The real important thing here is establishing the importance in preventing the race-to-the-bottom, so more important things like multinational carbon taxes, developing country capital controls, etc. are newly inside the Overton Window.
In practice, expanding national debt requires eurozone-wide unanimity. Ask Greece.
> expanding national debt
I feel the need to point out that currency debasement is a fundamentally different thing from taking out loans/issuing bonds/other debt. If anything, currency debasement reduces national debt in real terms, by devaluing the currency it's denominated in. I'm not especially clear on the situation, but I was under the impression that Greece's problem was that noone was willing to lend them money due to a expectation that they wouldn't be paying it back, not that they were prohibited from borrowing by EU law, but even that would be a different thing from being prohibited from printing money.
If anything you have to lend more money to Greece and only give the most productive companies/sections of the government access to loans, if Greece's GDP was 355 billion € in the past it can recover up to that old level.
Debasement of gold happens because gold isn't printed. You need to dilute it in order to make more coins. In a gold currency system, it's the gold that's the "real" currency. Gold value rises and falls, but that's not debasement. The coins are debase. It's theoretically possible for a gold coin to be debased, but also worth more because the value of gold has increased by more than the coin has been diluted.
Euros and dollars aren't redeemable for anything, so debasement doesn't really mean anything.
In the Eurozone, when a national government runs a deficit (all of us, currently) then the ECB issues a loan. That money is then available for the government to spend. This is where Euros come from.
The ECB refused to loan/print money to the Greek government until they agreed to certain demands. Ireland, my country, did agree to the demands and the ECB made some euros for us to pay our banks with.
It works in a similar way in the US. The Federal Reserve Bank gives their government dollars, and they US government give them bonds in exchange... a loan. The Fed can then sell those bonds to anyone who wants them, or hold them.
The one unbreakable eurozone rule is no printing your own money. The "Greek Crisis" was a fear the Greece would try to issue its own bonds, which would trade at a different rate & effectively create their own separate euro... confusing everyone.
Yes, there is the straight-jacketted neoliberal constitution that makes everything terrible, but that's separate. I really hope they can fix that.
PS: if I were to design a state I would make it a part of the constitution that laws must either be written with placeholder variables for any concrete numbers you'd want to put into them or specify only concrete values for those placeholders and nothing else. And no single vote can contain both kinds at once.
It was in my second or third programming side job when I was asked by the ramshackle finance marketing upstarts I was working for if it was possible to implement the almighty Income Tax Table (in Access, obviously). I had heard scary things about that beast. A few minutes of googling (I think was already Google?) and I realized that the law in question defined a simple linear factor that increases at certain thresholds, with a tax-exmpt base per threshold to correct for any jumps. I was so disappointed! Not so much by a scary mad beast that turned out to be all tame and reasonable but by the professions of finance marketers and tax consultants who routinely acted as if it was some arbitrary monstrosity that could only be dealt with in a lookup table.
in this era of handheld supercomputers, we're well beyond having to manually multiply out the formulas anyway. and tax forms are already basically one long formula where you just plug in the variable values in a step-by-step manner (and usually have a computer do the math for you).
but even so, a zero- (e.g., a single tax rate) or quasi-first-order (like a limited number of tax brackets) model makes no sense, when we can much better fit the desired effect with a slightly higher-order function for only a small complexity trade-off. better fit means reducing the exploitation surface.
tangentially, this is a relevant application of basic linear algebra and calculus to civics, which could be used as concrete motivation in the high school education of those subjects.
Broadly, you are not going to convince pure tax havens (eg Bermuda) to close tax loopholes. They don't even have corporate tax. You can do other things though.
Part of the problem here is that reporting is mixing up issues. It's not clear how (if at all) the MSFT-Bermuda shenanigans relate. The minimum tax rate hasn't been done yet, and may not be. What they do seem to have agreed on is some sort of joint accounting standards. Accounting standards define what counts or doesn't count as an expense, investment, etc.
Where that (may, we don't know yet) relate to the rest of 180+ countries is, for example: US accounting standards no longer recognize payments to (for eg) the Bermuda entity as an expense transaction.
When you are uncoordinated, discrepancies in these standards allow companies to pick and choose.
For example ACME Inc. produces widgets with costs of 50 and revenue of 100 in the US. To avoid taxes, it also pays 50 in "licensing fees" to ACME Tax Heaven in the Cayman Islands, so that the profit in the US is 0.
If the payment to the Cayman Islands is not counted, then the taxable profit in the US becomes 50.
This is the problem with corporation tax generally. You can't really have a conversation about it in "normal" terms, that a journalist, politician or MOP can understand. It can only be understood via scenario plans and spreadsheets. It's a million little details. There is no "big picture."