Paradise papers

MightyMandarin

Jawgap wrote: »

Oligarchs etc - yeah, I'd have no problem with wealth being stripped away from people who got it through corrupt, nepotistic, or other ill-gotten means.

But the poster didn't mention any of those - he mentioned Gates, Buffett and Bezos......and at least one of those has mentioned that they'd pay higher taxes if they were levied, and has advocated that taxes should, in fact, be higher.

The fact is the taxes aren't higher though, so what Warren Buffett says is irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned. Look, I don't have a grudge against any of these men. They're great at what they do and clearly work hard and are very smart, but no three people deserve to own as much wealth as 160 million. It's a disgrace.

And all of that 'but philanthropy' ****e is also meaningless. The 3 of them, and many others around them could do a lot more to help this planet if they paid the right amount of tax. For one thing, America might be able to educate its children and take care of its sick and elderly in a better way.

Permabear and the rest can also go on about the NSA and all that crap. The fact is, the budget could be a lot bigger if people paid their fair share, and it's clear as day that the rich simply are not.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

be very happy. Is there any evidence at all that stock prices are affected by the corporation tax?

Way to miss the point.

Directors owe shareholders a fiduciary duty.....corporation tax rates are largely irrelevant, the duty is to as far as is legally possible maximise shareholder value. If they don't they risk being sued and sanctioned.

Look, the answer to all this is simple - change the law (as I've advocated already). Until then don't be surprised if people or corporations drive a coach-and-four through the loopholes.

Jawgap

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The fact is the taxes aren't higher though, so what Warren Buffett says is irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned. Look, I don't have a grudge against any of these men. They're great at what they do and clearly work hard and are very smart, but no three people deserve to own as much wealth as 160 million. It's a disgrace.

And all of that 'but philanthropy' ****e is also meaningless. The 3 of them, and many others around them could do a lot more to help this planet if they paid the right amount of tax. For one thing, America might be able to educate its children and take care of its sick and elderly in a better way.

Permabear and the rest can also go on about the NSA and all that crap. The fact is, the budget could be a lot bigger if people paid their fair share, and it's clear as day that the rich simply are not.

Yes, because if history has taught us one thing it's that capitalist western governments are fantastic at spending money for the benefit of their country and the wider global population.

I mean sure didn't our unprecedented tax revues in the early 2000s issue in a golden and gilded age

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

Way to miss the point.

Way to pretend I missed the point. I was on point.

Directors owe shareholders a fiduciary duty.....corporation tax rates are largely irrelevant, the duty is to as far as is legally possible maximise shareholder value. If they don't they risk being sued and sanctioned.

Look, the answer to all this is simple - change the law (as I've advocated already). Until then don't be surprised if people or corporations drive a coach-and-four through the loopholes.

I’ve really yet to see a sanction of a hopeless CEO. They generally ruin a company and run off into the wilderness. You get class action suits against the company by shareholders alright which is basically suing yourself.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, because if history has taught us one thing it's that capitalist western governments are fantastic at spending money for the benefit of their country and the wider global population.

I mean sure didn't our unprecedented tax revues in the early 2000s issue in a golden and gilded age

How about this. The rich pay more taxes and then you pay less taxes. No increase in size of state needed.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

How about this. The rich pay more taxes and then you pay less taxes. No increase in size of state needed.

More/less in absolute or proportional terms?

Out of interest, what happens if the rich leave? Or do you anticipate other jurisdictions collecting taxes on our behalf that we'd be morally entitled to?

20Cent

Jawgap wrote: »

More/less in absolute or proportional terms?

Out of interest, what happens if the rich leave? Or do you anticipate other jurisdictions collecting taxes on our behalf that we'd be morally entitled to?

If the rich leave someone else can do whatever they did.
Would like to see how rich they'd be if they could only do business in the tax havens.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

More/less in absolute or proportional terms?

Out of interest, what happens if the rich leave? Or do you anticipate other jurisdictions collecting taxes on our behalf that we'd be morally entitled to?

I never said anything about any particular jurisdiction.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

I never said anything about any particular jurisdiction.

So, rich people pay more tax, I pay less tax? Correct?

Rich people decide, "feck that, I'm off"

.....and?

How do we get the tax from them? Am I back paying even more tax than previously because now I have to help cover the gap left by the rich people who've cleared off?

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The fact is the taxes aren't higher though, so what Warren Buffett says is irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned. Look, I don't have a grudge against any of these men. They're great at what they do and clearly work hard and are very smart, but no three people deserve to own as much wealth as 160 million. It's a disgrace.

And all of that 'but philanthropy' ****e is also meaningless. The 3 of them, and many others around them could do a lot more to help this planet if they paid the right amount of tax. For one thing, America might be able to educate its children and take care of its sick and elderly in a better way.

Permabear and the rest can also go on about the NSA and all that crap. The fact is, the budget could be a lot bigger if people paid their fair share, and it's clear as day that the rich simply are not.

Yes, because if history has taught us one thing it's that capitalist western governments are fantastic at spending money for the benefit of their country and the wider global population.

I mean sure didn't our unprecedented tax revues in the early 2000s issue in a golden and gilded age

You're saying governments are a black hole for spending and that private "charities" by billionaires is a great example of private money being put to good used.however how many of these charities are for tax reduction purposes alone? Some of them have ridiculously high "admin" fees. Look at the red foundation as an example. Companies like apple,gap , motorola involved and fronted by bono. 100 millon spent on the advertising on red products of the companiea selected.15 million transfered to actual causes in the end. Seems more like a tax efficient way to advertise.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

server down wrote: »

I never said anything about any particular jurisdiction.

So, rich people pay more tax, I pay less tax? Correct?

Rich people decide, "feck that, I'm off"

.....and?

How do we get the tax from them? Am I back paying even more tax than previously because now I have to help cover the gap left by the rich people who've cleared off?

Slavery was legal in the west once. And those in favour of maintaining it made alot of the same types of arguements you're making now.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

You're saying governments are a black hole for spending and that private "charities" by billionaires is a great example of private money being put to good used.however how many of these charities are for tax reduction purposes alone? Some of them have ridiculously high "admin" fees. Look at the red foundation as an example. Companies like apple,gap , motorola involved and fronted by bono. 100 millon spent on the advertising on red products of the companiea selected.15 million transfered to actual causes in the end. Seems more like a tax efficient way to advertise.

I wasn't speaking in absolutes.

A poster introduced Buffett, Bezos and Gates. I refuted, and this is your second attempt to warp what I've said into something more than it was.

Continue by all means but it says something about the strength or absence thereof in your argument that you feel compelled to adopt such a tactic.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Slavery was legal in the west once. And those in favour of maintaining it made alot of the same types of arguements you're making now.

Ok, even more ridiculous than some of your previous points.

For a start I was comenting in the portability of wealth. Wealth now, more than ever, is fungible and therefore portable. Tax it by all means to beyond what's reasonable, but don't be surprised if it doesn't hang around.

MightyMandarin

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, because if history has taught us one thing it's that capitalist western governments are fantastic at spending money for the benefit of their country and the wider global population.

I mean sure didn't our unprecedented tax revues in the early 2000s issue in a golden and gilded age

Oh yeah I almost forgot that it's Bono and Denis O'Brien who built our motorway network, fund our public schools, pay our nurses and gards, provide welfare to those without a job or in bad circumstances.

Jaysus, where would be without St.Bono who put all the irish kids through primary and secondary education.

I guess your stupid reply warranted a stupid one in return.

smurgen

The idea that charities filling the place of governments was flouted big time by the conservatives in the U.K during the 2010 general election the lauched the "Big Society" policy. Basically looking for the public to plug holes in basic services for free after big cuts to the budgets. They love the idea of ordinary joe soaps caring for one another while their purse strings are drawn.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

smurgen wrote: »

Slavery was legal in the west once. And those in favour of maintaining it made alot of the same types of arguements you're making now.

Ok, even more ridiculous than some of your previous points.

For a start I was comenting in the portability of wealth. Wealth now, more than ever, is fungible and therefore portable. Tax it by all means to beyond what's reasonable, but don't be surprised if it doesn't hang around.

Don't be surprised when societies start challenging corporatism. I believe that people are starting to wake up to the power of these mega corporations and that there will be a major push back against them.

Jawgap

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oh yeah I almost forgot that it's Bono and Denis O'Brien who built our motorway network, fund our public schools, pay our nurses and gards, provide welfare to those without a job or in bad circumstances.

Jaysus, where would be without St.Bono who put all the irish kids through primary and secondary education.

I guess your stupid reply warranted a stupid one in return.

So you're saying the tax receipts were well spent?

I wonder how much the cumulative cost overruns on the motorways were?

Whatever happened to the metro for Dublin? The western rail corridor?

Why are the health services still such a basket case?

How much has the cock-up of decentralisation cost?

What was the cost overrun in T2?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Don't be surprised when societies start challenging corporatism. I believe that people are starting to wake up to the power of these mega corporations and that there will be a major push back against them.

Good. I'm not cheerleading for corporations. I'm just pointing out how the system is. I look forward to It changing.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oh yeah I almost forgot that it's Bono and Denis O'Brien who built our motorway network, fund our public schools, pay our nurses and gards, provide welfare to those without a job or in bad circumstances.

Jaysus, where would be without St.Bono who put all the irish kids through primary and secondary education.

I guess your stupid reply warranted a stupid one in return.

So you're saying the tax receipts were well spent?

I wonder how much the cumulative cost overruns on the motorways were?

Whatever happened to the metro for Dublin? The western rail corridor?

Why are the health services still such a basket case?

How much has the cock-up of decentralisation cost?

What was the cost overrun in T2?

All these things cost money. Where else do you suggest it comes from?

MightyMandarin

Jawgap wrote: »

So you're saying the tax receipts were well spent?

I wonder how much the cumulative cost overruns on the motorways were?

Whatever happened to the metro for Dublin? The western rail corridor?

Why are the health services still such a basket case?

How much has the cock-up of decentralisation cost?

What was the cost overrun in T2?

The arguments that they weren't spent in the most efficient manner is absolutely valid, but it's a distraction and one which the conservatives who love to see the rich get away with murder love to trot out all the ****in time.

The fact is, Bono and Dennis could help pay for our sick people in hospital and kids in school, but choose not to and you're condoning their behaviour.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

All these things cost money. Where else do you suggest it comes from?

Yes, I know they cost money.......I'm talking about the cost overruns and I'm talking about projects (socially worthwhile projects) that were specc'ed, costed but not delivered during the Celtic Tiger years......why? Because, for example, we were too busy pouring money into setting up the HSE.......and - I'm surprised I didn't mention this - "benchmarking"

And yes I was working in the PS when benchmarking came in and it was great......and I haven't got stuck into PeoplePoint and the Government Procurement Office yet, as exemplars of wastefulness.

.....and all the above will, imo, seem as happy, whimsical memories in comparison the National Children's Hospital and the enormous over-runs, litigation and other costs that's going to generate......more taxes going to government is just more money to waste.

If they were even spending what they were getting in any kind of sensible fashion there wouldn't be a problem, but they should sort out the waste and inefficiencies first before looking for more money.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

smurgen wrote: »

All these things cost money. Where else do you suggest it comes from?

Yes, I know they cost money.......I'm talking about the cost overruns and I'm talking about projects (socially worthwhile projects) that were specc'ed, costed but not delivered during the Celtic Tiger years......why? Because, for example, we were too busy pouring money into setting up the HSE.......and - I'm surprised I didn't mention this - "benchmarking"

And yes I was working in the PS when benchmarking came in and it was great......and I haven't got stuck into PeoplePoint and the Government Procurement Office yet, as exemplars of wastefulness.

.....and all the above will, imo, seem as happy, whimsical memories in comparison the National Children's Hospital and the enormous over-runs, litigation and other costs that's going to generate......more taxes going to government is just more money to waste.

If they were even spending what they were getting in any kind of sensible fashion there wouldn't be a problem, but they should sort out the waste and inefficiencies first before looking for more money.

Okay how about the U.S where there's more an appetite for private hospitals. Where the hospitals charge maximum prices for materials and procedure because they know most have health insurance. The cost of this forms as an increase in health care costs for the average joe. 5000 usd is the average latex glove cost per patient per hospital stay. Do you see that as increased efficiency and financial prudence? https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/wildly-overinflated-hospital-costs/

Jawgap

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The arguments that they weren't spent in the most efficient manner is absolutely valid, but it's a distraction and one which the conservatives who love to see the rich get away with murder love to trot out all the ****in time.

The fact is, Bono and Dennis could help pay for our sick people in hospital and kids in school, but choose not to and you're condoning their behaviour.

Look, you'd do yourself more favours if you had the good grace to admit that in picking Bezos, Gates and Buffett you picked bad examples. Then you could've just moved on to select other examples to better illustrate the point you were trying to make (personally, I'd have gone with the Queen, the House of Saud and yer man in Kazakhstan).

Now you're trying to twist the debate towards people I never mentioned.

It's simple, if people have a problem with Bono and O'Brien and their respective tax affairs then they should just boycott their products, services and companies.....if enough do it they'll soon get the message.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Okay how about the U.S where there's more an appetite for private hospitals. Where the hospitals charge maximum prices for materials and procedure because they know most have health insurance. The cost of this forms as an increase in health care costs for the average joe. 5000 usd is the average latex glove cost per patient per hospital stay. Do you see that as increased efficiency and financial prudence? https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/wildly-overinflated-hospital-costs/

Sorry, but where did I advocate we go down the US route?

We've a population of about 4 million and a health budget of €14.5billion......we took 8 health boards and mashed them in to one Health Service......but didn't re-configure to remove the redundancies in terms of staff, offices, facilities etc

Since then we've tried to manage that muddle by throwing money and managers at it and somehow we're still surprise that it simply is not fit for purpose.

Which reminds me........PPARS......what did that cost again before it was abandoned? Initial cost was supposed to be less than €10m and they eventually gave up but only after spending over €200m on it. And this was a single system for a single agency to support a single, non-clinical function, not even one that had to operate across a number of agencies or functions.

MightyMandarin

Jawgap wrote: »

Look, you'd do yourself more favours if you had the good grace to admit that in picking Bezos, Gates and Buffett you picked bad examples. Then you could've just moved on to select other examples to better illustrate the point you were trying to make (personally, I'd have gone with the Queen, the House of Saud and yer man in Kazakhstan).

Now you're trying to twist the debate towards people I never mentioned.

It's simple, if people have a problem with Bono and O'Brien and their respective tax affairs then they should just boycott their products, services and companies.....if enough do it they'll soon get the message.

I mentioned Bono and Denis as they're Irish and thus should pay tax here, I didn't do it to save my arse so stop trying to take the upper hand with some cheap ad hominem **** here.

The fact is you, nor anyone, has any reason to condone the behaviour of these people and you know it.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

smurgen wrote: »

Okay how about the U.S where there's more an appetite for private hospitals. Where the hospitals charge maximum prices for materials and procedure because they know most have health insurance. The cost of this forms as an increase in health care costs for the average joe. 5000 usd is the average latex glove cost per patient per hospital stay. Do you see that as increased efficiency and financial prudence? https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/wildly-overinflated-hospital-costs/

Sorry, but where did I advocate we go down the US route?

We've a population of about 4 million and a health budget of €14.5billion......we took 8 health boards and mashed them in to one Health Service......but didn't re-configure to remove the redundancies in terms of staff, offices, facilities etc

Since then we've tried to manage that muddle by throwing money and managers at it and somehow we're still surprise that it simply is not fit for purpose.

Which reminds me........PPARS......what did that cost again before it was abandoned? Initial cost was supposed to be less than €10m and they eventually gave up but only after spending over €200m on it. And this was a single system for a single agency to support a single, non-clinical function, not even one that had to operate across a number of agencies or functions.

Well i see you criticising the government without putting in an alternative suggestion.very easy to be a ditch hurler.and this coming from a sinn fein supporter,the ultimate ditch hurlers.
I don't think government are perfect and there's alot of waste.however it is a work in progress and hopefully we'll eventually see a body such as the PAC with teeth. I however see a world of offshore bank accounts with unchecked greed and hidden interests as being anti community and almost close to anarchy if it was to become more and more widespread.

Jawgap

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I mentioned Bono and Denis as they're Irish and thus should pay tax here, I didn't do it to save my arse so stop trying to take the upper hand with some cheap ad hominem **** here.

The fact is you, nor anyone, has any reason to condone the behaviour of these people and you know it.

......and where did I condone O'Brien?

I mentioned Bono earlier in the thread in relation to the optics of his preaching on tax while engaging in legal tax avoidance?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Well i see you criticising the government without putting in an alternative suggestion.very easy to be a ditch hurler.and this coming from a sinn fein supporter,the ultimate ditch hurlers.
I don't think government are perfect and there's alot of waste.however it is a work in progress and hopefully we'll eventually see a body such as the PAC with teeth. I however see a world of offshore bank accounts with unchecked greed and hidden interests as being anti community and almost close to anarchy if it was to become more and more widespread.

I have put an alternative suggestion......cut out the waste! Cut out the parochialism.....distribute money, resources, projects etc on the basis of social need, not on how well 'got' a TD or minister is or what deal some independent has cut in return for their support.

PAC has no teeth.....because we've no accountability. As example on my point on accountability, what happened to the guy who cost the country €2billion in the nursing home scandal, as evidenced in the Travers Report? They got rid of him......

.......by bumping him off to head up the HEA.

PAC investigate and report (and they're pretty good at it) but other than a stern telling off who have they 'bitten.'

Shurimgreat

Jawgap wrote: »

Look, you'd do yourself more favours if you had the good grace to admit that in picking Bezos, Gates and Buffett you picked bad examples. Then you could've just moved on to select other examples to better illustrate the point you were trying to make (personally, I'd have gone with the Queen, the House of Saud and yer man in Kazakhstan).

Now you're trying to twist the debate towards people I never mentioned.

It's simple, if people have a problem with Bono and O'Brien and their respective tax affairs then they should just boycott their products, services and companies.....if enough do it they'll soon get the message.

I've been boycotting U2 for years partly because of their hypocrisy and partly because of a decline in their music. I'd imagine most if not all of these music artists are heavily involved in some kind of tax avoidance. Wasn't Gary Barlow implicated in something a few years ago? I suppose when you get rich, you can afford better accountants who are able to put your money beyond the reach of the taxman. Its unethical at best.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I've been boycotting U2 for years partly because of their hypocrisy and partly because of a decline in their music. I'd imagine most if not all of these music artists are heavily involved in some kind of tax avoidance. Wasn't Gary Barlow implicated in something a few years ago? I suppose when you get rich, you can afford better accountants who are able to put your money beyond the reach of the taxman. Its unethical at best.

Well done you. Now, if enough of your fellow citizens feel likewise maybe he'll get the message.

And yes, when you get rich you can afford better accountants and better solicitors. What's wrong with someone doing well on the back of their own talents and hard work? Again, if we want more tax from them just change the law.

Even better, introduce a flat tax.....no exemptions etc......overnight tax take will jump and an entire 'industry' will be rendered redundant.

smurgen

Feels like welfare is sneered upon yet corporate welfare is perfectly acceptable.weird.

smurgen

Shurimgreat wrote: »

If Trump reduces the corporation rate to 20%, it is still unlikely they will repatriate profits.

From what I can see, these corporates don't believe in paying tax, period.

Their freedom to pay tax where and how they want needs to be removed. Tax needs to be forcibly taken off them and severe penalties and sanctions should be imposed if need be.

A simple way of doing so would be levvies on the sale of the products or import tax on the components.could all be done is a cost effective way.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

A simple way of doing so would be levvies on the sale of the products or import tax on the components.could all be done is a cost effective way.

What do you mean by product? something tangible? Or does it include services/facilities?

Ok, who levies the charge? The jurisdiction where the buyer is?the seller is? Where the products are? Where the money to pay for them is kept? Where the money is transferred to?

Who pays it, the vendor or purchaser? And what if there's brokerage involved?

As often happens in commodities trading, what happens if I purchase goods but before delivery sell them to someone else and re-direct the shipping?

If you're planning an import tax, what about an export refund?

Thing is it can't be done in a cost effective way......you may collect a decent amount of tax but relative to the cost of collection and the trade friction that'll be introduced it'll likely not be a worthwhile amount.

You could try a broad based Tobin-type transaction tax, but either everyone does it, or no one does it because if we were to unilaterally introduce anything like that we'd just be shooting ourselves in the head.

Shurimgreat

smurgen wrote: »

A simple way of doing so would be levvies on the sale of the products or import tax on the components.could all be done is a cost effective way.

I agree. There could even be a special VAT rate for companies like Starbucks, Facebook and Apple who are known for aggressive tax avoidance/paying virtually zero corporation tax. I think taxing them at source might be the only option because they have no interest in voluntarily paying a decent amount of tax.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I agree. There could even be a special VAT rate for companies like Starbucks, Facebook and Apple who are known for aggressive tax avoidance/paying virtually zero corporation tax. I think taxing them at source might be the only option because they have no interest in voluntarily paying a decent amount of tax.

That's not his VAT works.......VAT is levied on categories of products or services, not individuals or corporations.

And what do you mean 'taxing them at source'?

Btw, Starbucks in Ireland is run by an Irish company registered in Ireland, so would they still pay increased VAT under your scheme?

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

That's not his VAT works.......VAT is levied on categories of products or services, not individuals or corporations.

And what do you mean 'taxing them at source'?

Btw, Starbucks in Ireland is run by an Irish company registered in Ireland, so would they still pay increased VAT under your scheme?

We could make an exception for companies not meeting E.U wide tax standards,harmonized of cpirse.you want access to the European market you comply with the tax rules.

Captain Obvious

smurgen wrote: »

We could make an exception for companies not meeting E.U wide tax standards,harmonized of cpirse.you want access to the European market you comply with the tax rules.

But how would you identify those companies? And why would you simply not use that same process to just tax them normally. And what do you mean by tax them at source?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

We could make an exception for companies not meeting E.U wide tax standards,harmonized of cpirse.you want access to the European market you comply with the tax rules.

If you're not meeting 'tax standards' surely that's evasion? Or are you're proposed standards intended to be non-statutory Codes of Practice intended to aid/guide compliance?

And if they're CoPs aren't we just back to square one.....where the courts interpret legislation definitively, and everything else is just opinion?

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

So, rich people pay more tax, I pay less tax? Correct?

Rich people decide, "feck that, I'm off"

.....and?

How do we get the tax from them? Am I back paying even more tax than previously because now I have to help cover the gap left by the rich people who've cleared off?

What are you taking about. How about this. You can emigrate to Liberia but don’t come back until you pay you Iyer taxes. I notice you’ve moved onto the practicality rather than the morality of getting the rich to pay more taxes.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

What are you taking about. How about this. You can emigrate to Liberia but don’t come back until you pay you Iyer taxes. I notice you’ve moved onto the practicality rather than the morality of getting the rich to pay more taxes.

I have no idea what Iyer taxes are.

If there's a morality-legality gap in taxes and the system of taxation close it. It's that simple.

And wealthy individuals don't need to decamp to sub-Saharan Africa, I'm sure the UK, IoM etc would do just as well.

.....and I haven't 'moved' - I've just been responding to other people's posts, much as I am now responding to yours.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

smurgen

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But how would you identify those companies? And why would you simply not use that same process to just tax them normally. And what do you mean by tax them at source?

Levy on their products.e.g for apple products as a 10% tax for all apple products sold in Europe.like increased VAT.any internet sales also.freeze apple accounts also operating in the E.U. If they can sanction counties and diplomats from certain counties e.g Russia in 2013 are you telling me they country sanction a company?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Levy on their products.e.g for apple products as a 10% tax for all apple products sold in Europe.like increased VAT.any internet sales also.freeze apple accounts also operating in the E.U. If they can sanction counties and diplomats from certain counties e.g Russia in 2013 are you telling me they country sanction a company?

You can't levy a different rate of VAT on a company, do you not get that?

And what's to stop people ordering stuff from outside the EU and having it shipped to them? what you're proposing creates a massive arbitrage opportunity for re-sellers.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

You can't levy a different rate of VAT on a company, do you not get that?

And what's to stop people ordering stuff from outside the EU and having it shipped to them? what you're proposing creates a massive arbitrage opportunity for re-sellers.

Custom checks.anyone caught importing them without paying duty gets walloped also.that should bridge the arbitrage.why couldn't you? Why couldn't the E.U apply a penatly an extra charge on retailers selling apple products specifically until the 11bn owed or example is clawed back? Would take very little ingenuity.cost is passed on to customers.products become less appealing due to increased price and demand falls.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Custom checks.anyone caught importing them without paying duty gets walloped also.that should bridge the arbitrage.why couldn't you? Why couldn't the E.U apply a penatly an extra charge on retailers selling apple products specifically until the 11bn owed or example is clawed back? Would take very little ingenuity.cost is passed on to customers.products become less appealing due to increased price and demand falls.

Do you know the % of imports that are checked to verify the accuracy of the customs declaration?

It's 9.4%.

Meaning 90.6% of 1.1m declarations made each year relating to goods from outside the EU arriving into Ireland go unchecked.

And with Brexit that's about to double.

What you don't seem to get is that every tax has an associated cost of collection. Tariffs, import/export charges, indeed any tax that requires a physical inspection to be carried out tends to have a high cost of collection, and for certain product categories the CoC is negative (it costs more to collect than it raises in revenue).

So yes, you could collect the €11bn you say Apple owes, but it could take decades and cost €10.5bn.

And the EU won't single out a retailer because, you know, the whole free movement of goods and services, never mind that it's yet to be determined if any actual laws have been broken. They're quite big on the whole 'rule of law' thing......it stops the populist media setting policy from one day to the next

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you know the % of imports that are checked to verify the accuracy of the customs declaration?

It's 9.4%.

Meaning 90.6% of 1.1m declarations made each year relating to goods from outside the EU arriving into Ireland go unchecked.

And with Brexit that's about to double.

What you don't seem to get is that every tax has an associated cost of collection. Tariffs, import/export charges, indeed any tax that requires a physical inspection to be carried out tends to have a high cost of collection, and for certain product categories the CoC is negative (it costs more to collect than it raises in revenue).

So yes, you could collect the €11bn you say Apple owes, but it could take decades and cost €10.5bn.

And the EU won't single out a retailer because, you know, the whole free movement of goods and services, never mind that it's yet to be determined if any actual laws have been broken. They're quite big on the whole 'rule of law' thing......it stops the populist media setting policy from one day to the next

They've ruled 11 bn is owed.no rules of law issue as you say and what's more they're not paying up. Extrordinary behaviours from apple maybe need extraordinary measures.at the end of the day they want access to the second biggest market on earth and the E.U could exploit that.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

They've ruled 11 bn is owed.no rules of law issue as you say and what's more they're not paying up. Extrordinary behaviours from apple maybe need extraordinary measures.at the end of the day they want access to the second biggest market on earth and the E.U could exploit that.

Which court has ruled that Apple owe anything?

And it's €13billion.......and again, that's a figure based on the Commission's opinion.

It's the Commission's opinion. We respectfully disagree and that's why we're all off to the ECJ to get them to decide and issue the definitive interpretation of the legislation.

And even the Commission recognises they and the Irish government owe Apple a duty of care. If the Commission are so sure they are right why are they facilitating the complicated escrow arrangements being developed to hold and manage the money pending the ECJ action.......surely they'd be happy with it going into even a simple deposit fund? if they were so sure it's owed then there's no chance it might have to be released back to Apple?

Btw, if the Commission are wrong, and we don't escrow the money and manage it diligently, Apple get to sue us (not the Commission) for any profits foregone.

Captain Obvious

smurgen wrote: »

Levy on their products.e.g for apple products as a 10% tax for all apple products sold in Europe.like increased VAT.any internet sales also.freeze apple accounts also operating in the E.U. If they can sanction counties and diplomats from certain counties e.g Russia in 2013 are you telling me they country sanction a company?

You missed my question. How do you identify the companies you want wallop?

I'm obviously leaving aside the major issue of the state putting a particular company at a sever disadvantage in the market but I'll get back to it once I figure out how the state will choose who to punish.

markodaly

Everyone wants to avoid tax, sure isn't that what the Irish Water fisaco was about? Bill Gates alone has contributed over $6 Billion to help fight Malaria, HIV and TB, in the poorest place on earth, which is Africa. But I guess he was better off handing that money to Uncle Sam where it would more than likely give it as a subsidy to some large Oil Corporation or buying ammo and bombs for its future military endeavours.