Irexit party yay or nay?

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What threats are these exactly?

Double Irish, and Corporate tax rate. Those are the first that probably sprung to mind for both of us, right? Or were you thinking of others?

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Double Irish, and Corporate tax rate. Those are the first that probably sprung to mind for both of us, right? Or were you thinking of others?

I know those exist. You mentioned EU-threats to the Irish tax regime. I want to know what they are.

ELM327

RandomName2 wrote: »

Double Irish, and Corporate tax rate. Those are the first that probably sprung to mind for both of us, right? Or were you thinking of others?

Those are not threats though?

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know those exist. You mentioned EU-threats to the Irish tax regime. I want to know what they are.

You have failed to notice the antagonism to both of these things from within the EU?

But you know, don't take my word for it or anything.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-ireland-faces-a-fight-on-the-corporate-tax-front-1.3426080

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

You have failed to notice the antagonism to both of these things from within the EU?

Define antagonism. Are you talking about complaints from politicians or some sort of proposal for legislation.

ELM327

RandomName2 wrote: »

You have failed to notice the antagonism to both of these things from within the EU?

At the risk of repeating myself

ELM327 wrote: »

They can threaten to their hearts content.
As a sovereign nation we dictate our own fiscal policy including taxation.
And there ain't a damn thing the EU, or anyone else for that matter, can do about it.

Rhineshark

RandomName2 wrote: »

You have failed to notice the antagonism to both of these things from within the EU?

I don't like broccoli. By not liking it, I am not, however, *threatening* broccoli.

You need to back up that they are *threatening* it with more than just that the other EU countries don't like it.

FreudianSlippers

The EU was correct in their antagonism for the double-Irish. It was, at best, an oversight by the competent authorities in (at least) this jurisdiction.

RandomName2

Rhineshark wrote: »

You need to back up that they are *threatening* it with more than just that the other EU countries don't like it.

This took me literally 30 seconds to find.

The vast majority of MEPs who participated in the discussion pledged their support for major changes to how multinationals pay tax across all EU member states.

Ireland was singled out several times for its low-tax model, and its consistent refusal to agree to a Europe-wide method of taxing corporations.

"I hope the larger countries like Germany and France will put the pressure on the smaller countries - countries like the Netherlands, Ireland, Malta, Luxembourg that are the pirates within the European Union", said Dutch MEP Paul Tang.

European Commissioner for Economic Affairs Pierre Moscovici outlined his proposals for the CCCTB - Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.

This happened this year. I can't imagine that none of you listen to the news.

I actually can't be arsed to look up the recent ruling in relation to Apple. You all know this already.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

This took me literally 30 seconds to find.

Should have started by catching up on this thread ironically.

This happened this year. I can't imagine that none of you listen to the news.

A selection of some of the posts you might have missed:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...and unless you have no basic understanding of EU tax law, then you'll be aware that the CCCTB has absolutely nothing to do with tax rates in individual Member States.

So is it that you're purposely misrepresenting/skewing the facts or that you don't know what you're talking about?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that that's not what tax harmonisation means. Doubling down on being wrong won't suddenly make you right.

I quoted the Wikipedia entry on CCCTB for you; now I've even linked to the page so you won't have to Google it. If you don't like Wikipedia, try the European Commission's page for the horse's-mouth version. From the "questions and answers" link on that page:

(Emphasis mine.) The only excuse for continuing to be wrong about this is either wilful ignorance, or an intention to mislead. Neither reflects well on you.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That article has nothing to do with corporate tax rate in Member States, it's about the EC's (perhaps correct) position with regard to taxation of digital income in Member States. At present, income made by digital companies in Member States are not taxed in that MS (for example, advertising revenue from Germany is not necessarily taxed in Germany but instead taxed where the company itself is based for taxation); the EC proposes not that individual Member States will have a prescribed tax rate, but that "profits are registered and taxed where businesses have significant interaction with users through digital channels" and that until that model can be set up that an "interim tax which covers the main digital activities that currently escape tax altogether in the EU" (which obviously has no impact on Ireland).

Hopefully now that this matter has been clarified we can stop the spread of disinformation (the true "fake news") about tax harmonization.

I actually can't be arsed to look up the recent ruling in relation to Apple. You all know this already.

The Apple thing is more of a state aid issue which I can't honestly be arsed to explain to you at the moment - in very short terms (and honestly, somewhat incorrectly if you were to do a real summary admittedly) it's more about Ireland's failure to actually enforce its 12.5% CT rate over Apple and less about Ireland's 12.5% rate in and of itself.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A selection of some of the posts you might have missed:

That would have taken me more than 30 seconds. I have limited patience for entertaining demands to show evidence of members of the political infrastructure of the EU making noises or actions which are clearly against the interests of the state in relation to practices used to woo multinationals.

This is separate from whether these practices of the Irish government are legitimate (legally or ethically), or the organs of the EU that could potentially be used. Whether the practices used by the Irish government are fair, or legitimate is a separate issue.

You know, next I might be asked to define what 'antagonism' is.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

it's more about Ireland's failure to actually enforce its 12.5% CT rate over Apple and less about Ireland's 12.5% rate in and of itself.

I don't think that actually makes any difference whatsoever to the point being made.

Edit: Just so that there isn't any misunderstanding..

The Irish government favors approach A that is proving to be a financial boon. The EU (as a whole) is against A, and proposes B. The Irish government is opposed to B as this would damage the financial model that the Irish government is currently using. Namely A.

You pro-EU heads can dance a fandango around that all you like, only ELM327's point has got any validity at all, namely veto power. Which is why I used the word threat, not something else like 'actuality' or something that would imply something that was not a threat, but was reality, because someone who is threatening to hit you is not the same thing as someone actually hitting you.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

That would have taken me more than 30 seconds.

I mean... they're in this thread and they're less than 50 posts above yours.

I have limited patience for entertaining demands to show evidence of members of the political infrastructure of the EU making noises or actions which are clearly against the interests of the state in relation to practices used to woo multinationals.

This is separate from whether these practices of the Irish government are legitimate (legally or ethically), or the organs of the EU that could potentially be used. Whether the practices used by the Irish government are fair, or legitimate is a separate issue.

You know, next I might be asked to define what 'antagonism' is.

So you are or aren't admitting that you were incorrect about CCCTB, tax harmonization and the EU's ability to impact Ireland's CT rate?

I'm a bit unsure of what your position is on this.

The Irish government favors approach A that is proving to be a financial boon. The EU (as a whole) is against A, and proposes B. The Irish government is opposed to B as this would damage the financial model that the Irish government is currently using. Namely A.

You pro-EU heads can dance a fandango around that all you like, only ELM327's point has got any validity at all, namely veto power. Which is why I used the word threat, not something else like 'actuality' or something that would imply something that was not a threat, but was reality, because someone who is threatening to hit you is not the same thing as someone actually hitting you.

Except the EU has no interest in dictating the CT rates for individual Member States and has repeatedly said this - it falls outside their competence entirely regardless of the inherent veto right.

The EU is broadly correct with tax harmonization in CCCTB, they are broadly correct with regard to taxation of companies on profits from digital channels. I believe they are incorrect on the state aid findings in the Apple case, but I await the ECJ decision on this as a matter of EU law.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you are or aren't admitting that you were incorrect about CCCTB, tax harmonization and the EU's ability to impact Ireland's CT rate?

I'm a bit unsure of what your position is on this.

I'm pretty sure you know what the Irish government's position on it is though

Brian Hayes: ECON recommendations on CCCTB would 'destroy Irish corporate tax revenue'

It doesn't really matter to my argument whether CCCTB has anything to do with the national CT rate set by the Irish government. Really, it doesn't. My argument was that the way in which the Irish government was doing business is being threatened. I don't think I need to define what a threat is, again.

That's all I was saying. If the reason that it is being threatened is merely due to the government being forced to abide by the rules it in fact signed up to in the first place, it is nevertheless the case that this is something that was much less significant in times past. Whether this is due to the growing presence of multinationals, a weakening of influence of the Irish government, or some other factor that is influencing this is irrelevant to the obvious observation.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you know what the Irish government's position on it is though

Brian Hayes: ECON recommendations on CCCTB would 'destroy Irish corporate tax revenue'

It doesn't really matter to my argument whether CCCTB has anything to do with the national CT rate set by the Irish government. Really, it doesn't. My argument was that the way in which the Irish government was doing business is being threatened. I don't think I need to define what a threat is, again.

That's all I was saying. If the reason that it is being threatened is merely due to the government being forced to abide by the rules it in fact signed up to in the first place, it is nevertheless the case that this is something that was much less significant in times past. Whether this is due to the growing presence of multinationals, a weakening of influence of the Irish government, or some other factor that is influencing this is irrelevant to the obvious observation.

Frankly, Ireland is flat out wrong on this one. The digital taxation issue is significant but not the be-all-and-end-all of Ireland's CT competitiveness. If a German taxpayer is providing a company with revenue based on digital content in Germany then there is no valid reason why a company would not pay tax on that income in the Member State in which it was accrued - exactly the same as physical goods.

The resulting loss in CT estimated? 5%
The resulting loss in jobs? 1%

Ireland will still be a competitive market for corporations due to the low CT rate and companies will find a new creative way to maximise profits in low CT jurisdictions. Plus, at the end of the day we can just veto anything that doesn't work for us... but the CCCTB is fair whether we like it or not.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Frankly, Ireland is flat out wrong on this one. The digital taxation issue is significant but not the be-all-and-end-all of Ireland's CT competitiveness. If a German taxpayer is providing a company with revenue based on digital content in Germany then there is no valid reason why a company would not pay tax on that income in the Member State in which it was accrued - exactly the same as physical goods.

The resulting loss in CT estimated? 5%
The resulting loss in jobs? 1%

Ireland will still be a competitive market for corporations due to the low CT rate and companies will find a new creative way to maximise profits in low CT jurisdictions. Plus, at the end of the day we can just veto anything that doesn't work for us... but the CCCTB is fair whether we like it or not.

I should also point out that the key word in CCCTB is "profits" - as has always been the case companies will be able to offset losses in one Member State against profits in another. The CCCTB calculations will make it more difficult, but by no means impossible to ensure that profits are maximised in CT-friendly Member States.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

You pro-EU heads can dance a fandango around that all you like, only ELM327's point has got any validity at all, namely veto power.

It has nothing to do with veto power.

For the four hundred and twelfth time in this thread alone, direct taxation is not an EU competence. We can't use a veto to influence something that can't possibly come up for debate; we don't need to.

At this stage in the discussion, anyone who is still trying to claim that the EU will, by fair means or foul, influence our corporation tax rate is either (a) an idiot, (b) a troll, or (c) driving an agenda.

I know you're not stupid, and I don't think you're a troll - I'm open to correction - so that leaves (c), which is supported by the opening words of what I've quoted above.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

At this stage in the discussion, anyone who is still trying to claim that the EU will, by fair means or foul, influence our corporation tax rate is either (a) an idiot, (b) a troll, or (c) driving an agenda.

I know you're not stupid, and I don't think you're a troll - I'm open to correction - so that leaves (c), which is supported by the opening words of what I've quoted above.

Hey don't take it up with me, it's the Dail you have a disagreement with.

BabyCheeses

RandomName2 wrote: »

Here, I'm not advocating for it, but if you want a coherent point on the potential benefits of the Exit Free State, then it's probably going to be an economic union with a non-EU GB, with the rationale that trade with UK and US are more important than the 27. The details in relation to that get more than a bit tricky though, and being able to pose a scenario which is economically better than the arrangement we currently have seems close to impossible.

The mechanics of Hibernexit are irrelevant as there's no way that it could ever get any political momentum in our legislature in the first place.

The US and UK are currently in a state of take advantage of everyone else. Being a small country I don't see getting sandwiched between the US and UK being a good idea. Spit-roasted would be a more accurate description.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey don't take it up with me, it's the Dail you have a disagreement with.

No, it's not. I see you've changed tack from "the EU will make us change our CT rate!" to "the EU will make us change something, it doesn't really matter what."

CCCTB is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Irish government is opposed to it because we're arguably in a slightly more advantageous position without it.

We could discuss the merits or otherwise of CCCTB, but it's hard to see how it would be relevant to a thread about some raving loonies who want us to leave the EU.

I guess I should be grateful that at least you've stopped pretending the EU has any say whatsoever over our CT rates.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

CCCTB is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Irish government is opposed to it because we're arguably in a slightly more advantageous position without it.

Judging by what both the opponents and proponents of it have said, that would appear to not be the case.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the Irish government is essentially pulling a fast one, and that the touted 'transparency' of the CCCTB is set to undo a loophole that was being exploited by the Irish government.

oscarBravo wrote: »

We could discuss the merits or otherwise of CCCTB, but it's hard to see how it would be relevant to a thread about some raving loonies who want us to leave the EU.

It actually isn't in fairness. I was just forced to explain to the fine people of this thread that there is current news that they are well aware of.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess I should be grateful that at least you've stopped pretending the EU has any say whatsoever over our CT rates.

I'll stand by what I originally said

RandomName2 wrote: »

The EU has been threatening the Irish economic model for a while (in relation to multinationals), but that's a model that is still dependent upon being in the EU in the first place.

This is patently true. The gravity and fairness of the threat is of course debatable. Seeing that this and 'the border' are the two main areas of interaction between the Irish government and the EU it was relevant to bring it up.

Oh Christ am I going to have to explain what 'the border' is? Oh no, there's no way that could appear to be anti-EU, as there's collaboration between the EU and Irish government in relation to that, so nobody is going to feign ignorance. Phew.

Imreoir2

RandomName2 wrote: »

The gravity and fairness of the threat is of course debatable. Seeing that this and 'the border' are the two main areas of interaction between the Irish government and the EU it was relevant to bring it up.

The issue is that you are suggesting that the EU has been threathning Ireland over our economic model. Given that the EU can do noting about this issue, threathning is not the appropriate word to use. Complaining would be more accurate, but I suppose it is less ominious sounding if you say that The EU has been complaining about the Irish economic model for a while.

RandomName2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The issue is that you are suggesting that the EU has been threathning Ireland over our economic model. Given that the EU can do noting about this issue, threathning is not the appropriate word to use. Complaining would be more accurate, but I suppose it is less ominious sounding if you say that The EU has been complaining about the Irish economic model for a while.

Sabre rattling, threatening, warning, complaining, bullying, terrorizing, protesting, bewailing

Of threatening and its synonyms, I'm comfortable with my choice.

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sabre rattling, threatening, warning, complaining, bullying, terrorizing, protesting, bewailing, protesting

Of threatening and its synonyms, I'm comfortable with my choice.

That's just a mess of synonyms, none of which prove your point.

An Ciarraioch

RandomName2 wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The issue is that you are suggesting that the EU has been threathning Ireland over our economic model. Given that the EU can do noting about this issue, threathning is not the appropriate word to use. Complaining would be more accurate, but I suppose it is less ominious sounding if you say that The EU has been complaining about the Irish economic model for a while.

Sabre rattling, threatening, warning, complaining, bullying, terrorizing, protesting, bewailing

Of threatening and its synonyms, I'm comfortable with my choice.

In the unlikely event that CCCTB discussions move nearer a practical debate, that's when the new alliances we have been developing with the Nordic and Baltic member states come into play, as they have a similar economic outlook to ourselves. Also, many Eastern European members have similarly low corporation tax rates, not to mention the rather lax approach both Luxembourg and Malta take towards taxation, so once more, the discussion will be put on the long finger.

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just a mess of synonyms, none of which prove your point.

The point is self-evident.

You may wish to develop a point yourself, instead of writing single-line nitpicks.

There is nothing guaranteed about the ongoing good performance and there are substantial threats and risks to economic improvement.

These threats arise from both domestic and international sources, including EU corporation tax policy, US tax policy, Brexit, external demand, interest rates, domestic cost-competitiveness, and housing supply.

Irish examiner

Of more concern to Ireland must be the EU’s latest
proposal for a directive (First Directive) on a common
tax base followed by another directive (Second
Directive) on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax
Base (“CCCTB”). The First Directive would seek to
adopt a pan EU code to harmonise the tax deductions
available in each Member State from each companies’
taxable profits. It would restrict interest deductions,
exempt certain dividends and provide enhanced R&D
deductions. However, the Second Directive looks to
determine a mechanism by which profits are allocated
across EU Member States having regard to three
equally weighted indicia; namely personnel, assets
and sales.

Threats and Opportunities Facing
Ireland's Corporation Tax Regime

Looking out beyond that period, the picture darkens. For starters, Brexit is a serious risk to our economic outlook. OECD estimates show that a World Trade Organisation trade arrangement between the UK and EU could reduce total Irish exports by 20% in some sectors such as agriculture and food. Given the large share of multinational firms in the Irish economy, the OECD also warns that rising international tax competition presents an additional risk.

It is interesting that the organisation doesn’t pass comment on the threat posed by the EU’s sustained assault on our low corporation tax model. Seamus Coffey, the chairman of our Fiscal Advisory Council, has previously warned that the attack poses a greater economic risk to Ireland than Brexit.

Hibernia forum

I can get dozens more, within a minute, from people more knowledgeable than myself.

Ah, there's no point in arguing with EU-heads, flat-Earthers, pro-lifers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Oh I'd also say that Trump's position in relation to multi-nationals is a threat. I'm sure you'd get behind that, pro-EU heads are pretty predictable and all.

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

The point is self-evident.

You may wish to develop a point yourself, instead of writing single-line nitpicks.

You made the claim so it's up to you to back it up.

Thanks for the links though.

brickster69

It certainly sounds like they have it in mind at some point.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/business/juncker-eu-should-scrap-national-vetos-on-tax-868500.html

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

It certainly sounds like they have it in mind at some point.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/business/juncker-eu-should-scrap-national-vetos-on-tax-868500.html

EU treaties mean that this would require the consent of the member states themselves though. No Irish politician (save for perhaps Sinn Féin) would allow that.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'll stand by what I originally said

What was that again? Oh yes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

Double Irish, and Corporate tax rate.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

What was that again? Oh yes:

That was off the top of my head because people were saying 'what threats in relation to the multinationals', but I should know by now that pro-EU heads will try to trip you up on everything, even on the definition of the word threat.

I don't care enough about the topic at the moment to research it at all. All the information I've posted in this thread has taken less than a minute of research on my part each time. There's literally hundreds of articles about the dangers posed in relation to multinationals in proposed changes within the EU, but if you want to be a lone voice in the wilderness, that's up to yourself.

Better yet, if you would like to refute these articles that could actually be productive. I mean, chances are you'll be wrong, but people are rarely 100% wrong, and rebuttals can often shed new light on things.