I'm not sure why Canada imposing a tax on Google's revenue in Canada requires US Republican votes? Or what the Republicans would do about it? So seems like we can get a lot of things done without those votes. Most of these companies are US based and they are effectively dodging taxes in other countries, it's not the US tax laws that impact those for the most part.

There's a term, G7, what are the 7?

This isn't set in stone, and indeed was G8 a few years ago.

Indeed. Luckily, “the world” ≠ ”the US”.

> To get anything done, you need Republican votes.

This seems to be the kind of financial thing that fits right into reconciliation, which means you don't need Republican votes.

Isn't ratifying a treaty something completely different?

If they want to make this a formal treaty, yes.

But it could be an informal agreement between the leaders of these countries, that they will all pass such laws. In that case, passing a law that changes the corporate tax rate would fit into a reconciliation package with no issues.

Though, if it’s an informal agreement then no such law even needs to be passed, since our corporate tax rate is above the agreed minimum.

Offhand, does someone know which countries that belong to the G7 and made this "historic agreement" have higher tax rates than that agreed upon?

Edit In an alternate universe I wish the title was"G7 agrees to carbon tax" that would certainly level the playing field...I mean surely intrinsically FANG's are highly carbon intensive if you took into account the pollution they help generate through added energy usage (delivery trucks every day, lots of packaging, server farms etc) and the highly paid jobs which fuel inflation, consumption and speculation...(p.s. please don't feel ruffled)

> Isn't ratifying a treaty something completely different?

Sure, but there is a distinction between treaties in international law and those under the Constitution; by far the most common way for treaties in the international law sense to be adopted in tbe US in the last several decades is as Congressional-executive agreements, which are, procedurally, either normal legislation submitted after an executive-negotiated agreement or an executive-negotiated agreement under authority granted by normal legislation.

Reconciliation requires no Republican votes.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/02/05/what-is-r...

You think the Constitutional right of Congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" can be wiped out with reconciliation?

To be clear, Constitutionally the United States Senate only needs a majority to pass a law that changes the Taxes collected from corporations.

The Senate Filibuster which requires a 60-vote majority is not a Constitutional provision, and you wouldn't strictly need a Treaty for this agreement, if all the countries simply adopted the same tax provisions.

So, if the Democrats had the vote for it, they could pass this law with 0 Republican votes. In fact, since raising taxes is a budgetary measure, they could absolutely pass the corporate tax increase on reconciliation and do it with 0 Republican votes and without touching the filibuster. So, it seems quite plausible to me that this will happen.

Reconciliation is a process within Congress by which the Senate does not impose its not-Constitutionally-required supermajority requirement to certain budget-impacting measures.

So, no, its use doesn’t bypass Constitutional powers (not rights, which are not attributes of government bodies) of Congress, it is a means by which Congress has chosen to exercise them.

You are not going to ratify a treaty with the required 2/3 votes in the Senate via reconciliation.

You don't need to ratify a treaty through reconciliation. There's no need for this to be done with a formal treaty. It could simply be each of the nations passing laws that do the same thing.

If the Senate passes a law that changes the corporate tax rate to a certain amount, that is a budgetary measure that could absolutely be passed with reconciliation.

Yes, this law wouldn't be a treaty, but it could have a similar effect.

> If the Senate passes a law that changes the corporate tax rate to a certain amount, that is a budgetary measure that could absolutely be passed with reconciliation.

If it was revenue-neutral, sure. That is unlikely to be the case with changes to corporate tax rates. And even then, you are going to have a hard time getting even 50 votes.

> If it was revenue-neutral, sure.

No, revenue-neutrality doesn't weigh in favor of being eligible for reconciliation; a measure must principally address either spending, revenue, or the debt limit to be eligible for that process.

That’s an incorrect description of the budget reconciliation process.

One of the budget reconciliation categories is explicitly for revenue, which means being revenue-neutral would make it harder to pass under reconciliation.

Being an aspect that explicitly impacts revenue makes it much easier to pass under the revenue reconciliation process. In fact, adjusting those rates would be a pretty straight-down-the-middle use of reconciliation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_State...

> You are not going to ratify a treaty with the required 2/3 votes in the Senate via reconciliation

Which is among the reasons this won’t technically be a treaty in US law (even if it is in international law), but a Congressional-executive agreement [0].

[0] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Congressional...

Though if it is sold as a missile against big tech...

The US corporate tax rate is 21%, above the 15% minimum that was proposed. Furthermore, it was the Trump administration who introduced GILTI and BEAT, both measures aimed at taxing foreign profits in low wage and low tax countries. Now, of course, republicans are probably loathe to give the White House any "wins", so that might throw a spanner in the works, but republicans don't have any love for tax havens.