Shane Ross: Reduce Corporation Tax to 9.9%

Drumpot

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree to a degree.

But why havent we chosen to burn the bondholders since we realised the blanket guarantee was a mistake ? Why should we be bound by a guarantee that had a time limit ?

The blanket guarantee wasnt the problem, it was extending it and not leaving out certain bondholders that was the problem. If Ireland did let the bondholders take a huge fall, many believe that it would of had much wider European ramifications - Greece, Spain , Portugal (will they default aswell as Ireland????!!!) which would of made the problem even greater and result in pretty much definite bailouts required by these nations (obv greece ended up getting them). Certainly initially it would of caused the EU much greater problems and serious expense!

I share your sentiments about us getting ourselves into the mess, however I think the EU has a huge responsibility and bearing on how much this will cost us. On our own we couldve chosen to burn whoever we like and call in the IMF and work with them on our own terms (much much better terms with less cavaets). With the EU, we have the same kind of idiot beauracrats that think nothing of getting Ireland into shape (only keeping the EU in shape).

Perhaps you could explain it better to me, but I dont see why we should bend over and take everything they are throwing at us. We did cause the mess, but we shouldnt have to double up paying back because it suits German/French personal agenda's.

I believe what Shane Ross proposes is not ideal, but we have to start showing some muscle , particularly while we still have some leverage (EU are afraid of their lives of the markets at the mo!)

I dont see what we have to lose as if we make reasonable demands (which I think they are) through strategic aggresion, I think the EU will have to sit down and start negotiating (instead of ordering) a better deal for all.

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Time for what exactly?

run up more high interest debt?? pay of more (un-guaranteed) bondholders as they head for the escape???

They EU finds time to waste corporation taxation which has nothing to do with this recession yet has no time to notice the Irish and European financial crisis elephants in the room?

That is exactly it.
In Frankfurt they have been kicking the can down the road.
If you want a light hearted yet very broad explanation of how screwed up Europe (Eurozone and Sterling) is, then watch the Clarke and Dawes piece I linked to in another thread.
The PIIGS owe so much money to the major EU powers and to each other, that it can never be repaid.
The ultimate example of this screwed up system has to be how Ireland, Portugal and Spain are lending money to Greece. :rolleyes:

The question is who or what gives first.
I think EU have decided they will make example of the Paddies and hopefully they will be good little Europeans and just try and stump up for the next few years.
That gives the EU time to try and kick the can further down the road.
But what happens to the Paddies in 2013 or 2014 ?
Well we default.
The current hopes in Frankfurt, Berlin and Paris is that they will have somehow distanced themselves from the contagion by then.

K-9 wrote: »

You should have voted SF then, because it's closer to your view than FG.

If default was such a big issue there was only one choice. Everybody knew their spending plans was crap so people should have left aside petty personal qualms and voted for the party advocating default.

I suppose moaning about the troubles and leftists is more important though.

I consider your last sentence pretty condescending.

People as you term it "moan" about the troubles, because they not have the stomach for people who blithely dismiss the attrocities that were carried out often in the name of ordinary decent Irish people.

K-9 wrote: »

You aren't going to get strong negotiation from FG, hence your posts.

Is that a statement or a question ?

I am not writing off FG just yet, unlike some of the posters around here. :rolleyes:

CDfm

I did not start off as a Eurosceptic either.

I started off as a "don't know" and was unable to understand the detail or lack of detail around the euro.

So if the ECB and European Commision had done their job rather than just sold the idea to us maybe we would not be in this mess.

Believe it or not they are also supposed to represent us.

jmayo

CDfm wrote: »

I did not start off as a Eurosceptic either.

I started off as a "don't know" and was unable to understand the detail or lack of detail around the euro.

So if the ECB and European Commision had done their job rather than just sold the idea to us maybe we would not be in this mess.

Believe it or not they are also supposed to represent us.

Ehhh the ECB are in the pocket of Berlin.
Interest rates are set to suit them and the whole non adoption of quantative easing is again to suit the German mindset.
We are usually nothing but a pebble in the grand scheme of EU things.
Every now and then we become an irrating pebble that trips the EU up.
Remember all those Referendums.

Now we are a pebble that could actually start an avalanche that causes them great inconvenience and hurt.
Sadly some of them are so up their own asses and playing their own local politics (which we are lambasted for) that they can't see this salient fact.
They would rather play to the locals and stick it to the paddies, than face the real problems.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

So if Europe says No renegotiation, then where do you stand ?

I'd have a different viewpoint if Europe just refused to negotiate, but I don't see any signs or likelihood of them having such an attitude.

jmayo wrote: »

If Europe says fine we cut interest by one percent, but every debt must be paid, then where do you stand ?

I guess I'd stand where I currently stand, but slightly more happily, because after all that's the current position except for an improvement on the bailout loan rate.

I'd like to get rid of the debt, but our government did acquire it off its own bat - Europe is, in effect, just holding us to what our government decided to do, because our government involved them in backing their original stance. So I don't see "sticking it to Europe" in order to get rid of some of that debt as a good outcome for Ireland, because they don't have any real responsibility for it being on the taxpayers' shoulders. We would be burning our best friends after using their money to pay off the markets.

jmayo wrote: »

I have not been a eurosceptic at all times, but over the last couple of years I have gone that direction.
The days are long gone when the EU was a happy trading group.
It has been coopted by those who want to turn it into a power block to rival the US.

The idea was never just a free trade area, though.

jmayo wrote: »

And the Euro has been a failure.
Sure it has meant I did not have to change currency when going to some of the more popular European countries, but I still did when I went to Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Latvia.
It took foriegn exchange transacitons out of th mix for business which was great, but look at the mess it has left.
Countries or regions (southern Europe, Iberia) no longer have the flexibility to set their own interest rates.

As has been said the "one size fits all" aproach is not suitable for such a wide desparate group of countries and economies.

It's been said, but the proof has rather been left dangling. The counter-argument is that the problems were caused by countries not accepting the strictures involved, but treating it instead as an enormous safety cushion that left them free to be fiscally irresponsible.

jmayo wrote: »

To add insult the entry terms or criteria measurement were shown to be a shambles by the Greek debacle.
Added to that how was Bulgaria and Romania ever considered for membership ?

Politics regrettably tends to win over genuine compliance.

jmayo wrote: »

The only way the one size fits all is if there is more central control of fiscal policy thoughout the Eurozone and eventually the EU.
Well that is what Frankfurt is currently achieving by dictating fiscal policy in Ireland and Greece.
Down the road from that lies a standardised tax regimes across all countries.

I may not be rabid republican, but I do want to preserve some of our independence, even if our governments of late were pretty substandard I live in hope that we can eventually get things right.

I think that suggests a very large misunderstanding of what's involved. It's not at all necessary for the eurozone countries to harmonise absolutely everything - unless the governments concerned cannot be trusted to set their own policies within a responsible fiscal framework. Our problems are not the result of having different tax policies, or different regulatory policies, or different fiscal policies - they are the result of having bad tax policies, bad regulatory policies, and bad fiscal policies.

There are eurozone countries that don't have our problems with deficits - because they didn't balance all their tax take on consumption taxes in a consumption bubble for political advantage, and because they didn't bloat their public sector payrolls for political advantage.

One size fits all isn't so much the problem in itself as that the size was designed for countries who were going to keep themselves in trim, and we didn't. We're like a guy who made the team and then blew out on free beer and corporate handouts complaining that the team's training is now "too hard" and "takes no account of his individual characteristics", when his "individual characteristics" are that he didn't maintain the discipline expected in the team.

jmayo wrote: »

At the moment I don't see how one can be pro the very entity that is being led by people (the two premiers of the two largest member nations) who are demanding we scupper one of the planks upon which what is left of our economy sits or pro the same entity that is demanding we stick to the "so called bailout" terms as they currently stand ?

Please tell me why I should be pro Europe when Europe is currently adopting a very hostile attitude towards my country ?

Because the attitude is not hostile - Europe is being a hell of a lot friendlier than the markets, and the markets are neutral. We brought this on ourselves - or our government did, and the country voted them in repeatedly - and then our government entangled Europe in our affairs as backers, so that they are now in the uncomfortable position of holding us to our word because we've made them our guarantors. Their taxpayers are on the hook if we default - as we loudly and frequently threaten to do.

All that and the sum total of their "hostility" is an interest rate slightly higher than we were previously getting from the markets and much lower than we can currently get, plus the request (and it is a request, however stated, because there's no mechanism to force it) that we make some moves on CCCTB - despite the furore over it, there's no actual proposal on the table for us to change our tax rate. What's on the table is movement on CCCTB - the defence of a CT rate looks more and more to me like a political straw man, because, Sarkozy aside, it's not really under attack.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

I consider your last sentence pretty condescending.

People as you term it "moan" about the troubles, because they not have the stomach for people who blithely dismiss the attrocities that were carried out often in the name of ordinary decent Irish people.

I moan about their history as well and their spending and tax policies. If I was as bothered about default as you clearly are, I would have set all other issues aside and set out a clear message on it.

jmayo wrote:

Is that a statement or a question ?

I am not writing off FG just yet, unlike some of the posters around here. :rolleyes:

Based on experience.

Are your posts on the Euro and default statements or questions?

Tbh, I think FG will toe the European line and Labour will make noises about bondholders etc, a good cop, bad cop routine. You will not see either party take your approach to negotiation, you can be sure of that.

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have a different viewpoint if Europe just refused to negotiate, but I don't see any signs or likelihood of them having such an attitude.



I guess I'd stand where I currently stand, but slightly more happily, because after all that's the current position except for an improvement on the bailout loan rate.

We disagree here a bit as I feel the currency did not operate with the controls a currency should have - nonetheless - negotiation is a good thing.

I'd like to get rid of the debt, but our government did acquire it off its own bat - Europe is, in effect, just holding us to what our government decided to do, because our government involved them in backing their original stance. So I don't see "sticking it to Europe" in order to get rid of some of that debt as a good outcome for Ireland, because they don't have any real responsibility for it being on the taxpayers' shoulders. We would be burning our best friends after using their money to pay off the markets.

"Burning the bondholders" as a term has gained popular usage and is not the truth.

We have no idea what debt instruments were used and by whom.

We can agree that the FF Govt woke up one morning with a situation beyond their comprehension and they acted hastily .

From what Enda Kenny has said - some of the European lenders may have burned us and manipulated our system.

The idea was never just a free trade area, though.



It's been said, but the proof has rather been left dangling. The counter-argument is that the problems were caused by countries not accepting the strictures involved, but treating it instead as an enormous safety cushion that left them free to be fiscally irresponsible.



Politics regrettably tends to win over genuine compliance.

The "accession" of East Germany just happened too.

There was no genuine compliance structure in place and EU monetary policy was crackers.

I do not know what the financials of the banks were but it would surprise me if prior to the problem occuring some major EU banks were not awareof it and proping things up.

I worked in the UK at the time BCCI went. The dogs on the street knew it was going a long time before it happened.

I think that suggests a very large misunderstanding of what's involved. It's not at all necessary for the eurozone countries to harmonise absolutely everything - unless the governments concerned cannot be trusted to set their own policies within a responsible fiscal framework. Our problems are not the result of having different tax policies, or different regulatory policies, or different fiscal policies - they are the result of having bad tax policies, bad regulatory policies, and bad fiscal policies.

Our system was bad , but, the Government is the only part of the structure that is elected. [/quote]

Do we agree that the "Corporate State" needs a damn good kicking too ?

There are eurozone countries that don't have our problems with deficits - because they didn't balance all their tax take on consumption taxes in a consumption bubble for political advantage, and because they didn't bloat their public sector payrolls for political advantage.

One size fits all isn't so much the problem in itself as that the size was designed for countries who were going to keep themselves in trim, and we didn't. We're like a guy who made the team and then blew out on free beer and corporate handouts complaining that the team's training is now "too hard" and "takes no account of his individual characteristics", when his "individual characteristics" are that he didn't maintain the discipline expected in the team.

IMHO -that is simplistic.

Ireland is a poor country in term or capital & resourses - residential property is not investment capital.

From a Marxist perspective we have a "Primitive" capital base.

To compare us with other countries that have domestically owned companies producing "traded" goods is a bit of a crock.

GNP vs GDP tells us that.

Because the attitude is not hostile - Europe is being a hell of a lot friendlier than the markets, and the markets are neutral. We brought this on ourselves - or our government did, and the country voted them in repeatedly - and then our government entangled Europe in our affairs as backers, so that they are now in the uncomfortable position of holding us to our word because we've made them our guarantors. Their taxpayers are on the hook if we default - as we loudly and frequently threaten to do

Europe has not been friendly -the scare had been that the Euro would implode.

All that and the sum total of their "hostility" is an interest rate slightly higher than we were previously getting from the markets and much lower than we can currently get, plus the request (and it is a request, however stated, because there's no mechanism to force it) that we make some moves on CCCTB - despite the furore over it, there's no actual proposal on the table for us to change our tax rate. What's on the table is movement on CCCTB - the defence of a CT rate looks more and more to me like a political straw man, because, Sarkozy aside, it's not really under attack.

Sarkozy is a git.

P. Breathnach

CDfm wrote: »

...
From what Enda Kenny has said - some of the European lenders may have burned us and manipulated our system.
...

That is an interesting suggestion. Is there evidence anywhere that supports it?

Sarkozy is a git.

I couldn't find it in my heart to edit out that last remark.

hmmm

CDfm wrote: »

From what Enda Kenny has said - some of the European lenders may have burned us and manipulated our system.

No he didn't. Proof please.

The "accession" of East Germany just happened too.

We're into crackers territory now.

There was no genuine compliance structure in place

Regulation of financial institutions was the responsibility of each member state. Stop trying to blame the EU/ECB for something we were responsible for.

I do not know what the financials of the banks were but it would surprise me if prior to the problem occuring some major EU banks were not awareof it and proping things up.

Crackers. Every day of the week there is hedge funds betting in every direction you can imagine.

Sarkozy is a git.

That about sums up your "argument".

CDfm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is an interesting suggestion. Is there evidence anywhere that supports it?

I have found it cryptic what Enda Kenny has said on burden sharing.

Remember when John Rushnak took down Allfirst AIB's US operation for 500m euro & that how he did it by digging deep. Its not like our bankers did not know these techniques.

So the debt instruments used are anyones guess.

http://www.erisk.com/Learning/CaseStudies/AIBCaseStudy.pdf

The phrasing in the article is lovely

Wider questions
remain, particularly
about the role of
counterparties to
derivative transactions’

Don't forget Joan Burton, an ex-auditor at Bank of Ireland had been able to point Lenihan in the direction of Bank of Ireland staff bonuses. Unless she is very intuitive someone told her.

There is no reason to suggest that Enda Kenny is going to burn bondholders but has a reasonable expectation that "burden sharing " is realistic.

I am sure you like me would like to know what instruments were used and who the counterparties were .

I couldn't find it in my heart to edit out that last remark.

My economics is a bit rustic

hmmm wrote: »

No he didn't. Proof please.

As above - we do not know.

We're into crackers territory now.

Crackers. Every day of the week there is hedge funds betting in every direction you can imagine.

That about sums up your "argument".

But in banking they are used to lessen risk or unwinding techniques but they also can be used to raise cash.

Regulation of financial institutions was the responsibility of each member state. Stop trying to blame the EU/ECB for something we were responsible for.

I do not understand your point here.

I think it is reasonable to ask the questions as to how the counterparties to the loan instruments were regulated and whether they broke any laws.

We know that in the UK there are calls for the demerger of corporate and retail banking arms of financial institutions.

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/iouk

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2007/0606_th.shtml

We have the same structure here- though we do not have to trouble ourselves with the demerge issue for years to come :rolleyes:.

Does it not strike you as odd that the banking regulators valuation of the banks at the time of the guarantee was so off when presumably it was based on regulatory returns unless instruments were used that would not show up.

Just a thought.

hmmm

CDfm wrote: »

As above - we do not know.

Basically you made it up, you've nothing to back up your statement about what Enda Kenny said.

Does it not strike you as odd that the banking regulators valuation of the banks at the time of the guarantee was so off when presumably it was based on regulatory returns unless instruments were used that would not show up.

Just a thought.

I have no idea what you're on about, it's like some random conspiracy theory using jumbled up and vaguely financial sounding words. There was nothing wrong with the valuation of the banks based on the risk assessments at the time, what happened was the underlying risk assessments (and ratings) were wrong. This is basic stuff.

I'm out of this thread, CDfm is going to keep going forever.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have a different viewpoint if Europe just refused to negotiate, but I don't see any signs or likelihood of them having such an attitude.

Look there is negogiation and negogiation and for some reason I get the feeling some people have the SIPTU or IMPACT version of negogiation on public sector reform in mind. :rolleyes:
A drop of one or two percentage points is of no use when we may have negative growth.
It may be somewhat better, but that is akin to saying getting chopped to death is better than being beaten to death.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd like to get rid of the debt, but our government did acquire it off its own bat - Europe is, in effect, just holding us to what our government decided to do, because our government involved them in backing their original stance. So I don't see "sticking it to Europe" in order to get rid of some of that debt as a good outcome for Ireland, because they don't have any real responsibility for it being on the taxpayers' shoulders. We would be burning our best friends after using their money to pay off the markets.

Ehh they are not our best friends and get over this bloody attitude.
We don't have many friends at the moment.
Their so called "bailout" is a loan with pretty high interest rates, than yes may be lower than what we are getting in the markets but they are still unpayable.
But why are we paying off the markets ?
This is the crux of the matter.
Why did they pay off bondholders in January even though they weren't supposedly covered by the guarantee ?
Who were the bondholders ?
Were they actually ourselves ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The idea was never just a free trade area, though.

Neither was it a federal type state with single unelected head of state and one representative foreign minister.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been said, but the proof has rather been left dangling. The counter-argument is that the problems were caused by countries not accepting the strictures involved, but treating it instead as an enormous safety cushion that left them free to be fiscally irresponsible.

Yes that is true certain countries went apesh**, each in their own way, but countries often make mistakes and not just us.
And I know other countries are more fiscally conservative, but even those have made their mistakes in the past ala Sweden and Finland.

But with a single currency dominated by two much large central European entities there is no wriggle room for smaller countries on the periphery.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that suggests a very large misunderstanding of what's involved. It's not at all necessary for the eurozone countries to harmonise absolutely everything - unless the governments concerned cannot be trusted to set their own policies within a responsible fiscal framework. Our problems are not the result of having different tax policies, or different regulatory policies, or different fiscal policies - they are the result of having bad tax policies, bad regulatory policies, and bad fiscal policies.

Yes but sooner or later when you have centrally laid down fiscal policies, tax harmonisation will follow.
We may have local taxes, but we will probably end up paying a federal tax as well, ala USA.
Hell that is what some Europeans have been shouting for.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because the attitude is not hostile - Europe is being a hell of a lot friendlier than the markets, and the markets are neutral. We brought this on ourselves - or our government did, and the country voted them in repeatedly - and then our government entangled Europe in our affairs as backers, so that they are now in the uncomfortable position of holding us to our word because we've made them our guarantors. Their taxpayers are on the hook if we default - as we loudly and frequently threaten to do.

FFS how many times have I got to say yes we (not me personally I may add, though you did vote Green I may add :mad:) did bring this sh** upon our own heads.
But that doesn't solve the mess.

What the EU appear to be doing is dumping down on us, as another poster said it looks like they are kicking us when we are down.
They appear to be more interested in teaching paddy a lesson than worrying about the consequences, not alone for us defaulting, but the entire Eurozone system collapsing.
If anything the Germans, with their fear of economic collapses and printing money, should remember making someone pay through the nose for their mistakes can come back to bite you in the ass. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

All that and the sum total of their "hostility" is an interest rate slightly higher than we were previously getting from the markets and much lower than we can currently get, plus the request (and it is a request, however stated, because there's no mechanism to force it) that we make some moves on CCCTB - despite the furore over it, there's no actual proposal on the table for us to change our tax rate. What's on the table is movement on CCCTB - the defence of a CT rate looks more and more to me like a political straw man, because, Sarkozy aside, it's not really under attack.

All the talk about our corporation tax has had FDI and MNCs worried.
Note the tenor of Kenny's speeches in the US. He had to spend his time reassuring US investors that the EU are not going to mess with our corpo tax regime.

Ireland has had bad enough financial news linked to it without a jumped little french pri** on platform shoes and a quantum chemistry doctor whose daddy did rather well surprisingly as a pastor in communist East Germany shouting their mouths off trying to drive a stake through what is left of our economy. :mad:

K-9 wrote: »

I moan about their history as well and their spending and tax policies. If I was as bothered about default as you clearly are, I would have set all other issues aside and set out a clear message on it.

You should also be bothered about defualt, because unless you are considering leaving you are also looking at this country defaulting.
There is no way we can service the debts and the so called bailouts.

I would rather default sooner rather later. It is death by a thousand cuts.

And before you start jumping up and down I beleive in repaying our true soverign debt, reigning in current budget deficit, hiving off state enterprises, shooting murderers, rapists, traitors and couldn't care less about united Ireland if it means we have eternal warfare in the place.

So how does that position tally with SF policy ?

CDfm

OK hmmm,

So I do not "believe" in the euro but it is there and we have to make the best of it. I think it is fundamentally flawed.

We do know that some of the institutions propped each other up and I do not think it is heretical to say that the larger banks may have done so in more sophisticated ways. A reasonable question I think.

Now, if I was to hazard a guess that , if UK banks have regulatory issues with blended corporate and retail banking maybe that had a bearing on how foreign lenders viewed Irish banks. Again, reasonable, I think as it would be information I would have read on an industry if buying a stocks & shares.

This was a bit more than risk assessments but solvency but also market sentiment.

I think we have every right to be sceptical as to the information we recieve and cynical about the core values behind the euro.

I also disagree somewhat on EU harmonisation pressures . I have some experience in grant aided applications to the EU and how they are tied into classes of national spending -but that is a minor issue really here. My knowledge may be a little dated but cerainly we are affected by european directives on employment etc which affect our employment costs.

I dont think the answers are as clear as you wish them to be -then I may be wrong.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

You should also be bothered about defualt, because unless you are considering leaving you are also looking at this country defaulting.
There is no way we can service the debts and the so called bailouts.

I would rather default sooner rather later. It is death by a thousand cuts.

And before you start jumping up and down I beleive in repaying our true soverign debt, reigning in current budget deficit, hiving off state enterprises, shooting murderers, rapists, traitors and couldn't care less about united Ireland if it means we have eternal warfare in the place.

So how does that position tally with SF policy ?

Well that is all great, your vote doesn't seem to be going to plan.

We'll get our 1 percent reduction and that'll be it for now.

I'm doing no jumping and down at all as I know this will happen and a partial default is inevitable.

I'm under no illusion your hatred of SF would mean you'd never vote for them, even if they had those policies.

jmayo

K-9 wrote: »

Well that is all great, your vote doesn't seem to be going to plan.

We'll get our 1 percent reduction and that'll be it for now.

But according to some they don't want to even give that. :rolleyes:
What use is a 1% reduction if our growth rates are a few percent below the ultimate rate ?
There are bigger problems in the Eurozone and all the ECB and the two twats are interested in is making an example of Ireland.

K-9 wrote: »

I'm doing no jumping and down at all as I know this will happen and a partial default is inevitable.

So you admit you believe we are going to have some type of default ?
So basically we are throwing good money after bad, all in the hope of appeasing certain people.
Meanwhile we, the other PIIGS and the Euro limp along.

K-9 wrote: »

I'm under no illusion your hatred of SF would mean you'd never vote for them, even if they had those policies.

You are the one that dragged SF into this.
Just because someone believes in threatening default and default of bank debts, does not automatically make them a SF supporter or voter.

And yes I dislike SF, because the individuals that lead SF have their hands covered in blood and as long as people like adams and ferris are around they will never even be considered for a vote by me.

ei.sdraob

jmayo wrote: »

What use is a 1% reduction if our growth rates are a few percent below the ultimate rate ?

We would have to be mad to handover corporation tax for lower rate



The above is from a report funded by the European Commission as part of its economic impact analysis into the CCCTB, btw, so i am sure no bias or over optimism there....
The above will wipe out any gains from the optimistic growth forecasts we need over next few years to be able to repay debts.


aside: the users supporting CCCTB are the same ones who supported Guarantee, NAMA and bailouts and refused to admit Ireland was in talks with IMF despite the IMF guys walking the streets of Dublin being busy...

CDfm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We would have to be mad to handover corporation tax for lower rate

Is it a fair assessment that the EU Bailout Bond Funds are being borrowed from the same people that lent to our banks. ???????

BluePlanet

Here is the article ei.sdraob is pulling the graph from:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6248

The authors are much more positive about CCCTB.

And remember, we've all read about the distorting effects MultiNationals do to our GDP, by calculating all their profits in Ireland in a simple accounting exercise.

So while it looks "scary", that irelad looses 3% GDP!!
It's probably nothing to worry about.

ei.sdraob

BluePlanet wrote: »

Here is the article ei.sdraob is pulling the graph from:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6248

The authors are much more positive about CCCTB.

And remember, we've all read about the distorting effects MultiNationals do to our GDP, by calculating all their profits in Ireland in a simple accounting exercise.

So while it looks "scary", that irelad looses 3% GDP!!
It's probably nothing to worry about.

Like I said the research was funded by EU so should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Our ability to repay is entirely dependant on optimistic growth forecasts,
How do they expect to get their money back if we cant afford to pay it back?

This is madness it is quite obvious that EU politicians are out of touch with reality, I despaired watching the other nights Prime Time, I honestly have thought that EU politicians would have a better grasp of situation than our crowd, but that is not the case, their politics towards Ireland is based on their local issues and election point-scoring.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

But according to some they don't want to even give that. :rolleyes:
What use is a 1% reduction if our growth rates are a few percent below the ultimate rate ?
There are bigger problems in the Eurozone and all the ECB and the two twats are interested in is making an example of Ireland.



So you admit you believe we are going to have some type of default ?
So basically we are throwing good money after bad, all in the hope of appeasing certain people.
Meanwhile we, the other PIIGS and the Euro limp along.



You are the one that dragged SF into this.
Just because someone believes in threatening default and default of bank debts, does not automatically make them a SF supporter or voter.

And yes I dislike SF, because the individuals that lead SF have their hands covered in blood and as long as people like adams and ferris are around they will never even be considered for a vote by me.

Oh I've never had an issue with default, I think on this thread and others.
Really, if you thought FG was going to renegotiate the deal massively, I think you were naive.

Fg had to backtrack on their initial promises in the election and admit any new deal would have to be agreed at an EU level. People should have copped what that meant then.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We would have to be mad to handover corporation tax for lower rate

[IMG][/img]http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromMar2011/bettendorf_fig.jpg

The above is from a report funded by the European Commission as part of its economic impact analysis into the CCCTB, btw, so i am sure no bias or over optimism there....
The above will wipe out any gains from the optimistic growth forecasts we need over next few years to be able to repay debts.


aside: the users supporting CCCTB are the same ones who supported Guarantee, NAMA and bailouts and refused to admit Ireland was in talks with IMF despite the IMF guys walking the streets of Dublin being busy...

Funny how other analysis shows the Germans probably affected the worst but I suppose that will be ignored.



As for your personal attacks, well used to your hit and run tactics. I suppose dodging hard questions is easier. That happens with libertarians and other ideologues like yourself. It's adds to the lack of real debate on this board.

BluePlanet

I suppose the CCCTB graph really just demonstrates which "tax havens" the MutiNationals are using.

ei.sdraob

@K-9 Like I said a report funded by EU....

Germany benefits in other ways, in europe with same rates business would gravitate towards the core
One of the economics of EU was to establish a competitive open market.
What is happening now is a move towards a centralised Europe which despises competition.
We dont need CCCP erm CCCTB. We dont need a Europe where the states are no longer viewed as equals and no solidarity or pragmatism for that matter exists.
Speaking of dodging questions, for the nth time:

What does corporation taxation have to do with this Europe wide crisis?



And if it makes you feel any better this time next week I will have completed the split of my business and will never ever again pay a cent of corporation tax, if anything I intend on generating a loss in order to claim back some of the dozens of thousands I paid out like a fool that I am. It is remarkably easy for an exporting company to leave this country. Do keep that in mind.

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@K-9 Like I said a report funded by EU....

Germany benefits in other ways, in europe with same rates business would gravitate towards the core
One of the economics of EU was to establish a competitive open market.
What is happening now is a move towards a centralised Europe which despises competition.
We dont need CCCP erm CCCTB. We dont need a Europe where the states are no longer viewed as equals and no solidarity or pragmatism for that matter exists.
Speaking of dodging questions, for the nth time:

What does corporation taxation have to do with this Europe wide crisis?



And if it makes you feel any better this time next week I will have completed the split of my business and will never ever again pay a cent of corporation tax, if anything I intend on generating a loss in order to claim back some of the dozens of thousands I paid out like a fool that I am. It is remarkably easy for an exporting company to leave this country. Do keep that in mind.

Absolutely nothing to do with it and Sarkozy has been told that. It has been answered a few times on this thread but I think it doesn't fit the nice stereotypes ideologues set up.

Nevertheless I'm sure you'll be following posters around in 6 months time saying they supported raising the CT rate.

PS. For that matter what did asset sales have to do with Greece's deal, but they had to do something to renegotiate. You probably wouldn't be opposed to the markets profiting there, as its all about profit.

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

And if it makes you feel any better this time next week I will have completed the split of my business and will never ever again pay a cent of corporation tax, if anything I intend on generating a loss in order to claim back some of the dozens of thousands I paid out like a fool that I am. It is remarkably easy for an exporting company to leave this country. Do keep that in mind.

I don't think the threat to the CT rate was the clincher there ei.sdraob.

BluePlanet

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We would have to be mad to handover corporation tax for lower rate



The above is from a report funded by the European Commission as part of its economic impact analysis into the CCCTB, btw, so i am sure no bias or over optimism there....
The above will wipe out any gains from the optimistic growth forecasts we need over next few years to be able to repay debts.

I find it highly, highly ironic you are citing a graph about the loss of GDP when you have a history of posting that measurement is rubbish in the irish context.

ei.sdraob

I didnt make the report, EU did. Same EU which excepts certain amounts of growth measured in GDP in order to get its money back.

It be nice if you provide us figures expressed in GNP, at least I try to provide data and graphs instead of sniping from sidelines ...

Scofflaw

OK, can we perhaps tone down the personal gibes?

moderately,
Scofflaw