lefigaro.fr
Zucman: Tax US Multinationals to Counter Trump Tariffs
Economist Gabriel Zucman suggests that the EU counter US tariffs by taxing American multinationals operating in Europe, arguing this targeted approach is more effective than a broader trade war and hinges on the EU's response to the US withdrawal from the global minimum tax agreement.
- What is the proposed countermeasure to US tariffs on European goods, and what is its immediate impact on international trade relations?
- In response to Donald Trump's 20% tariffs on European goods, economist Gabriel Zucman proposes a targeted response: taxing American multinationals and their owners in Europe. This aims to condition market access on a minimum tax, offering a more effective alternative to a broader trade war. The EU's reaction is critical, as it could set a precedent for international economic cooperation.
- How does the US withdrawal from the global tax agreement on multinational corporations influence the EU's proposed response to the tariffs?
- Zucman's proposal links the US tariffs to a broader issue: the global tax agreement on multinational corporations. The US withdrawal from this agreement, which sets a 15% minimum tax, undercuts international cooperation against tax evasion and avoidance. His suggestion to tax American companies in Europe is presented as a countermeasure to incentivize US compliance and prevent a return to pre-WWII protectionism.
- What are the long-term implications of the EU's response to the US tariffs, considering the potential impact on future global economic cooperation and tax policies?
- The EU's decision regarding the global minimum tax will significantly impact future international economic relations. Failure to enforce the agreement, in the face of US opposition, risks a return to a protectionist model characterized by unilateral actions and trade conflicts, harming global economic stability. Conversely, robust enforcement could foster a more equitable international system.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Zucman's suggestion as a promising solution, highlighting its potential benefits while downplaying potential drawbacks. The headline (while not explicitly provided) would likely emphasize the proposal's attractiveness, potentially shaping reader perception. The article's structure prioritizes Zucman's perspective and his call to action.
Language Bias
The article uses language that favors Zucman's perspective. Phrases such as "promising solution" and "crucial reaction" are loaded terms that portray his proposal in a positive light. Neutral alternatives could include "potential solution" and "important reaction".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Gabriel Zucman's perspective and proposed solution, potentially omitting other economists' viewpoints or alternative strategies for responding to Trump's tariffs. It also doesn't delve into the potential downsides of Zucman's proposal, such as the possible retaliatory actions from the US or the economic impact on European businesses.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the response to Trump's tariffs as a choice between a targeted tax on American oligarchs and a traditional trade war. It doesn't fully explore other potential responses or a spectrum of options.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses proposals to tax American multinational corporations in Europe as a response to US tariffs. This is directly related to reducing inequality by targeting the wealthiest actors and limiting tax avoidance through a minimum tax rate. The economist suggests this approach is superior to trade wars, further aligning it with reducing economic disparities. The push for a global minimum corporate tax rate also directly addresses tax avoidance by multinationals, a key driver of inequality.