Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the EU has now set a minimum limit for corporation tax, 15%. This means that some of the smaller countries will have to increase their corporation tax rate, making them less attractive to investors. It also means that the bigger, more well established countries have less competition and can keep hold of their tax income, without having to worry about companies moving to cheaper places. I'm not sure how that gets classed as 'tax fairness'." Is that so? How is it explained in the article? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the EU has now set a minimum limit for corporation tax, 15%. This means that some of the smaller countries will have to increase their corporation tax rate, making them less attractive to investors. It also means that the bigger, more well established countries have less competition and can keep hold of their tax income, without having to worry about companies moving to cheaper places. I'm not sure how that gets classed as 'tax fairness'." "Is that so? How is it explained in the article?" Well the article uses a lot more words, and gives more detail, but basically it says that 'pillar 2' has finally been scheduled for implementation, and that 'pillar 2' is all about setting a minimum 15% corporation tax rate for large companies. This means that Ireland will now have to increase its corporation tax rate, making it less attractive to foreign investors. Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in what I've said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the EU has now set a minimum limit for corporation tax, 15%. This means that some of the smaller countries will have to increase their corporation tax rate, making them less attractive to investors. It also means that the bigger, more well established countries have less competition and can keep hold of their tax income, without having to worry about companies moving to cheaper places. I'm not sure how that gets classed as 'tax fairness'. Is that so? How is it explained in the article? Well the article uses a lot more words, and gives more detail, but basically it says that 'pillar 2' has finally been scheduled for implementation, and that 'pillar 2' is all about setting a minimum 15% corporation tax rate for large companies. This means that Ireland will now have to increase its corporation tax rate, making it less attractive to foreign investors. Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in what I've said. " You didn't want to read all of the words then? Just the numbers and fill in the gaps yourself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the EU has now set a minimum limit for corporation tax, 15%. This means that some of the smaller countries will have to increase their corporation tax rate, making them less attractive to investors. It also means that the bigger, more well established countries have less competition and can keep hold of their tax income, without having to worry about companies moving to cheaper places. I'm not sure how that gets classed as 'tax fairness'." "Is that so? How is it explained in the article?" "Well the article uses a lot more words, and gives more detail, but basically it says that 'pillar 2' has finally been scheduled for implementation, and that 'pillar 2' is all about setting a minimum 15% corporation tax rate for large companies. This means that Ireland will now have to increase its corporation tax rate, making it less attractive to foreign investors. Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in what I've said." "You didn't want to read all of the words then? Just the numbers and fill in the gaps yourself?" I did indeed read all the words. Would you like to explain what I've got wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't this come up a couple of years ago when Rishi was chancellor. I think it was a wider scale than just EU and some sort of deal was struck. Back then Ireland came up, I think because it is said that Ireland are very attractive to big companies to pay their corporation tax there. Maybe it was a different tax but seems very familiar" based on the article it's being driven by OCED. The EU are bringing part (pillar 2) into law. Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't this come up a couple of years ago when Rishi was chancellor. I think it was a wider scale than just EU and some sort of deal was struck. Back then Ireland came up, I think because it is said that Ireland are very attractive to big companies to pay their corporation tax there. Maybe it was a different tax but seems very familiarbased on the article it's being driven by OCED. The EU are bringing part (pillar 2) into law. Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. " It's funny how much you learn if you read something through rather than drawing a conclusion before you've started. I wish that happened a bit more frequently on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. " I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland." typo. Pillar 1. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't this come up a couple of years ago when Rishi was chancellor. I think it was a wider scale than just EU and some sort of deal was struck. Back then Ireland came up, I think because it is said that Ireland are very attractive to big companies to pay their corporation tax there. Maybe it was a different tax but seems very familiarbased on the article it's being driven by OCED. The EU are bringing part (pillar 2) into law. Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. It's funny how much you learn if you read something through rather than drawing a conclusion before you've started. I wish that happened a bit more frequently on here." thanks. Although I am confused with what you are calling the other poster out on. He doesn't seem to be making any factual errors so I can only guess it's to do with the conclusion he draws on fairness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland." So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the EU has now set a minimum limit for corporation tax, 15%. This means that some of the smaller countries will have to increase their corporation tax rate, making them less attractive to investors. It also means that the bigger, more well established countries have less competition and can keep hold of their tax income, without having to worry about companies moving to cheaper places. I'm not sure how that gets classed as 'tax fairness'. Is that so? How is it explained in the article? Well the article uses a lot more words, and gives more detail, but basically it says that 'pillar 2' has finally been scheduled for implementation, and that 'pillar 2' is all about setting a minimum 15% corporation tax rate for large companies. This means that Ireland will now have to increase its corporation tax rate, making it less attractive to foreign investors. Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in what I've said. You didn't want to read all of the words then? Just the numbers and fill in the gaps yourself? I did indeed read all the words. Would you like to explain what I've got wrong?" Perhaps you just need to read it again, more thoroughly? What are the upsides of not allowing a global company to pay its taxes in a low tax jurisdiction? What are the downsides? With the Pillar II rule, what makes a small EU country less attractive than any other as a European HQ? Have any countries moved global HQs to any EU country for a tax advantage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much" That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland." In that case, what's the problem for those smaller countries? How is it different to the current situation except that they raise more tax? Your initial point is invalid, isn't it? They just won't be competing to earn less in tax revenue. All EU countries will also be able to raise tax on countries operating within their borders who pay lower tax wherever they are headquartered. Why is that bad? Will Amazon no longer wish to sell in Germany? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much" If Amazon only pay 10% where they are headquartered then Germany could charge them 5% on whatever they earn in Germany. That will also, make domestic companies relatively more competitive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. " Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway." Why would a company based in Ireland move to another EU state of they have to pay 15% tax or more anyway? Why would Ireland be upset to earn more tax revenue? I can't really think of a reason... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much If Amazon only pay 10% where they are headquartered then Germany could charge them 5% on whatever they earn in Germany. That will also, make domestic companies relatively more competitive." . It hardly helps the consumer who is buying goods if a company has to increase prices because they are required to pay extra taxes . Amazon have revolutised shopping and made prompt delivery a lot easier. No rational person wants this concept damaged by additional taxes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway. Why would a company based in Ireland move to another EU state of they have to pay 15% tax or more anyway? Why would Ireland be upset to earn more tax revenue? I can't really think of a reason..." I did not say that an existing business would move from Ireland to another EU state. In fact I said it should not affect existing business. I was saying after, that I assume that if they were not happy (for whatever reason, valid or not) they could veto it. That's just my assumption about the veto. Maybe in this instance they cannot use the veto. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much If Amazon only pay 10% where they are headquartered then Germany could charge them 5% on whatever they earn in Germany. That will also, make domestic companies relatively more competitive.. It hardly helps the consumer who is buying goods if a company has to increase prices because they are required to pay extra taxes . Amazon have revolutised shopping and made prompt delivery a lot easier. No rational person wants this concept damaged by additional taxes. " Does omit help the citizen who has more money available to spend on education, healthcare, defence and other public services? How are our high streets doing as a consequence of this revolution which sees physical shops having to pay business rates and online retailers who can lower their prices by avoiding tax? No rational person wants to see small businesses closed down and our city and town centres hollowed out for out of town warehouses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway. Why would a company based in Ireland move to another EU state of they have to pay 15% tax or more anyway? Why would Ireland be upset to earn more tax revenue? I can't really think of a reason... I did not say that an existing business would move from Ireland to another EU state. In fact I said it should not affect existing business. I was saying after, that I assume that if they were not happy (for whatever reason, valid or not) they could veto it. That's just my assumption about the veto. Maybe in this instance they cannot use the veto." You were pondering about the fact that they might be upset. I couldn't think of a reason either but posed the benefits as a question in case you came up with something. They can use the veto. That was covered extensively in the article. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much If Amazon only pay 10% where they are headquartered then Germany could charge them 5% on whatever they earn in Germany. That will also, make domestic companies relatively more competitive.. It hardly helps the consumer who is buying goods if a company has to increase prices because they are required to pay extra taxes . Amazon have revolutised shopping and made prompt delivery a lot easier. No rational person wants this concept damaged by additional taxes. Does omit help the citizen who has more money available to spend on education, healthcare, defence and other public services? How are our high streets doing as a consequence of this revolution which sees physical shops having to pay business rates and online retailers who can lower their prices by avoiding tax? No rational person wants to see small businesses closed down and our city and town centres hollowed out for out of town warehouses." . It is called progress and adapting to changing circumstances. I cannot see any of the companies who lease vans to Amazon complaining. What about all the companies providing warehouses and technology companies providing the infrastructure or hauliers delivering to their depots. Amazon have revolutionised shopping and provide a top quality servive . Recently I needed some goods urgently at a house . I was able to log on late at night , order the goods and have them delivered next day. The first delivery arrive at mid day . Technology saved me having to jump in the car and buy these goods myself. Ten minutes on line and my order was complete . A four hour car journey was avoided. Life moves on . By structuring their operations in the most efficient manner possible and ensuring that they pay as little tax as possible the end user , the consumer gets great value for money. Everyone is allowed to share in Amazons success. They are quoted on the US stock exchange. I do not see many small local businneses wanting to share their profits with the consumer. At least Amazon is owned by the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much If Amazon only pay 10% where they are headquartered then Germany could charge them 5% on whatever they earn in Germany. That will also, make domestic companies relatively more competitive.. It hardly helps the consumer who is buying goods if a company has to increase prices because they are required to pay extra taxes . Amazon have revolutised shopping and made prompt delivery a lot easier. No rational person wants this concept damaged by additional taxes. Does omit help the citizen who has more money available to spend on education, healthcare, defence and other public services? How are our high streets doing as a consequence of this revolution which sees physical shops having to pay business rates and online retailers who can lower their prices by avoiding tax? No rational person wants to see small businesses closed down and our city and town centres hollowed out for out of town warehouses.. It is called progress and adapting to changing circumstances. I cannot see any of the companies who lease vans to Amazon complaining. What about all the companies providing warehouses and technology companies providing the infrastructure or hauliers delivering to their depots. Amazon have revolutionised shopping and provide a top quality servive . Recently I needed some goods urgently at a house . I was able to log on late at night , order the goods and have them delivered next day. The first delivery arrive at mid day . Technology saved me having to jump in the car and buy these goods myself. Ten minutes on line and my order was complete . A four hour car journey was avoided. Life moves on . By structuring their operations in the most efficient manner possible and ensuring that they pay as little tax as possible the end user , the consumer gets great value for money. Everyone is allowed to share in Amazons success. They are quoted on the US stock exchange. I do not see many small local businneses wanting to share their profits with the consumer. At least Amazon is owned by the people. " I believe that it's good that Amazon pays more tax towards our public services reducing levelling the competition with our own domestic businesses run by British people for their own benefit and pride rather than for a huge foreign company. Bit of a little Englander me, whilst you persue a dream of enriching big corporations. Who am I to dissuade you, Pat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With the Pillar II rule, what makes a small EU country less attractive than any other as a European HQ?" Well, that's my point, with Pillar 2 countries can't make themselves more attractive. Without Pillar 2, a country can set a corporation tax level that's lower than all the other countries, making it a more attractive place to base an HQ. Companies like paying less tax, so a lower corporation tax regime is an attractive thing for them. "Have any countries moved global HQs to any EU country for a tax advantage?" Are you kidding? Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Oracle all have their HQ in Ireland, along with a vast number of other international companies. I'm sure you've read up on the "Celtic Tiger" - the massive expansion in Ireland's economy after they reduced the corporation tax rate from 36% to 12.5%. That's the sort of advantage that Pillar 2 is now taking away from the smaller EU nations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With the Pillar II rule, what makes a small EU country less attractive than any other as a European HQ? Well, that's my point, with Pillar 2 countries can't make themselves more attractive. Without Pillar 2, a country can set a corporation tax level that's lower than all the other countries, making it a more attractive place to base an HQ. Companies like paying less tax, so a lower corporation tax regime is an attractive thing for them. Have any countries moved global HQs to any EU country for a tax advantage? Are you kidding? Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Oracle all have their HQ in Ireland, along with a vast number of other international companies. I'm sure you've read up on the "Celtic Tiger" - the massive expansion in Ireland's economy after they reduced the corporation tax rate from 36% to 12.5%. That's the sort of advantage that Pillar 2 is now taking away from the smaller EU nations." Do you know what you are writing? Ireland is the EUROPEAN HQ for these companies NOT global as they prefer to base those in offshore tax havens. 15% I'd the floor for taxation. That means the minimum tax that these companies can now pay within the EU. That means that Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries without them threatening to move or trying to set up a complicated dodge (although they will no doubt try). I'm sure you are aware of how the "Celtic Tiger" was devastated in 2008 and had to endure levels of negative equity and austerity far harder than we have. Although they managed to come out of it with a well paid motivated public sector and services. I am sure that you are also aware that with a much smaller physical country and population they require only a few large companies to be headquartered there to pay for a large chunk of their public services. That is why small countries can function with much lower corporate tax rates. I have no idea why people find that so hard to grasp. However, to be clear, why does a smaller EU country need a corporation tax advantage to attract these companies? They all have access to the same huge market under the same rules? They still charge lower taxes than many other EU countries. The article talks about a "race to the bottom" on tax. Well that is now stopped. The "bottom" is defied as 15% so the population benefits from more money to spend on public services. How awful! They can now compete more on other things that the population can benefit from like improved education, roads, internet connectivity etc. Also awful for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15% I'd the floor for taxation. That means the minimum tax that these companies can now pay within the EU. That means that Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries without them threatening to move or trying to set up a complicated dodge (although they will no doubt try)." Where you wrote "Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries", I suspect you meant 'companies', but what you actually wrote is more truthful. Ireland will now be forced to increase its corporation tax rate, and take more money. Some of that money will have been earned in Eastern Europe, but it will all go into the Irish government coffers. Does that sound fair? I suspect that you like this idea because it means that big companies will pay more taxes, but you don't seem to have thought beyond that point. "The "bottom" is defied as 15% so the population benefits from more money to spend on public services. How awful! They can now compete more on other things that the population can benefit from like improved education, roads, internet connectivity etc. Also awful for them." Well, for the populace of Ireland, this will be a great thing. For the rest of Europe, not so much. All those big companies now have to pay more tax, so they'll increase their prices. People all over Europe will be paying higher prices, so that Ireland can collect more tax. How exactly is that 'fair'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway. Why would a company based in Ireland move to another EU state of they have to pay 15% tax or more anyway? Why would Ireland be upset to earn more tax revenue? I can't really think of a reason... I did not say that an existing business would move from Ireland to another EU state. In fact I said it should not affect existing business. I was saying after, that I assume that if they were not happy (for whatever reason, valid or not) they could veto it. That's just my assumption about the veto. Maybe in this instance they cannot use the veto. You were pondering about the fact that they might be upset. I couldn't think of a reason either but posed the benefits as a question in case you came up with something. They can use the veto. That was covered extensively in the article." Ok I did not know the reasons for your questions and they seemed odd given what i had previously said (I don't think it will affect existing business and it seems sensible). As it turns out apparently Ireland, Hungary,Estonia and Poland have all opposed this at some point though not sure of the reasons but it would seem maybe there are some reasons for concern. Hopefully they have been addressed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pillar 2 is the interesting one as it's the one that covers moving profits about ala Amazon. I'm going to disagree. Pillar 1 is the interesting one, as it deals with a "new system of allocating taxing rights over the largest multinationals to jurisdictions where profits are earned". Pillar 2 just sets a minimum rate of 15%. It also specifies that profits must be paid by the 'primary European location'. That means that a company can set up headquarters in a 15% country, and legally divert all of their EU profits to that country. So instead of paying 30% in Germany, they can pay half that in Ireland. So does pillar 1 mean that if I buy something on Amazon then a percentage of the profit goes to the UK government (assuming we sign up) as opposed to just being paid to wherever the company is based? I think that's how I understood it from before. Just seen that Hungary is even lower than Ireland though not sure if that's benefited them much That's my reading too. Ireland has a balance of low tax and financial and policial stability. I'd need a lot more reward to take the risk of basing my company in Hungary. I'd likely be ambivolent between Ireland, UK and Germany as examples. Well it seems quite sensible and long overdue. As Ireland are not far away from the 15% I assume it won't affect them to much for existing businesses at least. If they or any of the other low tax countries were not happy with this change then I assume they could just veto it anyway. Why would a company based in Ireland move to another EU state of they have to pay 15% tax or more anyway? Why would Ireland be upset to earn more tax revenue? I can't really think of a reason... I did not say that an existing business would move from Ireland to another EU state. In fact I said it should not affect existing business. I was saying after, that I assume that if they were not happy (for whatever reason, valid or not) they could veto it. That's just my assumption about the veto. Maybe in this instance they cannot use the veto. You were pondering about the fact that they might be upset. I couldn't think of a reason either but posed the benefits as a question in case you came up with something. They can use the veto. That was covered extensively in the article. Ok I did not know the reasons for your questions and they seemed odd given what i had previously said (I don't think it will affect existing business and it seems sensible). As it turns out apparently Ireland, Hungary,Estonia and Poland have all opposed this at some point though not sure of the reasons but it would seem maybe there are some reasons for concern. Hopefully they have been addressed " I'm agreeing with you. I was asking if you had a sense of these "concerns" were. You don't. From the article and the general dynamics of the EU, Poland and Hungary were trying to link this to unrelated matters as a bargaining ploy and not particularly concerned about the change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15% I'd the floor for taxation. That means the minimum tax that these companies can now pay within the EU. That means that Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries without them threatening to move or trying to set up a complicated dodge (although they will no doubt try). Where you wrote "Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries", I suspect you meant 'companies', but what you actually wrote is more truthful. Ireland will now be forced to increase its corporation tax rate, and take more money. Some of that money will have been earned in Eastern Europe, but it will all go into the Irish government coffers. Does that sound fair? I suspect that you like this idea because it means that big companies will pay more taxes, but you don't seem to have thought beyond that point. The "bottom" is defied as 15% so the population benefits from more money to spend on public services. How awful! They can now compete more on other things that the population can benefit from like improved education, roads, internet connectivity etc. Also awful for them. Well, for the populace of Ireland, this will be a great thing. For the rest of Europe, not so much. All those big companies now have to pay more tax, so they'll increase their prices. People all over Europe will be paying higher prices, so that Ireland can collect more tax. How exactly is that 'fair'?" What logic are you following? Did you read the article? This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. These companies would then have a better opportunity to grow and provide increased competition, which overall tends to reduce prices. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea and are the one who hasn't thought very hard? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs." Revenue and profits are different things. 'Revenue' is the money that comes into a company through its business activities. 'Profit' is the money that's left after paying all the costs (materials, salaries, energy, equipment, etc.). As the recent examination of Twitter has shown, it's entirely possible to bring in €750m, and yet have costs so high that you make no profit at all. "They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to." Putting words in capitals doesn't make them more persuasive you know. Yes, they would be choosing to increase their prices. They are extremely unlikely to just accept higher tax and reduced profits, especially when they can just bump up prices and honestly blame the EU for it. "If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent ..." You've lost me there. If they increased their prices, that would maintain (or increase) profits. They'd only reduce profits if they didn't increase prices. "... they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same." Not in those countries where the corporation tax will have to rise to the new 15% minimum. "So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea" I can see that you like the idea purely because it means that big companies might have to pay more tax. That's the only point you have made so far. I've asked several times how you think that restricting countries economic options is 'fair', and you haven't answered. I've asked why you think that sending all EU revenues to the country where the HQ is sited is 'fair', and you haven't answered. Let's take a specific example. Apple is sited in Ireland. They will soon have to pay more corporation tax when the Irish government is forced to increase its corporation tax rate to 15%. No sane person thinks that they will reduce their profits accordingly, they will instead increase prices. That means that a person in Hungary is now going to have to pay more money for their new iPhone, with that extra money flowing through Apple to the Irish government. How is that 'fair'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15% I'd the floor for taxation. That means the minimum tax that these companies can now pay within the EU. That means that Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries without them threatening to move or trying to set up a complicated dodge (although they will no doubt try). Where you wrote "Ireland will now earn more from all of these countries", I suspect you meant 'companies', but what you actually wrote is more truthful. Ireland will now be forced to increase its corporation tax rate, and take more money. Some of that money will have been earned in Eastern Europe, but it will all go into the Irish government coffers. Does that sound fair? I suspect that you like this idea because it means that big companies will pay more taxes, but you don't seem to have thought beyond that point. The "bottom" is defied as 15% so the population benefits from more money to spend on public services. How awful! They can now compete more on other things that the population can benefit from like improved education, roads, internet connectivity etc. Also awful for them. Well, for the populace of Ireland, this will be a great thing. For the rest of Europe, not so much. All those big companies now have to pay more tax, so they'll increase their prices. People all over Europe will be paying higher prices, so that Ireland can collect more tax. How exactly is that 'fair'? What logic are you following? Did you read the article? This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. These companies would then have a better opportunity to grow and provide increased competition, which overall tends to reduce prices. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea and are the one who hasn't thought very hard?" . Maybe you need to analyse Amazons operating margin in a little more detail before you state that they are making hugh profits which in any event is a raher meaningless term. Last time I checked the margin was around 8 % which is not exactly high. It leaves little room for error in pricing calculations . In the overall scheme of things a turnover of £750 million is minute for a multi national company. Amazon is a company owned by the people ( some will hold shares directly, others indirectly) . We should all aim to share in the success of Anaxmzin. Increasing Corporation tax on their profits is hardly going to help the consumer. We should be awarding success, not attempting to penalise it. Like most people I will not be supporting any attempts to have either the value of my pension fund or income decreased . Life has moved on. Amazon provide a fantastic servive and can fund the investment necessary in the supporting IT structure. It is difficult to see how increased taxes can help anyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. Revenue and profits are different things. 'Revenue' is the money that comes into a company through its business activities. 'Profit' is the money that's left after paying all the costs (materials, salaries, energy, equipment, etc.). As the recent examination of Twitter has shown, it's entirely possible to bring in €750m, and yet have costs so high that you make no profit at all. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. Putting words in capitals doesn't make them more persuasive you know. Yes, they would be choosing to increase their prices. They are extremely unlikely to just accept higher tax and reduced profits, especially when they can just bump up prices and honestly blame the EU for it. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent ... You've lost me there. If they increased their prices, that would maintain (or increase) profits. They'd only reduce profits if they didn't increase prices. ... they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. Not in those countries where the corporation tax will have to rise to the new 15% minimum. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea I can see that you like the idea purely because it means that big companies might have to pay more tax. That's the only point you have made so far. I've asked several times how you think that restricting countries economic options is 'fair', and you haven't answered. I've asked why you think that sending all EU revenues to the country where the HQ is sited is 'fair', and you haven't answered. Let's take a specific example. Apple is sited in Ireland. They will soon have to pay more corporation tax when the Irish government is forced to increase its corporation tax rate to 15%. No sane person thinks that they will reduce their profits accordingly, they will instead increase prices. That means that a person in Hungary is now going to have to pay more money for their new iPhone, with that extra money flowing through Apple to the Irish government. How is that 'fair'?" If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever and end up on some form of medication.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. Revenue and profits are different things. 'Revenue' is the money that comes into a company through its business activities. 'Profit' is the money that's left after paying all the costs (materials, salaries, energy, equipment, etc.). As the recent examination of Twitter has shown, it's entirely possible to bring in €750m, and yet have costs so high that you make no profit at all. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. Putting words in capitals doesn't make them more persuasive you know. Yes, they would be choosing to increase their prices. They are extremely unlikely to just accept higher tax and reduced profits, especially when they can just bump up prices and honestly blame the EU for it. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent ... You've lost me there. If they increased their prices, that would maintain (or increase) profits. They'd only reduce profits if they didn't increase prices. ... they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. Not in those countries where the corporation tax will have to rise to the new 15% minimum. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea I can see that you like the idea purely because it means that big companies might have to pay more tax. That's the only point you have made so far. I've asked several times how you think that restricting countries economic options is 'fair', and you haven't answered. I've asked why you think that sending all EU revenues to the country where the HQ is sited is 'fair', and you haven't answered. Let's take a specific example. Apple is sited in Ireland. They will soon have to pay more corporation tax when the Irish government is forced to increase its corporation tax rate to 15%. No sane person thinks that they will reduce their profits accordingly, they will instead increase prices. That means that a person in Hungary is now going to have to pay more money for their new iPhone, with that extra money flowing through Apple to the Irish government. How is that 'fair'?" Well done. Revenue does not equal profit. However, just by way of example; Microsoft's Microsoft annual gross profit for 2022 was $135.62B. If a company is not making profit it pays no tax. Twitter makes no profit. This is true. Amazon makes almost none in the UK, apparently. This is less a true representation of reality. You haven't actually read and understood the article and the law have you? CAPS are emphasis. How would you do it? You are quite correct. Typo whilst interrupted. It should read: "If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices to maintain their PROFITS ..." So the CAPS did their job as you were able to follow. What do you think this phrase means? "This top-up tax will be collected by the EU country in which the parent company is ultimately located." Do you actually understand why these companies locate their regional HQs in low tax jurisdictions? Why has Ireland so many EU HQs located there if they pay all their taxes in each of the countries that they are located in anyway? I am delighted that huge companies that make huge profits have to pay the same in tax as the a domestic company without being able to pretend that they have got to pay a "license" fee to themselves in an offshore territory. I also like very much that companies pay appropriately towards the infrastructure and social systems that directly benefit their ability to make their huge PROFITS. I'm quite happy for bigger companies to pay more tax. Just as we do through income tax. I like fairness. Again, you understand how competition and a free market works, right? Why does someone in Hungary have to buy an iPhone? If Apple chooses to raise its prices and Samsung chooses not to then Apple's phone becomes less competitive and Samsung's become more attractive. However, you feel that however much money a company pays they will always pass on a corporation tax increase completely to the consumer. You are wrong. Look it up. You are just the sort of person these companies love. Believing that there is nothing to be done. Countries have to allow global companies to dictate the rules of the game. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. Revenue and profits are different things. 'Revenue' is the money that comes into a company through its business activities. 'Profit' is the money that's left after paying all the costs (materials, salaries, energy, equipment, etc.). As the recent examination of Twitter has shown, it's entirely possible to bring in €750m, and yet have costs so high that you make no profit at all. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. Putting words in capitals doesn't make them more persuasive you know. Yes, they would be choosing to increase their prices. They are extremely unlikely to just accept higher tax and reduced profits, especially when they can just bump up prices and honestly blame the EU for it. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent ... You've lost me there. If they increased their prices, that would maintain (or increase) profits. They'd only reduce profits if they didn't increase prices. ... they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. Not in those countries where the corporation tax will have to rise to the new 15% minimum. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea I can see that you like the idea purely because it means that big companies might have to pay more tax. That's the only point you have made so far. I've asked several times how you think that restricting countries economic options is 'fair', and you haven't answered. I've asked why you think that sending all EU revenues to the country where the HQ is sited is 'fair', and you haven't answered. Let's take a specific example. Apple is sited in Ireland. They will soon have to pay more corporation tax when the Irish government is forced to increase its corporation tax rate to 15%. No sane person thinks that they will reduce their profits accordingly, they will instead increase prices. That means that a person in Hungary is now going to have to pay more money for their new iPhone, with that extra money flowing through Apple to the Irish government. How is that 'fair'? If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever and end up on some form of medication. "If I needed to be told the difference between revenue and profit I wouldn't have started the discussion. The revenue figure defines the size of company that this tax can be applied to. Thank you for your contribution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This only applies to companies making over €750m in global revenue. These companies are making huge PROFITS. That means significantly more than costs. Revenue and profits are different things. 'Revenue' is the money that comes into a company through its business activities. 'Profit' is the money that's left after paying all the costs (materials, salaries, energy, equipment, etc.). As the recent examination of Twitter has shown, it's entirely possible to bring in €750m, and yet have costs so high that you make no profit at all. They would be CHOOSING to increase their prices. They do not HAVE to. Putting words in capitals doesn't make them more persuasive you know. Yes, they would be choosing to increase their prices. They are extremely unlikely to just accept higher tax and reduced profits, especially when they can just bump up prices and honestly blame the EU for it. If they do CHOOSE to increase their prices and REDUCE their PROFITS by a few percent ... You've lost me there. If they increased their prices, that would maintain (or increase) profits. They'd only reduce profits if they didn't increase prices. ... they will be less competitive compared to their smaller competitors whose tax will remain the same. Not in those countries where the corporation tax will have to rise to the new 15% minimum. So, perhaps you have no idea why I like this idea I can see that you like the idea purely because it means that big companies might have to pay more tax. That's the only point you have made so far. I've asked several times how you think that restricting countries economic options is 'fair', and you haven't answered. I've asked why you think that sending all EU revenues to the country where the HQ is sited is 'fair', and you haven't answered. Let's take a specific example. Apple is sited in Ireland. They will soon have to pay more corporation tax when the Irish government is forced to increase its corporation tax rate to 15%. No sane person thinks that they will reduce their profits accordingly, they will instead increase prices. That means that a person in Hungary is now going to have to pay more money for their new iPhone, with that extra money flowing through Apple to the Irish government. How is that 'fair'? If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever and end up on some form of medication.
If I needed to be told the difference between revenue and profit I wouldn't have started the discussion.
The revenue figure defines the size of company that this tax can be applied to.
Thank you for your contribution."You are very welcome, be nice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I check my understanding. Where a country can apply a top up, that's only where the third party country has a tax less than 15pc. Eg non EU. So for the Amazon example, Ireland is now 15pc. And if do a blanket corp tax inc then all doemstic Irish cos are paying more. But other countries in the EU where Amazon operate don't get more tax. However their domestic companies may benefit if Amazon increase prices to maintain profit. The local companies either gain share or increase margin or a bit of both. (I guess there may be second order tax revenue from that)" Only Irish companies with a global revenue of over €750m would have to pay 15%. Smaller companies are unaffected it seems, so they are only going after very large companies. Increased Amazon prices would also lead to VAT revenue increase everywhere. That's assuming that this is the outcome of a corporation tax increase for companies of this size, which seems unlikely given the data on the effect of corporation tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I check my understanding. Where a country can apply a top up, that's only where the third party country has a tax less than 15pc. Eg non EU. So for the Amazon example, Ireland is now 15pc. And if do a blanket corp tax inc then all doemstic Irish cos are paying more. But other countries in the EU where Amazon operate don't get more tax. However their domestic companies may benefit if Amazon increase prices to maintain profit. The local companies either gain share or increase margin or a bit of both. (I guess there may be second order tax revenue from that) Only Irish companies with a global revenue of over €750m would have to pay 15%. Smaller companies are unaffected it seems, so they are only going after very large companies. Increased Amazon prices would also lead to VAT revenue increase everywhere. That's assuming that this is the outcome of a corporation tax increase for companies of this size, which seems unlikely given the data on the effect of corporation tax." the first point will depend on if Ireland for a tiered approach or not. I agree smaller cos will be unaffected if Ireland does a dual approach. It is wait and see for companies approaches. Especially given the size of the EU market... Other than the US I wonder how much data there is... It's a different order of magnitude than an individual country bumping up its rate. Imo, a good move. One legislation that utilises the scale of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I check my understanding. Where a country can apply a top up, that's only where the third party country has a tax less than 15pc. Eg non EU. So for the Amazon example, Ireland is now 15pc. And if do a blanket corp tax inc then all doemstic Irish cos are paying more. But other countries in the EU where Amazon operate don't get more tax. However their domestic companies may benefit if Amazon increase prices to maintain profit. The local companies either gain share or increase margin or a bit of both. (I guess there may be second order tax revenue from that) Only Irish companies with a global revenue of over €750m would have to pay 15%. Smaller companies are unaffected it seems, so they are only going after very large companies. Increased Amazon prices would also lead to VAT revenue increase everywhere. That's assuming that this is the outcome of a corporation tax increase for companies of this size, which seems unlikely given the data on the effect of corporation tax.the first point will depend on if Ireland for a tiered approach or not. I agree smaller cos will be unaffected if Ireland does a dual approach. It is wait and see for companies approaches. Especially given the size of the EU market... Other than the US I wonder how much data there is... It's a different order of magnitude than an individual country bumping up its rate. Imo, a good move. One legislation that utilises the scale of the EU. " Would this not affect the large local companies too ( over 750 million). If I understand correctly they will also see costs rise in the form of extra corporation tax. For those in Ireland it's an extra 2.5% but for a large ish company in Hungary it means a 6% rise in tax. Certainly not saying its a bad thing, just trying to think of a different perspective | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I check my understanding. Where a country can apply a top up, that's only where the third party country has a tax less than 15pc. Eg non EU. So for the Amazon example, Ireland is now 15pc. And if do a blanket corp tax inc then all doemstic Irish cos are paying more. But other countries in the EU where Amazon operate don't get more tax. However their domestic companies may benefit if Amazon increase prices to maintain profit. The local companies either gain share or increase margin or a bit of both. (I guess there may be second order tax revenue from that) Only Irish companies with a global revenue of over €750m would have to pay 15%. Smaller companies are unaffected it seems, so they are only going after very large companies. Increased Amazon prices would also lead to VAT revenue increase everywhere. That's assuming that this is the outcome of a corporation tax increase for companies of this size, which seems unlikely given the data on the effect of corporation tax.the first point will depend on if Ireland for a tiered approach or not. I agree smaller cos will be unaffected if Ireland does a dual approach. It is wait and see for companies approaches. Especially given the size of the EU market... Other than the US I wonder how much data there is... It's a different order of magnitude than an individual country bumping up its rate. Imo, a good move. One legislation that utilises the scale of the EU. Would this not affect the large local companies too ( over 750 million). If I understand correctly they will also see costs rise in the form of extra corporation tax. For those in Ireland it's an extra 2.5% but for a large ish company in Hungary it means a 6% rise in tax. Certainly not saying its a bad thing, just trying to think of a different perspective" Yes, that's what I way saying. Any company domestic or foreign of that scale would be subject to that rule at their EU HQ. No large company would be able to avoid that minimum payment, but smaller companies could carry on as they do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever" Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds." It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can "People will read or not read, that's their perogative. They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism. Like I said before, try to be nice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice."I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads. Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism. Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context."Exactly my point. Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect". Lecture without context, you said it. Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed. Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond. Liz. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context.
Exactly my point.
Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect".
Lecture without context, you said it.
Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed.
Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liz."You were, actually, the one who chose to criticise me (incorrectly) about not understanding the difference between revenue and profit when you hadn't understood the context. You did start this by doing just that, didn't you? I simply responded in kind. So, perhaps you should look to your own behaviour and consider "being nice"? Do you have a different definition of "nice" that you apply to yourself? Possibly worth considering before making another patronising post? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context.
Exactly my point.
Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect".
Lecture without context, you said it.
Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed.
Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liz.
You were, actually, the one who chose to criticise me (incorrectly) about not understanding the difference between revenue and profit when you hadn't understood the context.
You did start this by doing just that, didn't you?
I simply responded in kind.
So, perhaps you should look to your own behaviour and consider "being nice"? Do you have a different definition of "nice" that you apply to yourself?
Possibly worth considering before making another patronising post?"Initial post wasn't meant as a criticism to you personally but a statement. Nice to me is just that, being nice to others, not trying to patronise or belittle, especially others who may not have the intellectual or educational level. Don't really think most people would need the word nice explained to them, it's hard wired into us from kids. I don't think my post is patronising, but that's just my take. Again, thanks for taking the time to respond, have a lovely Christmas and 2023. Be nice. Liz. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context.
Exactly my point.
Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect".
Lecture without context, you said it.
Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed.
Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liz.
You were, actually, the one who chose to criticise me (incorrectly) about not understanding the difference between revenue and profit when you hadn't understood the context.
You did start this by doing just that, didn't you?
I simply responded in kind.
So, perhaps you should look to your own behaviour and consider "being nice"? Do you have a different definition of "nice" that you apply to yourself?
Possibly worth considering before making another patronising post?
Initial post wasn't meant as a criticism to you personally but a statement.
Nice to me is just that, being nice to others, not trying to patronise or belittle, especially others who may not have the intellectual or educational level.
Don't really think most people would need the word nice explained to them, it's hard wired into us from kids.
I don't think my post is patronising, but that's just my take.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond, have a lovely Christmas and 2023.
Be nice.
Liz.
"Except what you did was a criticism of me and taken as such by the person I was in discussion with. Your comments have been patronising. Particularly in suggesting that you might need to explain the word "nice". You must know that full well. A smile face doesn't, actually, make up for it. So, again, please consider your own behaviour before commenting on others. Did you actually have any contribution to make on the change in the EU taxation system? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context.
Exactly my point.
Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect".
Lecture without context, you said it.
Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed.
Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liz.
You were, actually, the one who chose to criticise me (incorrectly) about not understanding the difference between revenue and profit when you hadn't understood the context.
You did start this by doing just that, didn't you?
I simply responded in kind.
So, perhaps you should look to your own behaviour and consider "being nice"? Do you have a different definition of "nice" that you apply to yourself?
Possibly worth considering before making another patronising post?
Initial post wasn't meant as a criticism to you personally but a statement.
Nice to me is just that, being nice to others, not trying to patronise or belittle, especially others who may not have the intellectual or educational level.
Don't really think most people would need the word nice explained to them, it's hard wired into us from kids.
I don't think my post is patronising, but that's just my take.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond, have a lovely Christmas and 2023.
Be nice.
Liz.
Except what you did was a criticism of me and taken as such by the person I was in discussion with.
Your comments have been patronising.
Particularly in suggesting that you might need to explain the word "nice". You must know that full well.
A smile face doesn't, actually, make up for it.
So, again, please consider your own behaviour before commenting on others.
Did you actually have any contribution to make on the change in the EU taxation system?"No, not on the EU taxation system, Your responses to folks who don't agree with you are more interesting, funny and telling. It's the responses which are far more interesting not the content as such. "A smiley face doesn't make up for it", grow up.
Anyway, nice to chat.
Have a lovely Christmas and New Year.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have to explain the difference between revenue and profit, something akin to explaining the difference between gross and net, probably best not engage as you will be here forever Yes, you're right, if we get to that level it's clear that the conversation is going nowhere. Still, it's interesting to get a glimpse into other people's minds. It's also interesting to note what you choose to read and what you choose not to read in a thread. Obviously you can't choose what you don't understand, or perhaps you can
People will read or not read, that's their perogative.
They may also read and come to different conclusions, that doesn't make them incorrect or deserving of criticism.
Like I said before, try to be nice.
I can respond as I have been responded to over many threads.
Sometimes people's conclusions are incorrect and worthy of criticism.
Sometimes it is prudent to not lecture without context.
Exactly my point.
Maybe it would be best to write something like "in my opinion I believe this conclusion is incorrect".
Lecture without context, you said it.
Your verifications show you to be a decent chap, so why are your forum posts sometimes so barbed.
Sad really but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liz.
You were, actually, the one who chose to criticise me (incorrectly) about not understanding the difference between revenue and profit when you hadn't understood the context.
You did start this by doing just that, didn't you?
I simply responded in kind.
So, perhaps you should look to your own behaviour and consider "being nice"? Do you have a different definition of "nice" that you apply to yourself?
Possibly worth considering before making another patronising post?
Initial post wasn't meant as a criticism to you personally but a statement.
Nice to me is just that, being nice to others, not trying to patronise or belittle, especially others who may not have the intellectual or educational level.
Don't really think most people would need the word nice explained to them, it's hard wired into us from kids.
I don't think my post is patronising, but that's just my take.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond, have a lovely Christmas and 2023.
Be nice.
Liz.
Except what you did was a criticism of me and taken as such by the person I was in discussion with.
Your comments have been patronising.
Particularly in suggesting that you might need to explain the word "nice". You must know that full well.
A smile face doesn't, actually, make up for it.
So, again, please consider your own behaviour before commenting on others.
Did you actually have any contribution to make on the change in the EU taxation system?
No, not on the EU taxation system,
Your responses to folks who don't agree with you are more interesting, funny and telling.
It's the responses which are far more interesting not the content as such.
"A smiley face doesn't make up for it", grow up.
Anyway, nice to chat.
Have a lovely Christmas and New Year.
"So you post not to add any information on the topic at hand, but to mock and lecture people that you don't know based on incorrect and incomplete information? That is, indeed, telling. Whyever would someone feel the need to do that? '"A smiley face doesn't make up for it", grow up'? Was this your definition of "nice"? One rule for you and one for others? Do as you say, not as you do? There's a lot of that about here. I am also not so insincere as to offer fake good wishes. Anyway, I'm not that interested in you as you clearly have nothing to add to the topic under discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. " Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now." The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage." Again- let me blunt - Apple has been in Ireland since 1980. Pfizer/ MSD other pharmaceutical firms ditto- the relationship has been built up over decades- they are not going to leave in a hurry. The UK has chosen London as a financial hub for dubious financial transactions to sustain its economy for decades neglecting investment in real industry such as tech and pharmaceutical- we are always looking at excuses from abroad when we, at the same time, refuse to look at the state the country is at the moment. We look to the past, when we actually truly lack a vision for the future and I would lump both labour and the tories together here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage. Again- let me blunt - Apple has been in Ireland since 1980. Pfizer/ MSD other pharmaceutical firms ditto- the relationship has been built up over decades- they are not going to leave in a hurry. The UK has chosen London as a financial hub for dubious financial transactions to sustain its economy for decades neglecting investment in real industry such as tech and pharmaceutical- we are always looking at excuses from abroad when we, at the same time, refuse to look at the state the country is at the moment. We look to the past, when we actually truly lack a vision for the future and I would lump both labour and the tories together here. " You don't need to argue that with me. There is far more than tax that makes a country attractive for investment. However, I assume that you do concur that a system which means that large companies can't wriggle out of paying tax and have to contribute to the countries where they make money is a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage. Again- let me blunt - Apple has been in Ireland since 1980. Pfizer/ MSD other pharmaceutical firms ditto- the relationship has been built up over decades- they are not going to leave in a hurry. The UK has chosen London as a financial hub for dubious financial transactions to sustain its economy for decades neglecting investment in real industry such as tech and pharmaceutical- we are always looking at excuses from abroad when we, at the same time, refuse to look at the state the country is at the moment. We look to the past, when we actually truly lack a vision for the future and I would lump both labour and the tories together here. You don't need to argue that with me. There is far more than tax that makes a country attractive for investment. However, I assume that you do concur that a system which means that large companies can't wriggle out of paying tax and have to contribute to the countries where they make money is a good thing." I completely agree with the above but at the same time if you look at groups such as Tax Justice work you will find that the UK and the Netherlands are far worse at tax avoidance schemes ( off shore accounts) / collecting tax than countries like Ireland. Again there is the perception that if we only could tax the big corporations properly then there would be a better redistribution of wealth- when in truth it is personal tax avoidance scheme which has allowed billions to seep away off shore from our country. The minimum tax rate is a great move but far more needs to be done regarding the opaqueness of off shore finance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage. Again- let me blunt - Apple has been in Ireland since 1980. Pfizer/ MSD other pharmaceutical firms ditto- the relationship has been built up over decades- they are not going to leave in a hurry. The UK has chosen London as a financial hub for dubious financial transactions to sustain its economy for decades neglecting investment in real industry such as tech and pharmaceutical- we are always looking at excuses from abroad when we, at the same time, refuse to look at the state the country is at the moment. We look to the past, when we actually truly lack a vision for the future and I would lump both labour and the tories together here. You don't need to argue that with me. There is far more than tax that makes a country attractive for investment. However, I assume that you do concur that a system which means that large companies can't wriggle out of paying tax and have to contribute to the countries where they make money is a good thing. I completely agree with the above but at the same time if you look at groups such as Tax Justice work you will find that the UK and the Netherlands are far worse at tax avoidance schemes ( off shore accounts) / collecting tax than countries like Ireland. Again there is the perception that if we only could tax the big corporations properly then there would be a better redistribution of wealth- when in truth it is personal tax avoidance scheme which has allowed billions to seep away off shore from our country. The minimum tax rate is a great move but far more needs to be done regarding the opaqueness of off shore finance" The tax laws here are deliberately opaque so that we can attract money to the the "finance" industry, which as youaid is where it was decided we would "specialise" as a country. We know that we are at the centre of dirty money flows. You can launder much faster and more easily than with actual industry and manufacture. The intention may not have been to encourage this, but the outcome has been. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus wept, this conversation is actually sadly very enlightening but seen completely from a UK perspective. One needs to look at it from a global point of view. Reasons why Ireland is attractive- apart form the corporate tax rate , was 12.5% now 15% so tax levels are becoming less of a reason 1. English speaking 2. Access to the single market 3. Highly educated workforce particularly tech and pharma 4. fDI has been welcomed in Ireland for years- to be fair close ties to America have help but then that’s where the big Tech and Pharma firms are based It is so sad, post Brexit watching business that should be coming to the UK go by default to Ireland. With Brexit we have literally declared a Trade War on ourselves. Ironically, the tide could be easily reversed because accommodation/ property and the cost of living is far higher in Ireland so many of these companies could be swayed to move here- however access the single market is critical. And when both the Tories and Labour rule this out- many multi national MD’s look at us and think we are a feckin basket case. We really need to get our heads out of the sand and help businesses and stop talking ideology. Again- having seen how this thread has developed- there is still barely any acknowledgment of why tech and Pharma companies prefer Ireland over the Uk- and you still harp on about Eastern EU countries loosing out. The reasons are still simple 1. English speaking 2. Access to single market ( EU) 3. Highly educated work force Keep arguing amongst yourselves about the minutiae of tax levels but Ireland is hugely benefiting from the lack of a proper long term business vision of the Uk busines. We need foreign direct investment so bad in the Uk but who in their right mind would invest here now. The point about the taxation is that this is a multinational effort to try and restle back control. There are, of course, many reasons for Ireland success, but one of them was in the race to the tax bottom which starves many countries, including Ireland, of funds that should be channeled to improving the country but instead give these corporations a cumulatively greater advantage. Again- let me blunt - Apple has been in Ireland since 1980. Pfizer/ MSD other pharmaceutical firms ditto- the relationship has been built up over decades- they are not going to leave in a hurry. The UK has chosen London as a financial hub for dubious financial transactions to sustain its economy for decades neglecting investment in real industry such as tech and pharmaceutical- we are always looking at excuses from abroad when we, at the same time, refuse to look at the state the country is at the moment. We look to the past, when we actually truly lack a vision for the future and I would lump both labour and the tories together here. You don't need to argue that with me. There is far more than tax that makes a country attractive for investment. However, I assume that you do concur that a system which means that large companies can't wriggle out of paying tax and have to contribute to the countries where they make money is a good thing. I completely agree with the above but at the same time if you look at groups such as Tax Justice work you will find that the UK and the Netherlands are far worse at tax avoidance schemes ( off shore accounts) / collecting tax than countries like Ireland. Again there is the perception that if we only could tax the big corporations properly then there would be a better redistribution of wealth- when in truth it is personal tax avoidance scheme which has allowed billions to seep away off shore from our country. The minimum tax rate is a great move but far more needs to be done regarding the opaqueness of off shore finance The tax laws here are deliberately opaque so that we can attract money to the the "finance" industry, which as youaid is where it was decided we would "specialise" as a country. We know that we are at the centre of dirty money flows. You can launder much faster and more easily than with actual industry and manufacture. The intention may not have been to encourage this, but the outcome has been." Completely agree, it’s been self perpetuating for decades to the detriment of other industries. It’s very London centric - the gravity of it leaves the rest of the country behind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
