BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
-
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?0 -
Because it doesn't tend to zero, for broadly the same reason that supermarket price wars don't end up with everyone getting free food and the supermarkets going bust.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The problem with this is that Ireland would no selling point to big business if all the other EU nations took the view that they would not allow access to Apple in their markets if this behaviour continued. The reality is that the world would probably be a better place if corporation tax was a single rate and all profits in a certain area was paid to that government and all off shoring practices were banned worldwide. Essentially if you want to sell stuff in our market then you must pay tax on the real profits. Not a lesser amount because some other entity owns your bull IP as is blatant in the case of Starbucks to give one example.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?0 -
You only talk about the benefits to Ireland, rather than the overall effect on the EU. If a company is paying lower tax overall because it has the ability to structure itself in a way that takes advantage of the tax regime in Ireland for operations outside Ireland, this has effects on competition in areas other than tax.Stevo_666 said:
I don't understand ypur point. What do you mean by 'perverse incentives' and why would these be problematic?kingstongraham said:
Bit of both, isn't it? Tax competition within a community with various freedoms where it creates perverse incentives could be problematic.Stevo_666 said:
Because they will lose out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.Stevo_666 said:
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 said:
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.kingstongraham said:
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.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?
It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.
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.
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.0 -
I'll translate that as 'I can't make a rational case for my assertions despite being given several opportunities to do that, so I'm taking my ball home'.rick_chasey said:
Just to make it clear, you also never answered why Apple won the case or why Ireland supported Apple."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you compare that to market behavior in any other competitive market (say for goods), then if you follow your logic above, as soon as a company starts offering price discounts on certain products to attract customers then the price on that product would fall to zero.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?
I think we can all see from experience in real life market situations that it is complete nonsense.
I've said above that countries are aiming to raise tax revenues and they do that by attracting investment via corporate tax incentives. In the longer term they benefit from the continuing economies presence of the businesses they attract and all the other taxes that they pay. As Ireland have done with Apple, for example."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's rather ironic that the EU is complaining about Apple/Ireland using their sacred Single Market rules against the EU.
Thankfully we are now outside and looking in
0 -
As I said above, it benefits countries that compete. Ireland is an example where I have demonstrated clearly via the economic and tax date plus Ireland's own public statements on the case that there is benefit to them from competing in this way. It is also clear from the facts that countries do compete in this way - if it was bad for them, why would they do it?kingstongraham said:
You only talk about the benefits to Ireland, rather than the overall effect on the EU. If a company is paying lower tax overall because it has the ability to structure itself in a way that takes advantage of the tax regime in Ireland for operations outside Ireland, this has effects on competition in areas other than tax.Stevo_666 said:
I don't understand ypur point. What do you mean by 'perverse incentives' and why would these be problematic?kingstongraham said:
Bit of both, isn't it? Tax competition within a community with various freedoms where it creates perverse incentives could be problematic.Stevo_666 said:
Because they will lose out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, Ireland is dragging its feet too.Stevo_666 said:
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 said:
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.kingstongraham said:
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.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?
It does allow Ireland to attract multinationals, but effectively by screwing over the rest of the EU.
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.
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.
So Rick's unsupported assertion that it is bad and needs to stop is clearly wrong.
I've not made a case for whether it benefits the EU (or any other subset of nations) overall because decisions on tax and revenue raising are national decisions (well they are currently) as is the question on whether and how to compete.
Given the benefits above, it's self evident that there are benefits for countries that compete. Same as in other markets where companies compete to sell goods and services - those that make the effort to compete are more likely to do well. It's up to governments to decide whether and to what extent they do compete, but trying to tilt the tables is effectively cheating. What Rick and you seem to be proposing is some sort of cosy cartel between countries where governments conspire to keep prices high. In any commercial market that is illegal and subject to massive fines. Yet somehow it's OK here - that doesn't wash with me. Nor with countries, many of which clearly do compete in this way."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What's ironic is Brexiteers celebrating small member states having recourse to the ECJ
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It does tend towards farmers selling milk for less than it costs to produce though?rjsterry said:
Because it doesn't tend to zero, for broadly the same reason that supermarket price wars don't end up with everyone getting free food and the supermarkets going bust.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?0 -
You have heard of the EU?0
-
Whilst dancing on a pinhead to avoid acknowledging they have landed Apples regional HQ because of their EU membershiptailwindhome said:What's ironic is Brexiteers celebrating small member states having recourse to the ECJ
0 -
rjsterry said:
Because it doesn't tend to zero, for broadly the same reason that supermarket price wars don't end up with everyone getting free food and the supermarkets going bust.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?
This was more like one small shop selling a discount card which the supermarkets have to accept, then keeping the proceeds from selling the card.
0 -
Who is doing that?tailwindhome said:What's ironic is Brexiteers celebrating small member states having recourse to the ECJ
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why did Apple choose Ireland over other EU member States?surrey_commuter said:
Whilst dancing on a pinhead to avoid acknowledging they have landed Apples regional HQ because of their EU membershiptailwindhome said:What's ironic is Brexiteers celebrating small member states having recourse to the ECJ
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They are in charge of ensuring a level playing field. Not allowing state aid is part of that. They are the "cosy cartel" you are talking about.Stevo_666 said:
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
Seems reasonable to try to ensure some degree of level playing field within the EU, and to try to stop countries taking the proverbial.0 -
People have the weirdest understanding of what tax is.
Governments are not companies, and they are not in a marketplace for good or services.0 -
State aid is only small part of the tax puzzle. It is not necessarily in itself tax relief.kingstongraham said:
They are in charge of ensuring a level playing field. Not allowing state aid is part of that. They are the "cosy cartel" you are talking about.Stevo_666 said:
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
Seems reasonable to try to ensure some degree of level playing field within the EU, and to try to stop countries taking the proverbial.
In this case the court decided that there was no illegal state aid, so your point is what?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It can be argued that they provide services and levy a fee.rick_chasey said:People have the weirdest understanding of what tax is.
Governments are not companies, and they are not in a marketplace for good or services.
In any event, tax competition between governments/nations does happen as I have demonstrated above. This is regardless of whether you think this is a special case."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
My point is as quoted above, replying to you accusing me of wanting to start a "cosy cartel between countries".Stevo_666 said:
State aid is only small part of the tax puzzle. It is not necessarily in itself tax relief.kingstongraham said:
They are in charge of ensuring a level playing field. Not allowing state aid is part of that. They are the "cosy cartel" you are talking about.Stevo_666 said:
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
Seems reasonable to try to ensure some degree of level playing field within the EU, and to try to stop countries taking the proverbial.
In this case the court decided that there was no illegal state aid, so your point is what?
The fact that the court decided that there was no illegal state aid in this case could be why the EU is looking to change things to stop countries distorting markets in other EU countries. I understand that you disagree with that.0 -
That argument would be wrong.Stevo_666 said:
It can be argued that they provide services and levy a fee.rick_chasey said:People have the weirdest understanding of what tax is.
Governments are not companies, and they are not in a marketplace for good or services.
In any event, tax competition between governments/nations does happen as I have demonstrated above. This is regardless of whether you think this is a special case.0 -
The EU has no jurisdiction over Corporate tax rates but somehow is increasing its scope to control them...kingstongraham said:
My point is as quoted above, replying to you accusing me of wanting to start a "cosy cartel between countries".Stevo_666 said:
State aid is only small part of the tax puzzle. It is not necessarily in itself tax relief.kingstongraham said:
They are in charge of ensuring a level playing field. Not allowing state aid is part of that. They are the "cosy cartel" you are talking about.Stevo_666 said:
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
Seems reasonable to try to ensure some degree of level playing field within the EU, and to try to stop countries taking the proverbial.
In this case the court decided that there was no illegal state aid, so your point is what?
The fact that the court decided that there was no illegal state aid in this case could be why the EU is looking to change things to stop countries distorting markets in other EU countries. I understand that you disagree with that.
Remainers said this would never happen because of veto's. They were lying. I suspect remainers will now try and re-write history so hide that they were said this.0 -
Can I just repeat that the argument is about profit shifting not tax. The Irish government can tax Irish profits however it likes without distorting the single market.0
-
Not paying that much attention to any of the detail any more to be honest, as we aren't in the EU.
If it's overreach by the commission, surely they will lose again in the court.0 -
Not sure I quite follow your metaphor, but I used supermarkets as they do engage in undercutting to win customers, but this is usually fairly short-lived as they can't afford to maintain the lower price. Instead things tend to right themselves over time, and supermarkets rely on people not bothering to move. Similarly it's a hassle to move your EU HQ once it's established.kingstongraham said:rjsterry said:
Because it doesn't tend to zero, for broadly the same reason that supermarket price wars don't end up with everyone getting free food and the supermarkets going bust.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?
This was more like one small shop selling a discount card which the supermarkets have to accept, then keeping the proceeds from selling the card.
The EU has tried one avenue on this. That didn't work so they'll try another. People will grumble about further federalisation, but I doubt any other EU member will try to undercut Ireland and the world will continue to turn.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What I meant is that it seems as though Ireland have successfully inserted themselves into the process with their main offering being a reduced tax bill for the company.rjsterry said:
Not sure I quite follow your metaphor, but I used supermarkets as they do engage in undercutting to win customers, but this is usually fairly short-lived as they can't afford to maintain the lower price. Instead things tend to right themselves over time, and supermarkets rely on people not bothering to move. Similarly it's a hassle to move your EU HQ once it's established.kingstongraham said:rjsterry said:
Because it doesn't tend to zero, for broadly the same reason that supermarket price wars don't end up with everyone getting free food and the supermarkets going bust.rick_chasey said:
No.rjsterry said:
If you are suggesting that the logical conclusion is zero tax, then I think you need to demonstrate how that would work. Governments need revenue to invest in all the other things that large businesses need when choosing a home.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.
Obviously not.
How can I make this clear.
If x nation starts offering tax discounts to corporations, other nations, will start offering bigger discounts to attract those and so on and so forth until there is no tax taken at all.
That is not beneficial to anyone apart from the specific company.
How is this not obvious?
This was more like one small shop selling a discount card which the supermarkets have to accept, then keeping the proceeds from selling the card.
The EU has tried one avenue on this. That didn't work so they'll try another. People will grumble about further federalisation, but I doubt any other EU member will try to undercut Ireland and the world will continue to turn.
That's why it's good for Ireland, and good for the company.0 -
Or rather some of us remainers are just not that worried about federalisation.coopster_the_1st said:
The EU has no jurisdiction over Corporate tax rates but somehow is increasing its scope to control them...kingstongraham said:
My point is as quoted above, replying to you accusing me of wanting to start a "cosy cartel between countries".Stevo_666 said:
State aid is only small part of the tax puzzle. It is not necessarily in itself tax relief.kingstongraham said:
They are in charge of ensuring a level playing field. Not allowing state aid is part of that. They are the "cosy cartel" you are talking about.Stevo_666 said:
Me? Yes, but the EU is not responsible for levying or collecting these taxes, so how are they relevant to the points I am making above?kingstongraham said:You have heard of the EU?
Seems reasonable to try to ensure some degree of level playing field within the EU, and to try to stop countries taking the proverbial.
In this case the court decided that there was no illegal state aid, so your point is what?
The fact that the court decided that there was no illegal state aid in this case could be why the EU is looking to change things to stop countries distorting markets in other EU countries. I understand that you disagree with that.
Remainers said this would never happen because of veto's. They were lying. I suspect remainers will now try and re-write history so hide that they were said this.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
