BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

Also you haven't explained why it wasn't well deserved. Apple were right in the eyes of the law: who are we to say different?

We've had this discussion before multiple times. If corporation tax is a thing, it seems to me that the system works best when it has no favours and is applied fairly to everyone.

I don't believe in the advantages to society as whole of super-large firms negotiating materially lower tax rates because of their size. It stifles competition and makes it harder for smaller companies to compete. We want the opposite, in order to foster a highly competitive market.

Big employers should be encouraged to stay competitive in the market, not subsidised because they happen to be big.

You could equally say "courts order government to subsidise apple".

Your issue should be that they have shifted profit from other countries to Ireland. Irish tax on Irish profit is something for Ireland to worry about.

Fair, though I'd argue 'tax haven' behaviour is not helpful regardless.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

You're better than that. Come on.

Maybe you do - tell me why you think it is Ireland did that?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

Also you haven't explained why it wasn't well deserved. Apple were right in the eyes of the law: who are we to say different?

We've had this discussion before multiple times. If corporation tax is a thing, it seems to me that the system works best when it has no favours and is applied fairly to everyone.

I don't believe in the advantages to society as whole of super-large firms negotiating materially lower tax rates because of their size. It stifles competition and makes it harder for smaller companies to compete. We want the opposite, in order to foster a highly competitive market.

Big employers should be encouraged to stay competitive in the market, not subsidised because they happen to be big.

You could equally say "courts order government to subsidise apple".

The points here are not how much tax they pay but where they pay it. The EU is just miffed because a lot of it was taxed somewhere else. And Apple's position has been confirmed as right by an EU court.

Also it is down to sovereign nations to decide whether to incentivise investment in their country via tax. Just as a shop is free to attract customers by having a sale.

I'v said this many times before, bleating about the corporate tax take is missing the point when corporate tax is approx 9% of total tax revenues. Ireland of course then benefits from the thousands of skilled jobs it creates, which yields income tax, NI, VAT etc. Think of incentives like this as a loss leader like supermarkets used to put piles of cheap stuff near the entrance to entice shoppers in then make a killing on the other stuff they buy. Let's be honest, why else would huge multinationals Apple base such a large part of their operations in a country like Ireland?

Also many small countries who don't have large domestic markets, big professional infrastructure, attractive lifestyle for expats etc struggle to attract investment. One of the few levers they have is tax unless they fancy relying on tourism, agriculture and natural resources. Part of Ireland's success over the last few decades has been down to them doing this well. Namely, using tax policy to create prosperity

Stevo_666

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

pblakeney

Additional rational could be English speaking and in the EU.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

Also you haven't explained why it wasn't well deserved. Apple were right in the eyes of the law: who are we to say different?

We've had this discussion before multiple times. If corporation tax is a thing, it seems to me that the system works best when it has no favours and is applied fairly to everyone.

I don't believe in the advantages to society as whole of super-large firms negotiating materially lower tax rates because of their size. It stifles competition and makes it harder for smaller companies to compete. We want the opposite, in order to foster a highly competitive market.

Big employers should be encouraged to stay competitive in the market, not subsidised because they happen to be big.

You could equally say "courts order government to subsidise apple".

The points here are not how much tax they pay but where they pay it. The EU is just miffed because a lot of it was taxed somewhere else. And Apple's position has been confirmed as right by an EU court.

Also it is down to sovereign nations to decide whether to incentivise investment in their country via tax. Just as a shop is free to attract customers by having a sale.

I'v said this many times before, bleating about the corporate tax take is missing the point when corporate tax is approx 9% of total tax revenues. Ireland of course then benefits from the thousands of skilled jobs it creates, which yields income tax, NI, VAT etc. Think of incentives like this as a loss leader like supermarkets used to put piles of cheap stuff near the entrance to entice shoppers in then make a killing on the other stuff they buy. Let's be honest, why else would huge multinationals Apple base such a large part of their operations in a country like Ireland?

Also many small countries who don't have large domestic markets, big professional infrastructure, attractive lifestyle for expats etc struggle to attract investment. One of the few levers they have is tax unless they fancy relying on tourism, agriculture and natural resources. Part of Ireland's success over the last few decades has been down to them doing this well. Namely, using tax policy to create prosperity

I mean, what you've done there is side step what I've discussed and just explained why you would want a multi-national in town.

I would suggest subsidising big firms with low tax rates is a short-term gain but provides long-term structural problems with the competitiveness of the entire system.

But you are pro-big firms, not pro-competition, so I guess that makes sense.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

Limited understanding of this here, but I think it's quite difficult for the EU to intervene on fiscal issues at the moment - sovereignty problems, innit.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

Also you haven't explained why it wasn't well deserved. Apple were right in the eyes of the law: who are we to say different?

We've had this discussion before multiple times. If corporation tax is a thing, it seems to me that the system works best when it has no favours and is applied fairly to everyone.

I don't believe in the advantages to society as whole of super-large firms negotiating materially lower tax rates because of their size. It stifles competition and makes it harder for smaller companies to compete. We want the opposite, in order to foster a highly competitive market.

Big employers should be encouraged to stay competitive in the market, not subsidised because they happen to be big.

You could equally say "courts order government to subsidise apple".

The points here are not how much tax they pay but where they pay it. The EU is just miffed because a lot of it was taxed somewhere else. And Apple's position has been confirmed as right by an EU court.

Also it is down to sovereign nations to decide whether to incentivise investment in their country via tax. Just as a shop is free to attract customers by having a sale.

I'v said this many times before, bleating about the corporate tax take is missing the point when corporate tax is approx 9% of total tax revenues. Ireland of course then benefits from the thousands of skilled jobs it creates, which yields income tax, NI, VAT etc. Think of incentives like this as a loss leader like supermarkets used to put piles of cheap stuff near the entrance to entice shoppers in then make a killing on the other stuff they buy. Let's be honest, why else would huge multinationals Apple base such a large part of their operations in a country like Ireland?

Also many small countries who don't have large domestic markets, big professional infrastructure, attractive lifestyle for expats etc struggle to attract investment. One of the few levers they have is tax unless they fancy relying on tourism, agriculture and natural resources. Part of Ireland's success over the last few decades has been down to them doing this well. Namely, using tax policy to create prosperity

I mean, what you've done there is side step what I've discussed and just explained why you would want a multi-national in town.

I would suggest subsidising big firms with low tax rates is a short-term gain but provides long-term structural problems with the competitiveness of the entire system.

But you are pro-big firms, not pro-competition, so I guess that makes sense.

Not sidestepping anything - you have misunderstood.

The long term benefit is there as these companies stick around for a long time and pay large amounts of VAT, NI, their employees pay PAYE etc etc. I don't understand what you mean by 'long term structural problems'.

It is no different from any other market - there is competition and the EU is trying to stifle that.

You are still sidestepping the question of why Apple won this case. What's your answer?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

Limited understanding of this here, but I think it's quite difficult for the EU to intervene on fiscal issues at the moment - sovereignty problems, innit.

I'm suggesting member states, not the EU, take action e.g. the digital revenue tax.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why do you think Apple is avoiding taxes in other countries? It was selling (exporting) its products from an Irish company to other countries in Europe Middle East and Africa. An exporter of products based in Ireland pays tax in Ireland - it does not pay tax on profits in the country where the products end up.

The countries that don't like it are the ones that don't offer a competitive tax environment for multinationals, but they can do so if they want. Instead, they try to tilt the tables so they don't have to compete. Countries like Ireland realise that companies like Apple have a choice of where to base themselves.

A few facts on the success of the Irish strategy (from Wiki):
"Ireland's rejection of the EU Commission's "windfall" in back-taxes surprised some.However, in understanding Irish decision, US-controlled multinationals are 25 of Ireland's top 50 companies; pay over 80% of all Irish corporate taxes (circa €8 billion per annum); directly employ 10 percent of the Irish labour force which rises to 23 percent when public sector, agri and finance jobs are excluded (and indirectly pay half of all Irish salary taxes); and are 57 percent of all non-farm OECD value-add in the Irish economy. In June 2018, the American–Ireland Chamber of Commerce estimated the value of US investment in Ireland was €334 billion, exceeding Irish GDP (€291 billion in 2016)."

I suppose these are the 'long term structural problems' that Rick refers to, but I'm sure Ireland would not refer to them as problems

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

Limited understanding of this here, but I think it's quite difficult for the EU to intervene on fiscal issues at the moment - sovereignty problems, innit.

I'm suggesting member states, not the EU, take action e.g. the digital revenue tax.

It's a bit like doping - unless everyone stops it everyone will just keep on doing it.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

The EU is trying to do something about it now through the OECD with their 'Pillar 1 and Pillar 2' proposals. Basically they're tilting the tables against the likes of Apple but it isn't going down too well with the US at present.

TheBigBean

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

The EU is trying to do something about it now through the OECD with their 'Pillar 1 and Pillar 2' proposals. Basically they're tilting the tables against the likes of Apple but it isn't going down too well with the US at present.

Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

Limited understanding of this here, but I think it's quite difficult for the EU to intervene on fiscal issues at the moment - sovereignty problems, innit.

I'm suggesting member states, not the EU, take action e.g. the digital revenue tax.

It's a bit like doping - unless everyone stops it everyone will just keep on doing it.

Not at all. Remember this is competition were talking about, same as any other competitve situation. Why would you want competition to stop?

Think of smaller, less advantaged countries what are struggling to attract investment.

I notice you don't try to refute the benefits for Ireland that I posted above, so we can agree that it benefits countries that do compete.

rick_chasey

Tax competition is not beneficial.

I know you're a Tax Payer's Alliance type, but most people realise a no tax state is not actually beneficial.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Tax competition is not beneficial.

I know you're a Tax Payer's Alliance type, but most people realise a no tax state is not actually beneficial.

Yes it is - look at the figures I gave you above for the beneficial impact for Ireland and their public statement about why they supported Apple in this tax case.

You seem to forget that there are countries who will try to do well for themselves. You didn't deny it worked for Ireland so you cannot expect other countries to take a different view.

rjsterry

I suppose it's been a while since we wheeled this particular merry-go-round out for a spin. Does anyone have anything new to say?

The court found in favour of Apple. I have no idea what describing a judgement as 'deserved' or 'undeserved' means in this context. It's just projecting one's own prejudices onto the decision.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

I suppose it's been a while since we wheeled this particular merry-go-round out for a spin. Does anyone have anything new to say?

The court found in favour of Apple. I have no idea what describing a judgement as 'deserved' or 'undeserved' means in this context. It's just projecting one's own prejudices onto the decision.

I said above it was deserved because Apple were in the right legally. Unlike some on here, I know there is not a set of rules that exist in parallel (aka the Rick doesn't like the answer rules)

spatt77

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

@surrey_commuter. Patrick Minford is on Newsnight tonight. Enjoy!

I am always surprised he is still alive.

Is he still advocating policies that will reduce UK manufacturing to zero.

I thought you were a fan of that?

You think I want the UK to leave the Single Market?

No I thought you were all for letting uncompetitive industries fail e.g. farming and fishing

I am all for minimal Govt interference and that would include making possibly the dumbest economic decision of all time.

In your humble opinion!

Name some worse economic decisions

In your view its a bad economic decision, I`m waiting till it all pans out before i make a decision !

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

@surrey_commuter. Patrick Minford is on Newsnight tonight. Enjoy!

I am always surprised he is still alive.

Is he still advocating policies that will reduce UK manufacturing to zero.

I thought you were a fan of that?

You think I want the UK to leave the Single Market?

No I thought you were all for letting uncompetitive industries fail e.g. farming and fishing

I am all for minimal Govt interference and that would include making possibly the dumbest economic decision of all time.

In your humble opinion!

Name some worse economic decisions

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Well deserved win for apple?

What have they deserved by paying effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014?

That must be a wet dream for people whose job it is to minimise the tax burden on companies.

Ireland willingly granted the tax treatment that led to this, so not sure what the problem is. As mentioned above, Ireland supported Apple in its successful appeal against the EU.

Because it distorts markets and a tax race to the bottom is in no-nation's interest

So why did Ireland willingly grant the tax treatment? Charity?

Also you haven't explained why it wasn't well deserved. Apple were right in the eyes of the law: who are we to say different?

I have a feeling you are going to get another page of posts where people try to 'educate' you on tax law

Another fail

A general feeling of injustice, ignorance of tax law and failure to understand the behaviour of sovereign states and multinationals isn't quite enough to carry the day - again.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

The EU is trying to do something about it now through the OECD with their 'Pillar 1 and Pillar 2' proposals. Basically they're tilting the tables against the likes of Apple but it isn't going down too well with the US at present.

Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.

Because they will lose out.

As mentioned above, it is national interests that are driving the issues here and not some naive notion that tax competition is nasty and should be stopped.

Stevo_666

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

@surrey_commuter. Patrick Minford is on Newsnight tonight. Enjoy!

I am always surprised he is still alive.

Is he still advocating policies that will reduce UK manufacturing to zero.

I thought you were a fan of that?

You think I want the UK to leave the Single Market?

No I thought you were all for letting uncompetitive industries fail e.g. farming and fishing

I am all for minimal Govt interference and that would include making possibly the dumbest economic decision of all time.

In your humble opinion!

Name some worse economic decisions

In your view its a bad economic decision, I`m waiting till it all pans out before i make a decision !

Voting Corbyn into power would have been worse. Fortunately we never got the 'European Venezuela' experience - just as well I warned people

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

The EU is trying to do something about it now through the OECD with their 'Pillar 1 and Pillar 2' proposals. Basically they're tilting the tables against the likes of Apple but it isn't going down too well with the US at present.

Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.

Because they will lose out.

As mentioned above, it is national interests that are driving the issues here and not some naive notion that tax competition is nasty and should be stopped.

Bit of both, isn't it? Tax competition within a community with various freedoms where it creates perverse incentives could be problematic.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also, let's just get the Irish government's view on this. From the BBC website today:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-53416206

"But the Irish government argued that Apple should not have to repay the back taxes, deeming that its loss was worth it to make the country an attractive home for large companies."

Basically what I said above about attracting business using tax incentives, which according to some people doesn't work...and yet there is Apple (and quite a lot of other large multinationals) with a significant chunk of their operations in based Ireland. Why could that be?

My understanding (at a simplistic level) is that the base was in Ireland purely to act as the head office for the whole of the EU (and further afield), not just for Ireland, and Apple did not pay tax to Ireland on any profits made outside Ireland. So it was using the its location in the EU to attract the head office, while not charging tax on profits made in other countries in the EU. Ireland did not lose any tax, as without that tax arrangement, the head office would not have been in Ireland. So overall, it allowed Apple to save a huge amount, while gaining Ireland a relatively small amount.

It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.

Why doesn't the rest of the EU implement tax legislation which would ensure that profits made in the rest of the EU are taxed in the appropriate place? The reason, I presume, is that it is not that easy and countries are fearful of the consequences.

For example, the UK allows warehousing, so Amazon sells everything from Luxembourg even though the product and the customer are in the UK, and it doesn't actually sell anything in Luxembourg. The UK could change the law on this.

In many areas in the EU, standards are considered equivalent when they are clearly not. This encourages firms to set up in the least regulated place, so a travel firm not wishing to comply with ATOL protection just sets up in Spain or a finance company that finds the FCA too frustrating goes to Lithuania, Malta etc. There is nothing members of the EU can do about this except lobby for higher standards in all countries. With tax, there is something they can do about it, they just don't want to.

The EU is trying to do something about it now through the OECD with their 'Pillar 1 and Pillar 2' proposals. Basically they're tilting the tables against the likes of Apple but it isn't going down too well with the US at present.

Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.

Because they will lose out.

As mentioned above, it is national interests that are driving the issues here and not some naive notion that tax competition is nasty and should be stopped.

Bit of both, isn't it? Tax competition within a community with various freedoms where it creates perverse incentives could be problematic.

I don't understand ypur point. What do you mean by 'perverse incentives' and why would these be problematic?

rick_chasey

Graham - you need to remember in Stevo’s ideal world tax is zero and everyone has to provide for their own health, fire, police, insurance etc.

Tough sh!t for the feckless and lazy.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Graham - you need to remember in Stevo’s ideal world tax is zero and everyone has to provide for their own health, fire, police, insurance etc.

Tough sh!t for the feckless and lazy.

Where do I say that?

Or is this a sign that you've run out of arguments and are now trying to deflect? I mean, you assert that tax competition is bad without providing any evidence to back it up or counter the facts I posted regarding the clear benefits to Ireand. It is not bad just because you say it is, so try making a case backed up with evidence rather than tired old cliches like 'a race to the bottom' or vague references to 'structural problems'.

rick_chasey

It’s fine Stevo, I‘m not gonna go on the merry-go-round.

That you can’t see the logical conclusion of tax competition is fine.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

It’s fine Stevo, I‘m not gonna go on the merry-go-round.

That you can’t see the logical conclusion of tax competition is fine.

There you go again, 'It's bad because I say it is, so there'

No evidence or back up for your assertions then? And no refutation of the facts that I posted. At least concede with a bit of grace...