191–200 of 708 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea was that these big companies will move back to the big centers (Paris/Frankfurt) once they have to pay the same taxes. That didn't happen (surprise) and Ireland is now ending up with a tax deluge and high value tech companies.
The idea was that these big companies and the Irish government obey the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All tax treaties and agreements between countries (including intra-EU) are bilateral country to country agreements. Most are refreshed every 3-7 years based on OECD (or EU) recommended standards. Ireland's laws and treatment are 100% compliant. Rather than competing and reducing their tax rates countries like France prefer to moan, as politically they can’t be seen to favour big bad businesses. This of course was no…
Look, it's nice that Ireland is finally not a poor country anymore. That's primarily due to EU politics and support. It is, however, economically nowhere even close to France or Germany, no matter how large you think the "tech job" market there is [0]. > If any one of our EU or the other non EU countries were really dissatisfied with Ireland, they have the right to withdraw at any time. Who should withdraw from what?…
Germany has 20x our population, France is not far off it. Neither has anything close to the job market per capita in the IT and Services sector that Ireland has.
As for us dragging ourselves up, that has more to with our special relationship with the US. The EU were initially helpful with infrastructural development, access to a Common Market, and to drag us out of the Vatican Law era, but we gave up a huge amount of fishing rights to do so - massively enriching spain, portugal and france who had overfished their own waters. Note also we're not part of Schengen, but maintain a CTA (Common Travel Area) with the UK.
Eventually the EU took the legs out from under us in 2008 and forced us at gunpoint to bail out unsecured german bondholders to maintain the integrity of the Euro and prevent a contagion run on German Banks.
Irelands FDI sector was highly developed in the late 80s and combined with entities like Enterprise Ireland - ranked first in the world of venture capital investors by deal count in 2020 - hammered home the advantage via our highly-educated English speaking workforce and relatively low cost of living. Even now the number of investments completed by Enterprise Ireland was 42% more than its nearest competitor, French sovereign wealth fund Bpifrance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe governments need to stop spending 40-50% of the entire GDP? For example, the US federal government + state governments spend about $10 trillion a year. The US has a GDP of about $25 trillion. And the US isn't exactly known as a high tax country. France is estimated to be at 58%...
Universal healthcare and welfare systems aren’t free.
And healthcare is unavailable anyway. Several month long waits to see a specialist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be really 0%? Is there any grounds for that? Those companies are based in Ireland due to IP law, not tax law.
Can't companies abuse the IP law to wash other profits as IP costs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very naive way of thinking about debt. Cash has a time value. Cash now is worth more than cash later. I have a mortgage. This mortgage is worth more than the cash I own. That doesn't mean I'm bankrupt. The mortgage is paid on a fixed schedule over 30 years, and during those 30 years I'll have a home and be able to accrue other assets. If I didn't get a mortgage then I would still be saving for my home. The…
I think it's rarely valid to compare countries' economics to your own personal finance, macroeconomics are a lot more complicated. Example: for employed people, going into (or avoiding) debt generally won't affect their yearly wages, but analogously it can for countries (e.g. well spent debt can stimulate economic growth).
While I do agree that personal finances are a bad analogy for state finances, that is not an illustrative example as to the reasons. An employed person can absolutely improve their yearly wage by going into debt, be it for investing in education to aspire to better paying positions, buying a car which increases their employment catchment area, or even —for a flexible definition of wage— investing in setting up a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is just a tiny count employees in Ireland, mostly legal to run the sandwitch.
That is completely untrue. There are over six thousand people employed in their Irish HQ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it interesting how in american corpspeak "uncertanty" pretty much always means "our lawyers can't find a way to avoid this law without getting caught" ^^
EU companies dodge and bend rules all the time. See: VW, AirBus, etc.
I found some rather troubling aspects within the ruling itself: 1. Retroactive application of arm's length principle The Court's reliance on the arm's length principle, despite acknowledging it's not required by EU law, is problematic. As stated in paragraph 124: > "Article 107(1) TFEU gives the Commission the right to check whether the level of profit allocated to such branches... corresponds to the level of profit…
- Apple goes to a country and makes a deal with that country
- They pay the tax in the country and they comply with all the rules at that time in Ireland
- After a few years the EU government says "hey, Ireland that's not a correct deal"
- So they don't punish the Ireland government who didn't comply with EU regulation (as far as I understood) and retroactively charge the tax on Apple, who complied with all the regulation. Doesn't the burden of non-compliance be on the party that broke the EU rules and not the company who complied with all the rules?
Several questions arise:
- Was Apple breaking any rules in those years when they had the deal with the government?
- How can any company be sure that if they comply with current tax laws they won't be back charged in the future?
- Isn't that a bad precedent of "we change the rules now", but will punish you for you past behavior for non-complying with the new rules? (e.g. why don't charge back the increase in taxes for this year for the past 3 years)
These are not related to the ethical/moral or fairness evaluation of the situation. It's unfair to charge different taxes at all, flat taxes should be the norm, not charge more if you earn more. However the legal logic doesn't seem to be there.
Can you help me understand the situation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea was that these big companies will move back to the big centers (Paris/Frankfurt) once they have to pay the same taxes. That didn't happen (surprise) and Ireland is now ending up with a tax deluge and high value tech companies.
Ireland has a pretty big advantage for getting big American companies to settle there since it's the only place in EU where English is the official language. Well, technically Malta also exists, but I imagine that not a lot of companies are looking to set up on a small island the size of Kansas City.
Germans and Americans wouldn't understand each other, even if they spoke the same culture. Their understanding of how life works, their worldview, their expectation of others, ...etc all of these are quite different. For example, a project is ongoing, but in the course of completing the todo list, it is apparent that a certain issue is going to prop up. An American would immediately jump on it, try to fix it and then make sure to boast about it at the next meaning to take the credit. A German would either ignore it completely because it is not part of his responsibilities or bring it up at the next meeting, but not before finishing the todo list as planned even if the last points are rendered obsolete by the emergence of this issue. And when the American starts presenting his solution at the meeting, the German will feel slighted and held out of the loop, and all sorts of confused that this guy acted so independently and out of line, without following procedure. Just an example. There are whole courses about the different corporate cultures and how people find it hard to work in different cultural environments.
I am sure the Americans prefer to work with the Irish who although they don't have the same culture, I never heard of major issues in communication between the those two cultures.
Seems wrong that Ireland cheated the system to attract tech companies then also gets a huge payout.