2021 showed that Luxembourg is hosting 55,000 offshore companies with no economic activity. Several of them are used for tax avoidance, evasion, or money-laundering purposes. More recently, the Pandora papers exposed how the wealthy use shell companies to pay less taxes or keep their financial activities hidden.
The European Commission proposed as own resources revenues from ETS, CBAM and OECD Pillar 1. Oxfam asks to use revenues of CBAM for climate actions and to exempt Least Developed Countries so that the lowest income countries are not disproportionally affected.
In May 2021 the European Commission proposed the "Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)", that would include rules for a common tax base and the allocation of profits between Member States based on a formula (formulary apportionment). The BEFIT should become one of the EU own resources, according to the European Commission.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."