Junker under pressure.. should he resign?

NotInventedHere

Following on from the revelations about Luxembourg's Tax avoidance schemes that were engineered during former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker's tenure.
There are call for him to resign. Would his resignation trigger a leadership crisis in Brussels? Do the full commission have to resign as well?

Sephiral

His credibility is shot. He should definitely go.

donaghs

Sephiral wrote: »

His credibility is shot. He should definitely go.

True, but I suspect he has sufficient brass neck to wait for one minor media storm to pass by.

dlouth15

Seems to have passed now. It was really only the eurosceptic parties that were pursuing Junker on this politically. The 300bn investment programme has now taken attention away from Junker's past doings.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

The 300bn investment programme has now taken attention away from Junker's past doings.

Well since he did nothing wrong, I don't see what the issue is! Is is not the first PM to introduce lucrative tax laws and he will not be the last one to do so. As the the UKIP, if they said it was raining I'd look out to be sure.

gallag

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well since he did nothing wrong, I don't see what the issue is! Is is not the first PM to introduce lucrative tax laws and he will not be the last one to do so. As the the UKIP, if they said it was raining I'd look out to be sure.

my god, "lucrative tax laws" the man set the cogs in motion to defraud the EU citizens out of money to be used on schools, hospitals etc to the benefit of himself and companies profits. and it was hardly just euro sceptic party's holding this opinion, this EU scam is like a religion to some of yous, no criticism allowed.

hfallada

gallag wrote: »

my god, "lucrative tax laws" the man set the cogs in motion to defraud the EU citizens out of money to be used on schools, hospitals etc to the benefit of himself and companies profits. and it was hardly just euro sceptic party's holding this opinion, this EU scam is like a religion to some of yous, no criticism allowed.

What he did was completely legal. Most people in Europe were aware that Luxembourg had "generous" tax breaks and loopholes for companies. It was up to the EU to prevent them not being exploited not Luxembourg.

Isn't it any different to everyone being aware of the double Irish for years? But it took the government up to this budget to close it. At least most Luxembourg companies had a physical presence in Luxembourg. Where as most companies in the double Irish were literally a brass plate and a letterbox. Double Irish companies paid no tax. At least Luxembourg companies paid something even through it was a tiny amount

dlouth15

We need to shut up now about Luxembourg tax dodging if we want some of that 300bn to come this way.

Scofflaw

hfallada wrote: »

What he did was completely legal. Most people in Europe were aware that Luxembourg had "generous" tax breaks and loopholes for companies. It was up to the EU to prevent them not being exploited not Luxembourg.

It's not, though, any more than the 'double Irish' could be closed by the EU. The EU's competence in tax matters is extremely limited.

What usually looks like the EU intervening in tax matters is actually the EU intervening in state aid matters - that is, where a particular company has a "sweetheart" tax deal of some kind that is not available to other companies. The EU can intervene there because that's state aid to the company.

It cannot, on the other hand, intervene where a tax loophole is available to every company. Thus it can investigate the tax deal Apple's subsidiary in Ireland may have got, because that might be state aid, but it cannot intervene in the matter of the double Irish.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

In other news, I see that the EFDD (UKIP and sundry) put forward a motion of no confidence. Defeated 461 against, 101 in favour, 88 abstentions. Would have needed 376 in favour to dismiss the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

donaghs

hfallada wrote: »

What he did was completely legal. Most people in Europe were aware that Luxembourg had "generous" tax breaks and loopholes for companies.

Hate to sound so old-fashioned and bring in "morality", but does making something "legal" automatically make it acceptable? In case you don't get the point, I could mention the old internet cliche about the Nazis, and their "Enabling Act" of 1933.

So, as someone already mentioned, if countries give tax deals like this, tax revenue does not flow to deserving causes like hospitals and schools, or even pay for the public sector. It shifts more of the burden of taxation onto other people.

Scofflaw

donaghs wrote: »

Hate to sound so old-fashioned and bring in "morality", but does making something "legal" automatically make it acceptable? In case you don't get the point, I could mention the old internet cliche about the Nazis, and their "Enabling Act" of 1933.

So, as someone already mentioned, if countries give tax deals like this, tax revenue does not flow to deserving causes like hospitals and schools, or even pay for the public sector. It shifts more of the burden of taxation onto other people.

That's very true - the current "internationally competitive tax market" is a fine example of the tragedy of the commons. There are individual benefits for one country in offering light taxation to multinationals, but the net result is that the majority are worse off.

cordially,
Scofflaw