Donald Trump

KomradeBishop

Well, check this here - the first graph says it all - accessing the European Single Market is the closest marker to the Celtic Tiger boom:
http://foolsgold.international/did-irelands-12-5-percent-corporate-tax-rate-cause-the-celtic-tiger/

Remember, the Celtic Tiger was built upon an unsustainable housing boom - it's hardly representative of success, it's at least as much representative of the looting of our economy, through using unproductive economic activity in construction, to create a bubble for providing primarily financial profits - at the cost of the entire country.

The IFSC wasn't a 'success', it directly led to the regulatory and subsequent economic conditions, that ruined us...

I acknowledge the financial benefits of the multinationals (yet I think they are vastly overstated) - but do you not see that the other side of that coin, is the housing bubble and the crisis - which cost us far more than any benefit, these multinationals provided?

K-9

Sorry Kb, can you answer those last 2 questions first please.

KomradeBishop

Well, Ireland is English speaking and in the Euro - together, a huge advantage - and in the case of Pfizer, I didn't look at the details, but didn't it become uneconomical for them, given that the US was announcing clampdowns on the type of tax dodge they were about to do?

K-9

Germany is in the EU and Euro and has Frankfurt and is the world's 4th largest economy, pretty decent education system there too. France the 6th largest, in the Euro and a good education system as well.

Google et al deal with France and Germany and the rest of the EU everyday, doesn't seem to be a language barrier there.

Yep, Pfizer pulled out. Suddenly us being in the EU, Euro, English speaking and well educated didn't seem all that important to them anymore once they couldn't avail of our special tax breaks. I thought us being a tax haven wasn't important and it's all about the EU?

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, check this here - the first graph says it all - accessing the European Single Market is the closest marker to the Celtic Tiger boom:
http://foolsgold.international/did-irelands-12-5-percent-corporate-tax-rate-cause-the-celtic-tiger/

Remember, the Celtic Tiger was built upon an unsustainable housing boom - it's hardly representative of success, it's at least as much representative of the looting of our economy, through using unproductive economic activity in construction, to create a bubble for providing primarily financial profits - at the cost of the entire country.

The IFSC wasn't a 'success', it directly led to the regulatory and subsequent economic conditions, that ruined us...

I acknowledge the financial benefits of the multinationals (yet I think they are vastly overstated) - but do you not see that the other side of that coin, is the housing bubble and the crisis - which cost us far more than any benefit, these multinationals provided?

Okay, nice graph but he leaves out an important detail.

The move to 12.5% Corporation tax was signalled by Ruari Quinn in 1996 and McCreevy started reducing it from 32% in 97 by 20% over 5 years. The original Celtic Tiger starts around 95/96.

He states the rise in income from 75/76 was due to EEC membership but we joined in 73. The Government starting borrowing on a large scale in the mid 70's to offset the oil crisis and Jack Lynch pumped money into the economy from 77 necessitating Charlie's famous "living beyond our means speech". Notice the slump from 81/82?

Notice how he refers to that rise as corroboration for his belief but doesn't mention any of that.

Incidentally there was a property bubble in the late 70's to early 80's too and land prices sky rocketed, nothing to with the Single Market or Euro.

You'll also notice a rise in the late 80's when Charlie came back in again but drops for the currency crisis while Bertie was in Finance.

The CAP payments I don't get, their bubble time was the 80's when the economy was a basket case, so I have to seriously question his logic there.

But anyway, he doesn't actually agree with your argument that being a tax haven isn't important at all and mentions lax regulation must be a factor as well.

I notice in his commentary he doesn't mention the phasing in of the Corporation tax in 96 either, cutting CT by 20% obviously played a part in the rise in income from then on.

Anyway, having a low CT rate doesn't mean a property bubble must follow as you are contending, the property bubble started in 95. The Government and powers that be should have used tools to stop stoking the flames.

You know those things you want our Government to do now? There was nothing stopping them doing those and more from the mid 90's on.

Indeed they did some of those things like scrapping the first time buyers grant but ruined it by bringing in crazy tax relief on mortgage interest. €20,000 per year interest got tax relief,
so the Government was giving generous tax breaks to €1 Million Mac Mansions!

PS: I like his note about the UK now on a race to the bottom to join us. Who is the author? He doesn't seem to have any grasp of Irish politics and economic history. I'd hazard a guess he has a belief and is selecting the facts that suit that narrative, without doing much digging.

Wait, where's Donald?

K-9

Sorry, I'd agree with commentators who say the real Celtic Tiger was 95 - 00/02 at a push. I'd even say it really started in the 80's, the foundations were laid through getting the finances in order, cutting 65/70% (yep, my Dad paid that and he wasn't on a big wage) tax rates on middle incomes and real social partnership, not the one for everybody in the audience extravaganza it became. The currency crisis and interest rates if 17/18% ruined it but people kept at it.

Contrast that with 02-07.

Cheerful Spring

The madness never stops.

Trump tweet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/736672123012427776

Cheerful Spring

DipDab93 wrote: »

Trump doesnt sugar coat what he thinks. I would much prefer to see him get the vote than Hilary

You like to see a Fascist take power? Are some of you hoping for Armageddon? I just waiting for him to say White Christen Americans are the master race.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Germany is in the EU and Euro and has Frankfurt and is the world's 4th largest economy, pretty decent education system there too. France the 6th largest, in the Euro and a good education system as well.

Google et al deal with France and Germany and the rest of the EU everyday, doesn't seem to be a language barrier there.

Yep, Pfizer pulled out. Suddenly us being in the EU, Euro, English speaking and well educated didn't seem all that important to them anymore once they couldn't avail of our special tax breaks. I thought us being a tax haven wasn't important and it's all about the EU?

True, most multinationals have good representation in major EU cities, without language being much of a barrier - they would want to setup in major EU cities anyway though - being both an English language country and in the Euro, is still an advantage.

Ya but the point I made about the Celtic Tiger, was it was driven by being in the EU and ESM - I wasn't focusing on the reasons companies come here (though I'm sure it's a factor, among other things), and I wouldn't agree that the Celtic Tiger is defined by those companies coming here.

If you think a significant proportion of our tax revenue is built upon multinationals, then don't you think that is rather precarious and a bad idea - in the same way as basing revenue on construction was, pre-crisis - if you also think that these companies will leave rapidly, if the US and other countries, crack down on tax havens?

I don't think the companies that are established here, are all that flighty myself, and I would question their contributions to revenue given all the ultra-low-tax deals being done, but I view that as an interesting contradiction in your logic.

K-9

The problem is these multinationals account for a huge amount of our exports. They don't create as much secondary jobs as they used to IIRC, suppose with less and less manufacturing the knock on industries aren't as big.

So they aren't as important jobs wise as they used to.

You've also picked me up wrong, I don't think they pay enough Corporation tax at all and I'm very dubious of the record figures that are coming in.

I raised the idea of raising the CT rate by a percent or two during the crash and it was considered treason by many! That's our sovereignty 100 years on from 1916, don't touch our tax rate!

So sorry kb, it's not a fault in my logic at all, you've picked up the wrong end of the stick is all!

I've always said it isn't really the rate that matters, it's the rules and Pfizer is proof of that.

If the UK keeps droppings rates and stays in the EU we've serious competition across the water, and that's ignoring N.I. or an East European country making a serious play for the market, because that is what it is.

LorMal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes but this is the misattribution I was talking about: What else happened in that time? Answer: Closer and closer integration with the EU.

It's the EU which provided us with so much economic success - we have been a tax haven since the 1960's, but it is the EU which provided us with our success, not our tax haven status.

The idea that our low Corporate Tax rate, and our operation as a low-regulation tax haven, provides our success, is one of the greatest lies our political and business class spin to us - it's not true, it's actually harmed our country enormously, and helps corrupt our politics.

Our politician need no help to be corrupt . However , I believe our constituency based system promotes corruption much more than our corporate tax system.
I see little evidence of the enormous harm of which you speak.

I agree our EU membership has helped us in the past. But I do not see that creating actual jobs or tangible wealth here.

Back on the subject of this thread, Trump making some dramatic change to US international tax law could have a negative implication here. Maybe not as catastrophic as often portrayed - but certainly damaging in the short - medium term.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

*snip*

Well, we had the financial-industry-favouring low taxes, as well as manufacturing low-taxes, long before the primary Corporate Tax reduction; the former in particular, finance/IFSC, would be among the things people credit highly as a benefit - yet that doesn't seem to correlate with the graph, the ESM comes closer.

Personally, I view the time around the oil crisis and the early 80's, as not really very easy to draw conclusions from, given the pretty unstable macroeconomic conditions at the time - way more unstable than now, with e.g. periods of consistent really high inflation:
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/ireland-inflation-cpi.png?s=iecpiyoy&v=201605182110n&d1=19160101&d2=19900101

Given the extreme inflation, I don't know if you can call the rise in house prices at the time, a bubble; here is the rise in house prices, and compare it to the graph above:
http://i.imgur.com/BJK98yI.gif

I've only done some initial back-of-the-envelope checks, but it looks like the house prices primarily track with inflation - but the increase after '88 is not due to inflation (that is after the date range you mention though - the range you mention, can almost entirely be attributed to inflation).

There was no drop of the post-88 house prices like you say though - they stayed higher, and the currency crisis ('92/'93) didn't affect them:
http://i.imgur.com/GAhCdEY.gif


See, you're attributing something which causes a drop in tax income - slashing Corporate Tax, around '95 - with a rise in tax income; you can't show what the cause of the rise in revenue was, because it can't be disentangled from all the other macroeconomic factors in the economy - for all we know, we could have had even more tax income, by keeping the higher Corporate Tax.

You acknowledge that the property bubble started around '95 too, and this itself will have caused a rise in revenue - so it's a good example of a macroeconomic variable, that muddies your claim about Corporation Tax here.

I didn't say a low Corporate Tax leads to a property bubble though - I said lax financial regulation does.


I'm not sure who that author is, I don't read his writing often - but I see that sites stuff, occasionally cited by other sources I read a lot - and even if there's room to debate over the details, the big picture he paints is an interesting perspective, and good food for debate

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

The problem is these multinationals account for a huge amount of our exports. They don't create as much secondary jobs as they used to IIRC, suppose with less and less manufacturing the knock on industries aren't as big.

So they aren't as important jobs wise as they used to.

You've also picked me up wrong, I don't think they pay enough Corporation tax at all and I'm very dubious of the record figures that are coming in.

I raised the idea of raising the CT rate by a percent or two during the crash and it was considered treason by many! That's our sovereignty 100 years on from 1916, don't touch our tax rate!

So sorry kb, it's not a fault in my logic at all, you've picked up the wrong end of the stick is all!

I've always said it isn't really the rate that matters, it's the rules and Pfizer is proof of that.

If the UK keeps droppings rates and stays in the EU we've serious competition across the water, and that's ignoring N.I. or an East European country making a serious play for the market, because that is what it is.

Yes but export gains from multinationals, predominantly stay with multinationals - multinationals contribute to the domestic economy through (low) Corporate Taxes, and (small compared to corporate revenue) wage payments - but exports from domestic businesses count for more, because they contribute to the local economy in many more ways (as these businesses will likely be reinvesting the gains in Ireland).

It's the difference between looking at GDP - inflated by multinationals and our bloated finance sector - and GNP - which is a better measure of our domestic economy.


Ah okey, I thought you were arguing that Corporation Tax played a big part in our success - ya we do seem to agree on more things than not here really, and mainly just disagree on what the roots of the Celtic Tiger are.

K-9

I think if you go digging into the period 96-98 you'll find that there was lobbying by the IFSC etc. to do something about the rise in their CT from 10% to 12.5% and the Government was concerned about it. Abrekedabra, lax regulation! That's where it starts showing, the author stated he didn't know where it came in, probably because he doesn't appear to have any knowledge of Irish politics or economic history.

The idea of gradually cutting tax rates over 5 or 6 budgets with Corporation tax was to avoid any sudden drop in tax revenues and over that period business would grow. They aren't totally clueless in Finance! So Kb, CT wasn't slashed in 95, it was announced then, starts in 97 and finished in 02.

The idea behind announcing a low rate and lax tax laws is it attracts foreign investment we wouldn't get otherwise and it would seem we were good at it.

Would we have got it anyway? I'll use your words - "for all we know" we wouldn't have attracted all those huge multinationals from 96 to 02 and onwards if we hadn't made ourselves more attractive to the Apples and Googles of this world.

I'm making an educated guess and saying no, we wouldn't, same as your educated guess that keeping the 32% rate would have got more tax income.

Government slashed income tax rates of 50-65% and tax receipts rose and rose over the following 2 decades. Do I think Government would have taken in more by keeping 50-65% tax rates, no. Again it's guess work. CGT got halved in 02 (there's a Government tool they could have uses to not fuel a bubble) and receipts sky rocketed. Would they have increased anyway. I'd say no.

The property bubble increases income, as does foreign investment, jobs and the ancillary stuff that goes with it. GDP was sky rocketing from the mid 90's on.

Good point about inflation, I can just about remember figures of 18 or 20%. There definitely was a land price bubble in the late 70's and the property market really cooled in the late 80's, upto 88/89 anyway . Not a crash like now but people remembered it as a tough period, kind of got lost in the mania 10 years later.

The 70's were uncertain but the author is attributing that growth with the EEC when we know that our Governments for the first time started borrowing on a large scale, never before had they took a Keynesian approach like this. I just don't think you can take 1 undoubtedly important factor and ignore the other.

I think he is doing it again with monetary union, undoubtedly a big driver, but we'd massive foreign investment coming in, emigration basically dried up by the end of the decade and we actually started taking in significant numbers of immigrants and emigrants returning. The Government was continuing to cut tax rates for ordinary people, a process started in 87/88, there's a host of things going on!

KomradeBishop

True, it's hard to disentangle one thing from the other in all those circumstances - it'd need a much more in depth bit of research to examine properly - I guess we'll find out, when external/international pressures, forces us to rollback on our tax haven status, just how important these factors are.

For now though, best to agree where we agree, and agree to disagree where we don't don't have the energy/time to go researching again tonight - lots of interesting nuances/points brought up though.

cowboyBuilder

Alex Jones is a lunatic, but does a good job of mocking the lefty loons here

RobertKK

I'm watching the news.
I see Richard Boyd Barrett, FG and FF supporting Hillary Clinton.
I prefer Trump over Clinton, but RBB seems to not understand that Clinton is dangerous and has shown a great disregard for life which has cost hundreds of thousands if not more, their lives.
I think some of them see 'Republican' and lose their minds as if Hillary is a saviour.

Samaris

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm watching the news.
I see Richard Boyd Barrett, FG and FF supporting Hillary Clinton.
I prefer Trump over Clinton, but RBB seems to not understand that Clinton is dangerous and has shown a great disregard for life which has cost hundreds of thousands if not more, their lives.
I think some of them see 'Republican' and lose their minds as if Hillary is a saviour.

Nah, they see Trump and think "anything is better than that".

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm watching the news.
I see Richard Boyd Barrett, FG and FF supporting Hillary Clinton.
I prefer Trump over Clinton, but RBB seems to not understand that Clinton is dangerous and has shown a great disregard for life which has cost hundreds of thousands if not more, their lives.
I think some of them see 'Republican' and lose their minds as if Hillary is a saviour.

Trump is not a credible individual, any legitimate questions and he'll shout the person down. He won't address question, he'll name call, he'll bully. He'll accuse the individual of being a 'Mexican'(which is bizarre in itself) as he did with the judge on his fraud trial. He's an unknown quantity that has not shown any form of political intelligence or ability, so endorse him?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/media/donald-trump-reporter-sleaze/index.html?iid=Lead

B_Wayne

B_Wayne wrote: »

Trump is not a credible individual, any legitimate questions and he'll shout the person down. He won't address question, he'll name call, he'll bully. He'll accuse the individual of being a 'Mexican'(which is bizarre in itself) as he did with the judge on his fraud trial. He's an unknown quantity that has not shown any form of political intelligence or ability, so endorse him?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/media/donald-trump-reporter-sleaze/index.html?iid=Lead

At least he'll answer questions.. Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 179 days apparently. So any snippets we hear are from journalists who want to keep their access.

Trump shouts people down. Clinton puts her head in the sand.
Trump gains voters when he speaks. Clinton loses voters when she speaks.

wokingvoter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least he'll answer questions.. Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 179 days apparently. So any snippets we hear are from journalists who want to keep their access.

Trump shouts people down. Clinton puts her head in the sand.
Trump gains voters when he speaks. Clinton loses voters when she speaks.

Could it be the case that Clintons "people" have advised her to be very quiet during this period and let Trump talk himself out of the Presidency?

wokingvoter

wokingvoter wrote: »

Could it be the case that Clintons "people" have advised her to be very quiet during this period and let Trump talk himself out of the Presidency?

They've advised her to stay quiet but it's not because of Trump. He's not talking himself out of anything. He's easily the best campaigner at the moment.

She can't really debate or talk to the media properly until after the FBI has finished their investigation and there's no recommendation for an indictment. I'd be very surprised if she actually answers questions before the convention.

Bobeagleburger

I hear you're racist now Donald

SEPT 23 1989

Do the idiot politicians think Shannon will be a quieter place if Clinton 2 gets her hands on power

LorMal

RoboKlopp wrote: »

I hear you're racist now Donald

Indeed. Just what is Enda Kenny doing? The man is a complete liability and a real embarrassment.
I don't care what he thinks about Donald Trump - rascist or not. But to come out with that statement is beyond idiotic.
He obviously thinks Hillary will be 'good for Ireland' and that Trump has no chance. The problem is, no US voter gives a damn what Enda Kenny thinks - but he has now shot firmly himself in the foot if Trump does win.
That won't stop him going to the White House next Paddys Day with his bowl of shamrock to lick Trumps hairy arse mind you.
Idiot.

LorMal

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Alex Jones is a lunatic, but does a good job of mocking the lefty loons here

It's really incredible that this stuff counts as political analysis on US TV.

Bobeagleburger

LorMal wrote: »

Indeed. Just what is Enda Kenny doing? The man is a complete liability and a real embarrassment.
I don't care what he thinks about Donald Trump - rascist or not. But to come out with that statement is beyond idiotic.
He obviously thinks Hillary will be 'good for Ireland' and that Trump has no chance. The problem is, no US voter gives a damn what Enda Kenny thinks - but he has now shot firmly himself in the foot if Trump does win.
That won't stop him going to the White House next Paddys Day with his bowl of shamrock to lick Trumps hairy arse mind you.
Idiot.

Not a fan of Enda Kenny at all but he was right. Trump is racist. Not exactly a good trait a potential president. Land of the free!

K-9

LorMal wrote: »

Indeed. Just what is Enda Kenny doing? The man is a complete liability and a real embarrassment.
I don't care what he thinks about Donald Trump - rascist or not. But to come out with that statement is beyond idiotic.
He obviously thinks Hillary will be 'good for Ireland' and that Trump has no chance. The problem is, no US voter gives a damn what Enda Kenny thinks - but he has now shot firmly himself in the foot if Trump does win.
That won't stop him going to the White House next Paddys Day with his bowl of shamrock to lick Trumps hairy arse mind you.
Idiot.

Sure Cameron and others have said it. Trump can't get offended by those who call him racist, because it's impractical!

Bigus

LorMal wrote: »

Indeed. Just what is Enda Kenny doing? The man is a complete liability and a real embarrassment.
I don't care what he thinks about Donald Trump - rascist or not. But to come out with that statement is beyond idiotic.
He obviously thinks Hillary will be 'good for Ireland' and that Trump has no chance. The problem is, no US voter gives a damn what Enda Kenny thinks - but he has now shot firmly himself in the foot if Trump does win.
That won't stop him going to the White House next Paddys Day with his bowl of shamrock to lick Trumps hairy arse mind you.
Idiot.

Oh yes it will stop him if trump is there .

B_Wayne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least he'll answer questions.. Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 179 days apparently. So any snippets we hear are from journalists who want to keep their access.

Trump shouts people down. Clinton puts her head in the sand.
Trump gains voters when he speaks. Clinton loses voters when she speaks.

He shouted sleaze at a journalist in place of answering questions....