Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not that Apple did not pay tax, nor is it Ireland giving Apple a good deal. Ireland charged tax based on reported earnings in Ireland, not world wide, for a child company of Apple that says it is based in Ireland but has revenue income from around the world. The EU has decided that all revenue income for that company should be charged in Ireland, although the US say they have also paid tax in the US. Fun…
Ireland is hardly a scape-goat. The commission has dealt in a similar manner with Amazon in Luxembourg, Starbucks in the Netherlands, and Anheuser-Busch InBev in Belgium. Whether or not there is an agreement between Apple and Ireland or just an understanding that Ireland would not tax them on almost any income is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that the effect of the scheme has been that Apple has paid next to…
Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
241–250 of 436 posts
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#242Even with these baby steps, I like to see that the EU is unifying its corporate tax code. Of course, we do not need to worry about Ireland, Great Britain already made sure their position as English entrance to the EU will stay strong regardless of tax-breaks. The Netherlands are naughty, too, due to a strange coincidence Ikea Germany has to pay fees of exactly its profits to Ikea Netherlands each year. I think the bi…
2. Ikea Netherlands has several offices and a lot of employees in Netherlands. They likely provide some services to Ikea Germany.
3. Licensing cost, may have profit component. E.g. I can sell you the franchise for restaurant which takes base cost + some % of your profits.
There are far more obvious tax loopholes that should be closed first, before worrying about taxation shifting between developed countries which taxes on roughly same scale.
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you tax something, you get less of it. Either because you actually really get less of it, or because you encourage clever accounting. (Just look up Hollywood accounting..) People making profit isn't something we need to discourage. How about taxing CO2 emissions and eg alcohol consumption instead? (Something we can live with less off.) And the old classic: put most of the tax burden on unimproved land value. Land'…
Alcohol is already heavily taxed > People making profit isn't something we need to discourage. Who is discouraging it?
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it wasn't pretty. Ireland was not allowed to default on its loans which was what they should have done. It did not control its currency or banks which are effectively controlled by the ECB. It could not repay some or all of its loans with its own currency by simply printing more of it and the only way of getting more currency was taking on more loans. What people also don't understand is that the laws preventing…
> the laws preventing incentives aren't protecting the weak they are protecting the strong. That's not entirely correct. These norms were introduced to open up nationalised markets like telecoms, mail etc, which would otherwise remain forever locked on national boundaries. This allowed an equal field for businesses across the Union. Of course, established markets tend to favor the richest players. This approach is su…
Well it sure helped Deutsche Telecom and PostNL(TNT), everyone else is mostly still locked within their own countries, setting up the same rules isn't allowing an equal field of opportunity where you are at a disadvantage out of the gate and you can't adjust the rules you want to play by you will always lose. Established markets tend to favor the richest players, but to compete against them you have to be able to set up a competitive advantage and that requires you to be able to set you own policies under the current EU law you can't set up policies which are "disadvantageous" to other member states which means you will constantly get run over there is simply no way of competing. There is a reason why we split boxing into weight categories going up against a 300 lbs gorilla as a featherweight won't end up well for you.
>This approach is supposed to be complemented by infrastructural funds, where German and French taxpayers effectively pick up the bill for rebuilding Ireland or Romania to a state where they can compete on an equal foot.
The German taxpayer isn't really picking up the bill (although the Irish taxpayer kinda does, since the ECB forced the Irish taxpayer to take on the debt of private bondholders and investment banks, this is pretty darn unprecedented. This would be analogous to if Capital One would go under and the Fed/USG would not bail it out, and would not allow it to declare bankruptcy and then they would go and force Virginia and it's residents alone to take on all of Capital One's debts as their own) and many of the policies that Germany leads are also causing these cycles. Germany operates at a pretty big trade surplus, many if not all of the EU members are at a trade deficit with Germany to the German policy makers the policy of allocating loans and credit to countries that would not otherwise be able to afford german goods to keep the german people working is a no-brainer.
The problem is that it's effectively a pseudo ponzi scheme when it works it works extremely well (the US employed a similar policy with Europe to keep it's post WW2 level of production at high levels, the Marshall plan helped Europe a lot but it also helped the US even more) but like all of them when it starts to slow down it tends to break apart into a mess.
Now this wouldn't be bad if Ireland could set up it's own monetary policy, control it's own currency, restructure its debt but it couldn't and it wasn't allowed too. Because of how the Euroblock/ECB is structured most of the normal debt relief tools that would be available to a "normal" country are not available to Ireland, the few that are are not under their own control. You can't come to some one in debt and say - you aren't allowed to declare bankruptcy, you can't restructure your debt, you can't repay it in your own currency like every other nation, and you can't adjust the interest rates because the ECB controls the price stability within the Eurozone.
The overall problem with this isn't that the EU/Euroblock is bad is that they are trying to have the cake and eat it, they are intentionally structured as a non-Federated entity, they do not share the pain, this isn't the US. And on the other hand they have a shared currency and a monetary policy that is dictated by an external body the ECB which to be fair no one really elects and the individual governments of the member states do not have any control over (if the head of the Fed goes to I don't know Alabama and says If you don't take loans from Cali I'm shutting your fed and all your banks and payment systems come monday morning Obama can fire him (or well her now since it's Janet Yellen), the Irish government can't do squat to the ECB and that's just what it did to them and Greece).
The EU/Euroblock will soon figure out that they'll have to go either to a fully or at least much more federated system with which they would share in each other's wealth and misery or step it down to the point of where individual countries get the power back to control their own monetary policy, inflation, interest rates and taxation at the same level as every other sovereign nation state does today.
>That's very unfair to Ireland. Ireland has a natural advantage nobody can take away: sharing a language with the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. That's worth a lot, in this day and age.
India... South Africa...
English is important but you overestimate it's worth by several orders of magnitude, if Ireland was as expensive as Germany to operate in, or even if it was almost as nearly as expensive as Germany tax wise Germany would be considerably better and cheaper to operate in, even if you have to bring a few 1000's Irish people to do tech support. Before Ireland "whored itself out" India was and to some extent still is the call center and the remote dev shop of the world simply because it's cheap and people can learn English, you can't learn paying only 15% corporate tax and have incentives for every engineer you hire that bring that figure to 0 instead of 30%.
South Africa now is also doing the same thing, they are on GMT, speak English and now are a pretty lucrative alternative to Ireland, and this thing with Apple will only make it worse.
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh they were. it's actually quite clear: if you exempt some corp from taxes you are paying them the exempted sum compared to another business not receiving the exemption. In my opinion it is highly unethical to construct such financial mechanisms with the only aim to reduce tax payments.
Can't reply to Zigzag, so I do it here: It's not about lower taxes in general, it is about lower taxes for a single specific company. And that constitutes state aid which is (mostly) forbidden under EU rules, as it is massively uncompetetive.
Apple isn't headquartered in Ireland, Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe are. The EU says these subsidiaries have been making untaxed profits, but it's not obvious that they've made any profits, ever (that's the whole point of the tax scheme in the first place.)
The grey area seems to be that there has been a cash hoard in Ireland which legally is on the Apple Inc. balance sheet, but hasn't been taxed. Again, however, Apple Inc. is not domiciled in Ireland so it's not the Irish governments job to collect that tax.
What am I missing?
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ireland isn't a sovereign country. It's an EU member state. So it's like Apple violating Federal law and saying it's okay because what they're doing is legal under California law.
You've got an unusual definition of "sovereignty". I'm not sure about US states (I would have thought they are considered sovereign member states of the Federation, but I haven't researched the issue), but the much less incorporated European Union certainly consists of "sovereign" states. Or was it just a linguistic shortcut for "Ireland has submitted itself under treaties and laws of the European Union"?
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how much Irelands payroll taxes would have been were the corporations not to have set up shop in Ireland, they would have just gone somewhere with a decent tax arrangement. A better question is where the world would be if nation states wouldn't allow multinational companies to pay only negligible taxes by taking part in a race to the bottom. With tax deals like this one you're just ripping other countries…
Even better question is, where the world would be if evolution wouldn't allow individual organisms to optimize their fitness by taking part in a race to the bottom? That constant pressure to do more with less... deadly. With "beneficial" (sic) mutations like this one you're just ripping other organisms off.
Ireland isn't somehow magically fitter than other countries and thus able to offer 0.005% corporate tax. It's only relying on attracting an above-normal amount of companies by having low taxes and draining other countries of their tax benefits in the same turn. It wouldn't work if everybody was doing it. In fact countries would just turn to shit.
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two things to keep in mind: * Tax laws are (not theoretically) changed retroactively, i.e. even if no taxes were due at the time of filling, that may change. * Law interpretation and/or leading acts may change (again retroactively), i.e. taxable amount, various exemptions, etc.. Some countries may pat you on the back for finding loopholes in the law while other may simply order one to pay hopefully without…
It is well understood that retroactive changes to the law are one of the worst things a legal system can do, which is why so many constitutions ban it and why other countries (like the UK) have a strong convention not to do it. The US Constitution bans them explicitly. Yes, of course countries routinely do bad things and ignore convention and constitutional principles, but that doesn't make it suddenly OK. The low ra…
Long term gains are very hard to pick over short term gains, especially if that would incur some short term loss. The free market [long term] goal of EU can be roughly expressed as a fight for competition over monopolies. It may look extremely lucrative to lower taxes for a corporation to pay significant lump of money (create jobs, capital movement, etc) even at low rate, than to let the corporation set its foot at another country. As it was stated in other comments, a multinational naturally attempts to increase profits by any means and incorporating at different location with significant tax discount is one of the ways. Although, globally (or EU wise) this is simply tax discount for a corporation that is already pretty much resembling a monopoly.
Think about the EC decision in this light.
Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#249Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how much Irelands payroll taxes would have been were the corporations not to have set up shop in Ireland, they would have just gone somewhere with a decent tax arrangement. A better question is where the world would be if nation states wouldn't allow multinational companies to pay only negligible taxes by taking part in a race to the bottom. With tax deals like this one you're just ripping other countries…
by taking part in a race to the bottom You mean countries competing for business? Why is that bad? It would sound ridiculous if you applied it to companies "Car companies offering lower and lower prices is just a race to the bottom! If this keeps up we'll have no car companies as they'll all be bankrupt!".
Also your comparison is pretty bad. The direct cost per unit is pretty high for a car in a car company, the one for a company in a country is negligible. So it's more like a publisher selling digital goods, except that there's no copyright, preventing the others from selling exactly the same for a lower price.