renewables more, more sustainably, and then we can store the energy and distribute much more efficiently. unfortunately, that technology isn't, isn't where we need it to be. and it can cost a lot of money to get it to where it needs to be. well that brings us right to the break. more programs coming up and moments stay close. aah! news . in the

news in the moon. oh i use

well kind of for the alex, i mean sure where we look at the new economic initiatives of the rich countries club of the g 7 recipe canes in the unlikely and idyllic setting of carpet bin cord . both the g 7 leaders will ratify an agreement for minimum corporate tax rates, fin packed on transnational companies. if it's a welcome big through against a tet, jayden's tax avoidance positioning, or the car up, ensure the rich get richer. or perhaps it's a bit of an advance of the summit. we talk to 2 political economists who know the answers for the member of parliament fees. louis in george, kevin, and the u. k. tax season specialist professor richard murphy. this key interview coming up soon, but 1st, trutina emails and messages and response i show last week featuring jim shannon n p, and lord, dr. wiggly john fisher says, good discussion and i'm of a mind to welcome any plan evening for a celtic blog among nations leaving this yuki. it's not the same and it's not

supposed to be more. bowman says, i've called that the best you know, to come for a very long time. fisma best says give island back to the either. so let the d p argue their case and the united islands. while harvey says, we need an english independence party. and finally billy hall and says, the authorization of my nation ends with independence, tick tock, the empires on a cook. now, no, since the heater of hit tv, see these rolls polls arg was busy. what's in excitement across this rocket coastline has taxation and corner gone. so well together, because despite the claimed that the jewel of cornwall, saint ives was chosen as this weekend to 7 location because exemplifies clean and green issues, it says the marquee will of the filthy lucre which has dominated the stomach run up . a minimum corporate tax of 15 percent, whether not towards the long campaigns, while online transaction sags had been proposed and agreed by the finance ministers

. however, is this a giant step forward is cleaned by chancellor issue tonight. what an elementary step over for the corporate giants. i suggested biog stop in short will the accommodation between big tick and big governments make the weak stronger, or just the strong richer to disgust or to alex george, kevin, and professor richard murphy. professor richard murphy, the tragedy says the chancellor richie's tonight because riley and the finance ministers to take money off the the big corporate and presumably give it to the the what else per what's not to like about that? well, let's be clear. we've had an extraordinary and historic agreement announced, it's only announced this is not signed up, this is not finalized. there's no way to get that all good dimensions to this. i like the fact that there's a minimum tax rate degreed,

but i'm already hearing that people are agreeing the 15 percent should now be the well minimum tax rate. no, it is the floor village below which you don't go. this is aimed at the law, the world's largest corporations. they have been seeing their tax rate cuts the years and have been exploiting the world's savings to make sure they pay even less than they were being asked to do. so that's good stuff in here, but there's bad stuff in here to festival that 50 percent minimum tax rate is far too low. the average cd tax rate is 25 percent. so why did they agree something so far below the average cd tax rate below the u. k tax rate. and this deal with regard to the reallocation of profits to developing countries is tiny. i've looked at the accounts of bartlett's, just as an example. they make a 40 percent tax rate. that's a profit margin only know point 8 percent of their profits will be reallocated towards the countries where their customers are. and the amount of tax that might

be involved is less than $30000000.00. let's not get too excited about the fact that this is going to sell the world's problems, not part of the one the minimum tax rate could, but only if it was more than 15 percent. so a deal, a breakthrough deal, but one which has yet to meet expectations, the g 20 should improve this enormously on the way my suggestion. well, just kind of qualified welcome from richard. my papers that you estimation. are you even more skeptical? i'm afraid to admit to be a bit more skeptical. i think we're having the woo, poor eyes by biting his crony job. the only cd, the big, the big western industrial nation. the same time because been trying to broker texting for years and has managed to get green. so i think what we're seeing with the g 7, which is a smaller group of nation, is by trying to run support. so we can go next month to venice. we're all between

she 20 and try and get one over on the chinese and the brazilians and the indians. and we will see whether that will work. and actually if you look at the school prince of g 7 agreement, lots of luke cause lots of things still to be decided above all, who gets taxed. how does debate about which companies and supposedly big companies, but war comes as big. what they're talking about is companies earn a profit rate of over 10 percent. does that include amazon, new amazon comes in about $67.00 to say because of the way the difficult fit of pick up the books. so i think probably goes along with gorgeous. it's a game, it's a dance between the big sporting nation still can get crew of your tech sation specialist perspective. the point that just kind of makes about amazon and the level of profit is that why ox 5 must say this is going to be an easy step for

the many of the big multi nationals. it is for amazon, and we have to put them in a box by itself, which regards to this, all the other tech companies, the facebook's, the google's, the microsoft and so on are all going to be caught by this. they all making more than 10 percent profit rates. amazon is fundamentally a retailer with regard to a great deal of its active duty and has one other division which supplies web services to other companies, which is highly profitable. overall, making 6 or 7 percent. it would be very difficult to find the deal that the not bring in most of the world's companies into this arrangement without if you wanted to keep amazon in. i mean, literally you have to extend it to virtually everyone quite clearly that was not going to win support in the g 7, and i doubt it was going to win support in the g 20. so there's a compromise be made, allison will fall out of this deal. it does not make much money compared to the

other company to proportions turnover. so each is going to get away with this. but it is not a pure tech company like the rest. what is surprising about this deal is how many companies have being drawn into it. so for example, re she seen that because now realize that he signed to deal with brings very large parts of the city of london inside this arrangement, which i don't think he understood law affected and he's now trying to backtrack or, i mean it's how far can this government turn, do you turn on the deal? it's already agreed this rate. it's a few days for the already saying can we have a call outside the u. k. out of this deal? i'm in the agreed last weekend. so the all i'm, i would have been tiny, agree with george, some really big issues here. i just don't think amazon is the stumbling block that should stop as doing the best we can. can i also agree with george or something. there's a lot of negotiation to go here. now i know that negotiation process i have spent far too many hours in the basement with the o. e cd in paris,

where the negotiating table literally are. they are on the ground and shatteau in the outskirts of paris. and i was heavily involved in the last 20132015 literally in the room. and there will be those rooms again, who knows, i might end up back. but the point is that actually the devil is in the details. and in this case the devil is going to be around the accounting. what is the profit margin? what is turn over large companies, high tax figures in 3 statements in their accounts, not just one. and most people seem to think it's in the income statement, but it isn't. all of these technical things need to be taken into account. very few people have actually discussed matters yet. i put up a whole series of questions which a lot of journalists that look at all my blog saying, look, there really is a nightmare in terms of the gas station to go here. and there will be a lot of game playing to count these companies a great play. there's one group you can guarantee you who are going to be opposing this. and that's the big for firms of accountants because this deal is bad news. so

the tax havens who charged 0 percent tax, which had been used very heavily by the tech companies, which are serviced by those big 4 firms of accountants. they are going to find their business is threatened by this, which is what the intention is after that really is the a me and said they're going to fight hard. well, they fought hard in 2013 to 15 against something cool country by country reporting, which i created, which is now the law, which is the basis of a lot of this deal. and they're going to fight hard this time too. so we are nowhere near a final deal yet, but i think we could get a deliverable tele more optimistic than george. but that 50 percent tax rate is way too well just kind of unless rent a month it says a lot of bells ringing and the big for a characteristic companies that supplement big corporate have been quite favorable responses to this picture. to deal with that leg was the 1st of all a statement. does that set your alarm bells? reg?

well me, nick clay was, was, was hired to be to be a front man for, to flew away at the rough edge. and so that's not too much attention to him. the big high tech company for the big american months. like google, they are, you know, microsoft, they are, they make a fortune and they take that money so they can so much cash up over last that you simply cannot give it back to the shareholders. but i buy the shares because too much even bother investing. because they're on the outlets. and so they're going to buy a little a little you know, public relations with i'm intrigued by the fact that richard was saying about what happens to the big banks, the investment banks, the hedge funds, who operate international, how they going to be taxed. now,

most of the discourse has been about about the export company, but you know, you're around the new microsoft i, i could see the deal ending up now that no the financial companies escape the tax issue. i think that will be the major forwarding in the debates will the next year when the americans always be going to kay about, keep the financial sector of any international agreements. so we could see, we could see, see that that coming, what would be my both but, but you can just look at the small print that she was saying, ah, where does this new tax fall result? 50 percent? everything is good. companies to be taxed are those early appropriate rate of 10 percent and above. and they get to choose 10 percent. it's a, it's a tax comes on hasn't got both the 10 percent and even only on the 5th rep. so when you walk, how much extra text is going to be, was it always cd estimates i've seen,

which is $50.00 to $80000000000.00 globally from over comp, that $5080000000000.00. google is frankly, in terms of the peanuts. so don't expect lot of money is going to end up in national real search, right, rental. that but i'm a world progress or should we read the fine print? read the fine print, but we could make progress if we negotiate. well, join us after the break when alex continues, his conversation was george kevin and richard murphy. we'll see then the me, the news. welcome back. alex is in conversation with george, kevin,

i'm professor richard murphy. that professor much much when you make of the service a box by us treasury said to john yellen, who seems to be advocating caden's in expansionist course for the world economy and telling the g 7 to lead the way? i believe that is what she thinks, i think janet yellen is leaving us in the keynesian expansion. it's very clear that biden is breaking all the rules. he does not think that that needs to be repaid in the usa, and he and she are communicating to the world open york office spend when you can, you have what is called a preschool head room. that means there is literally the capacity in very many countries, germany in particular, the u. k. still has plenty of physical capacity to spend more, get people to work, prevent time employment, get the economy investing in the things we need, like to bring you deal. yeah, i think they really want to do that. that's, that does kind of that should be music to your radical else been sleepy joe biden

was not so sleepy after all. yeah, that's absolutely absolutely true. i mean, we are, we are on the cusp of, of a major economy change since 2070 the banking crisis won't enter the deflationary period, used to be completion disappear, but essentially means that it is difficult for me to make coffee because they, the best coffee when you get, when you get in place and they keep bumping the price, ah, plus that are the whole, you political challenges and clearly america, stacey, them trained. so the american state wants to spend more money as, as a little with some, some head there. i'm a little bit cautious in the sense that coby has disrupted lots of supply change change it might take, you know, was a year, maybe 5 years,

maybe the decade to get things sorted out. so that there are pockets of shortages which according inflation here. and there, but by a lot, i think by many americans decide if they have to spend china and america back on top. and that's what's happening is politics you just taken on wrench about is that the half of us behind the economics is this. the american administration say, look, the wretched man's club, the g 7, the western economies is tightened to lead the way. and since there's nobody attractive leading the the world into private recession, rebecca lead the world into a sustained recovery. is that what's behind us? when i pick up one of the words you use which was sustained and the, i think it might be a sustainable recovery. i mean, 1st of all, to have biden demand that we didn't expect to be a radical being so radical. and maybe us because he expects to only be a single term precedent. so he's just going to throw everything against the wall in

this 1st term. and he's going to make the changes he wants straight away. i believe that is about china is a fact for this, but it's not the only one. i mean, they are really trying to beat the republicans, and the republicans have got a very hard core supports we can see which is still around from. and so they've got to convince middle and working class america, that is a future for them because they have lost out very badly in recent decades. that is a crisis, a middle class incomes. now this policy invest, spend, do sustainability, rebuild the infrastructure of america is a domestic policy, as well as an international policy. but i think he's also hearing his radical democrats standing on the sidelines said to him, green, you deal green. you deal to jo. deliver us what we want. i add all those together. you come out with this well mix which is a pure keynesian inflation rate policy in the sense of inflating the economy all. i

don't think it will deliver long term inflation by the way. i agree with george that i think that that is a short term or long term. what wages are not going to write that radically. so he's put together a very clever package. it just kind of them, how much intellectual thinking in terms of it economics is behind. so i mean, this is a response to the world crisis. the one of the panoramic, a caribbean future without radical action on is the 2nd combination of new monitors of new kinsey. and actually it's an intellectual base for thing. a lot of people have been 55 to what are the fiscal deficits for 5 too long. i think i think it's pragmatic crawls and sir essex, but i think there's adorning realization in the night states. and here in the u. k, that government can print money, least in the short term leases as

a crisis demand and get away with it. so what we're seeing, what we can see here is that we're kind of restrictive fiscal policies. the dominated, conservative thinking, bossy will of 1020 years. i'm just going to the window. they said the printing press has been trying to get dollars times and the roof hasn't pulled in. and i think the culture of injury as well. ok let's. let's make a while we can, we can spend somebody in by ourselves some support. and so some of our problems know where all these aids up, i think, could be with a headache. i don't think you can call me simply by printing money, but i think for the, for the mix, the laker cycle, we're clearly going to see this dominate. i think as usual the, the economists will try and pick up pieces, but to my faith, both yourself and johns, kevin usa, observed commentator jobs as a practitioner,

of course, is a former member of parliament have been involved in the scottish constitutional debate. that, that's what we are talking about, how the dramatic effect on one debate, which is whether scotland should have a central bank and have one as quickly as possible. once is independent, we want to get money picking economic opportunities. does that have a direct impact on that? debate yes it does. it does because the scotland is independent. it's too well once a part of this investment program, it to will want to deliver agree and new deal. and to do that, it has to have the ability to print money. now i'd rather use were create them printed because all this stuff is electronic, of course, and it's done through quantitative easing. scotland also needs control over its tax system, which isn't possible without control over the central bank of money. i think the 3 fundamental un intimately linked to control the impacts of that money creation,

particularly the impact on the quality, which is the one that worries me most about this. because a lot of the money that is created ends up in the hands of the richest in society. now scotland f one needs to have an integrated macro economic policy to handle this and to deliver the growth of people in scotland will expect after independence. that's why they wanted dependence. so the single hang together in the scottish, the scenario which demands that, that really will have to be very short transition from sterling to a scholars pound or whatever it is go, does kind of and you got us overwhelming understood to scream some your former detractors look at what's happening in world economics and apply to the scottish situation. absolutely. and indeed, if we had been independent from the referendum in 2014 and we pounds sterling at this moment, the scottish government would pick up the creek. it wouldn't be able to create money. richard says that will be able to cover the can panoramic crisis and the

funding of that it had had to go cap in hand to the city of london to train bordeaux users in the interest rates. i mean, the hoping would have been a debacle. you can have independence and have somebody else when your currency and your call it policy and your money. supposing independent means monetary independence. that should see that we haven't got back clear, bye. know that when, when we have a will, it wasn't that came from self a said what the facts change. then i changed my mind with the facts. he did indeed we did it even though he was a rare preg pregnancy to keeping his in his class. and is this going? i have to, well, we have to learn the lesson and keep keeps called is going operate in scotland interest roles. the bank of interest. lastly, to radical economists as i've passenger, let's look at a distribution across the platinum g 7, maybe leading the way into an expanse, say direction may be stopping to tax. also the tax. how much of the world's poor

going to see if the, if it's something you'd have fab, elia, richard murphy, to the percentage that might go to, to helping list those on the upper us pay me. it's an underlying concern. you have in terms of this, that's what looks like promising economic emissions. this is a fundamental concern, and it's actually a change of emphasis within the g. a. g 7. i was at the 2013 summit chap my dad, the cameras, remember him while he chatted and we actually have been bounced back in law and in no, none of them. which focused upon the fact that the rewards of tactical should go to developing countries. the reality is that this, the end is not going to do that, not by a long way. and i mentioned already, i spent time at the scene during that period. and i remember talking to the chinese and said india, india to say, we won't share and there's a very aggressive type authority about africa. there's also gonna be needing the

jobs and they're very good. now i am going to be in the debate, but they're not going to be left outside. so i really do not expect to deal with seeing a present as being the one that will end up with this horrible biased towards head office of countries like the light, the usa like to be and we to see a better outcome. i don't believe they'll buy it less that changes just kevin, how are we going to avoid those who've been in the head? and as we say in scotland of what old economics for so long having the, the same treatment as we move into a new environmentally sustainable world. him have take the costs of that change and see very few of the benefits. how can we avoid such a mile distribution of one of the sources continuing well at about $140.00 countries because of a negotiation to c d on a global tax deal. and ultima,

they all have to be brought within the tent. so i think i think they should use this moment to say to the g 7. ok, that's your opening off offer, but we want more certainly the 15 cent tax rate needs to rise and so forth. so i think we need, we need a bit of a bit of, of international association and i think they, they're, they're the poor nations. critically some, some of the develop missions like brazil has to be prepared say no deal unless we get what we want for the u. k. u k has already remember past the tax, new tax on digital competence and hilbert bitch. after the truck groves of butch, i think you k right away to implement its digital text cream off the money. and we could use that, for instance, to, to get our, our percentage payments for international aid up to back to where should be does kevin professor richard murphy. thank you so much for joining me again, i'm the,

i'll examine show. thanks, alex. thank you counsellor s u c. like is came to spare it was he who parsley valley b g 7, finance ministers to pursue the 15 percent corporate tax. indeed, you can change the passion. these talks about the big time for the take jones to pay their fair share. however, 2 other statements should get pause for thought before the chancellor. it's an updated as corn was answer to robin who 1st, as international charities appointed, the 15 percent minimum represents a very low bar on some 10 percent less than the level originally listed by american president. for 2 seconds and even more interestingly, the 10 giants themselves have well convinced it is now. sometimes when turkey's pardon leave for christmas, it is as well to check whether they are really turkeys and whether it's really

christmas. more significantly, this seems like a shift to the consumer power of the big battalion. it is clear that the big economies are looking for ways to be, so they're treasury coffers and the post covered world shift a new source from big corporate to big government. what is less clear is whether any of this me distribution will find its way to the countries which are genuinely on the uppers in did this to martinez control oversee over the u. k. governments cut in it's in budget rather folly did attempts to present themselves as any fender ally of the world's poor. for now from alex myself, an all issue. stay safe and we hope to see you all again, next week. ah, [000:00:00;00]

me the who's the when i was shot the wrong. when all just don't the rules? yes. out the same because the after an engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will depart. we choose to look for common ground in

the a sting investigation reveals that many of america's richest billionaires are avoiding taxes, but the u. s. revenue service seems more concerned with finding out who leads to the information you a for back tracks on its previous full approval of ukraine's controversial kit for the european football championships, saying that slogan on the player. shirts must now be removed. and on the eve of the delayed euro, 2020 toward them in the world health organization warned the 11 host nations to stay vigilant and prevent a repeat of the coven upsurge seen last summer. ah