Ireland and the EU Post Brexit

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

Yes. There is clearly a desire for this.



Aside from 'digital' you can be assured haromonisation of all aspects of daily life and taxes are the long-term objective. It's never by enforcement, but through agreement, and through subtle pressure.

Incase you haven't heard there are plans for an EU Army underway, proposals include a Franco-German defence and security council.

Honestly, if that's the world you live in in your head, best of luck to you. I'm only trying to inform you of what's happening / not happening in the real world.

4068ac1elhodqr

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Honestly, if that's the world you live in in your head, best of luck to you. I'm only trying to inform you of what's happening / not happening in the real world.

'Smoke & Mirrors the place', to suit an agenda?

The dog on the street knows not every country in the EU (nevermind the commission) is as pleased as punch with Ireland's very low corporate tax rate (nevermind those historical sweetheart and dutch sandwich deals).

Odhinn

BarryD2 wrote: »

Irexit.

Like most citizens I'd greatly prefer if our Republic stayed within the EU but almost regardless of how the UK leaves the EU (if they do), there will a shock to us. Combine this with almost certainly rising prices for food and consumer goods, a loss of a friend at the EU table, remoteness and peripherality, difficulties with all island relationships plus the healthy skepticism that many people here have for the EU... the pressure will inexorably build for us also to leave. It's as logical as night follows day.

...leaving the EU to join a solo lemming run by the british doesn't seem that logical, tbh.

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

Technically, but is it not the '%rate harmonistation'? (harmonic in the sense of 'similar' not exact matching rates), which is the main overwhelming issue.

You have got to be kidding me.

How many times have I explained to you - not just to this forum at large, but you specifically, that tax harmonisation has nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates?

Here, read this: https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/taxation_en

When you've read it, do me a favour and do one of two things: either explain why you're right about tax harmonisation and the European Commission is wrong, or stop peddling myths that you know to be untrue because you've repeatedly been told that they're untrue.

I mean, come on. If you were new around here, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you thought tax harmonisation had something do with tax rates because some uninformed numpties keep claiming it does. But you're not new around here, and you're not uninformed.

Which means you're just wrong, and have no excuse to be wrong, because this has been explained to you over and over again. Which in turn means that you're pushing a narrative which you know to be untrue, which is a polite way of saying that you're lying.

So, please stop it.

johnnyskeleton

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Honestly, if that's the world you live in in your head, best of luck to you. I'm only trying to inform you of what's happening / not happening in the real world.

Mod note:

If you disagree with someone, please do so substantively and politely.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is a polite way of saying that you're lying.

I'd say you're lying - the problem you see, is that were talking about two different (but similar) things.

I'm not referring to 'tax harmonisation' in any existing classical existing 'specific proposal/model/recommendation' or 'type' (digital, sub-industry or otherwise).

I'm merely suggesting there is a growing 'desire' from the vast majority of the EU members, and even the Commission itself for Ireland to raise their base 12.5% corporation tax level, in years to come.

Perhaps 'harmonisation' is the wrong word for it, due to association with other specifc recommedations. Cal it 'volountary levelling' if you want. And only at a future (unknown) date, when optimum pressure can be applied to 'influence' (not enforce) the rate change.

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

I'd say you're lying - the problem you see, is that were talking about two different (but similar) things.

I'm not referring to 'tax harmonisation' in any existing classical existing 'specific proposal/model/recommendation' or 'type' (digital, sub-industry or otherwise).

I'm merely suggesting there is a growing 'desire' from the vast majority of the EU members, and even the Commission itself for Ireland to raise their base 12.5% corporation tax level, in years to come.

Perhaps 'harmonisation' is the wrong word for it, due to association with other specifc recommedations. Cal it 'volountary levelling' if you want. And only at a future (unknown) date, when optimum pressure can be applied to 'influence' (not enforce) the rate change.

Fine. Let's agree that, from now on, "tax harmonisation" - particularly when referring to corporate taxes in an EU context - refers to the proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rates of direct taxation. Let's further agree that direct taxation is not, and has never been, an EU competence, and as such the EU has absolutely no way whatsoever to force us to change our corporation tax rate.

Let's further agree that any desire on the part of our fellow member states that we should set our tax rates to their liking should be treated in exactly the same way as those member states would if we proposed that they change their tax rates to suit us.

If you want to argue that the EU will bring some sort of unspecified pressure to bear on us to change a tax rate that's explicitly outside their competence, knock yourself out. But kindly leave such prognostications outside of any discussion on tax harmonisation, because that's not what tax harmonisation means, and - let's face it - the vast majority of the opposition to tax harmonisation is based entirely and solely on that misunderstanding. As such, it would be a shame to see people continue to contribute to the confusion.

Agreed?

4068ac1elhodqr

^Fine, I'll call it 'volountarily tax harmonics' which is in essence what is desired, in a wider sense.

I'd also suggest that to 'force' a change, does not require actual 'force', but merely influnece and bargaining.

You only have to look at planned pension/retirement ages to see an example of volountary 'harmonisation'.
In the coming (decades) there will be very little to seperate national retirement ages of 67avg (+/-1).

Greece's days of an early beach life are long gone now. Malta(62) and new Eastern members (Lat/Lit/Est, 63) will all face a rise.
Not long ago, France took to the streets to protest a rise in retirement ages.

A soft guiding hand (influence) above member states, from Europe may well have played a hand in this 'act of harmony'.

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

I'd also suggest that to 'force' a change, does not require actual 'force', but merely influnece and bargaining.

Bargaining implies give and take. If we get something from our neighbours that makes it worth our while to increase our corporate tax rate, great: everyone wins. If we don't, why would we change it?

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bargaining implies give and take. If we get something from our neighbours that makes it worth our while to increase our corporate tax rate, great: everyone wins. If we don't, why would we change it?

If someone has an advantage, why would they seek/expect another replacement advantage when everyone else is busy trying to create a level playing field?

Supermarket A might sell tins of beans close to break-even, but survive due to sheer volume being sold.

But how long before supermarkets B-Z (of the same franchise group) protest, follow suit (damaging price wars, price drops) or leverge pressure through the retail federation or franchise chief operator about this matter.

Sure A is a bit out of the way from the town centre, but is it right that they can sell their beans at such great discount?

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

If someone has an advantage, why would they seek/expect another replacement advantage when everyone else is busy trying to create a level playing field?

Supermarket A might sell tins of beans close to break-even, but survive due to sheer volume being sold.

But how long before supermarkets B-Z (of the same franchise group) protest, follow suit (damaging price wars, price drops) or leverge pressure through the retail federation or franchise chief operator about this matter.

Sure A is a bit out of the way from the town centre, but is it right that they can sell their beans at such great discount?

The important question you're missing in your analogy is: why would A increase its prices?

You seem to think that the mere fact of other people wanting them to do so is sufficient to make it inevitable.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

The important question you're missing in your analogy is: why would A increase its prices?

You seem to think that the mere fact of other people wanting them to do so is sufficient to make it inevitable.

Because it's a realtively fair desire and request to expect and receive from B-Z.

Afterall there is no 'i' in team, and no 'me' in union.

Perhaps one 'offering' the rest of the group could offer is little green men from the new 'neutral' Fracno-German pact to come over and supervise the looming hard-border.

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

Because it's a realtively fair desire and request to expect and receive from B-Z.

"Hi. We'd like you to unilaterally remove one of the few things that counteracts your structural disadvantages as a relatively geographically isolated, small open economy."

I'm not clear on exactly why that's a reasonable request unless it comes with some pretty significant quid pro quos.

Afterall there is no 'i' in team, and no 'me' in union.

And direct taxation is not a union competence.

Perhaps one 'offering' the rest of the group could offer is little green men from the new 'neutral' Fracno-German pact to come over and supervise the looming hard-border.

If it ever seems like a good idea to invite French and German soldiers to patrol on Irish soil in return for undermining our attractiveness to foreign direct investment, I'm sure you'll be top of the list of people the government will turn to for advice.

sandbelter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nothing... but why not?

Very simple...this end up being a "beggar they neighbor policy".

If enacted it would see they redistribution of profit from the smaller markets and poorer nations to the richer nations.

Under your scenario China, japan and the US would harvest the bulk of company taxes and residual would would be left for the third world and small nations. There may actually be no benefit for smaller countries and many may get stuck perpetually in poverty as a result.

In short, This is return to "big dogs eat first" rules.

So whats in for a small country?

Crock Rock

Any truth to this?

touts wrote: »

I think there is a very real possibility that both the EU and UK dig their heels in and come April 1st the EU say to Ireland put up a hard border or we will shut you out of the common market until you do. European solidarity will suddenly twist against us it the UK are gone and we then find ourselves the ones out of step with the rest of the EU.

The problem is we basically can't seal off the border. It's too big and our customs/Gardai/army are too few. There is barely 2 months left and it would take closer to 2 years than 2 months to put the people and infrastructure in place. But the EU won't care because they will be aware that they don't want to set a precedent for its other borders in the east. It'll be put up the border or we hit you with sanctions and tariffs for not complying with EU regulations.

Then for a period Irish companies could find tariffs on their goods going into both the UK and EU. We'll basically be caught in a crossfire between the EU and UK. Eventually one of them will give in and a deal will be struck BUT that could take several weeks or months and by that time many small to medium Irish businesses will be bankrupt. The UK don't give a damn about us and the EU will be focused on maintaining the big picture and we're the small picture.

Basically we're going to get screwed and no one will care because we're not big enough to matter.

4068ac1elhodqr

^They can 'kind of border' the main motorway routes that HGV would typically pass.
Might mean checking every 7th vehicle, extra cameras (on both sides) and random bus/train ID checks.

The plan from both sides on the brexit event is to wait until the very last second before one side caves in.
I.e. A game of all-in, no-limits, Texas Hold'em Poker.

Peregrinus

Crock Rock wrote: »

Any truth to this?

No, I don't think there is.

If the UK crashes out without a deal, both sides will need to operate border controls. But for political reasons neither side will wish to be the first to do so, and there will be sympathy in the EU for Ireland's difficulty here. Plus, the EU is not going to require us to to the impossible, or to require us to do instantly what in reality has to take time.

So border controls will be introduces slowly, and in a piecemeal and provisional fashion, with much politicking, recrimination, denial, etc. The Irish hope - and it's not completely unreasonable - is that \other aspects of the crash-out Brexit will be so incredibly painful for the UK that, before we have to do very much by way of implementing border controls, the UK will be back at the table looking for a deal with the EU, and a lot more realistic about the need for the deal to include measures that will keep the Irish border open.

But if that doesn't work then, yeah, there will have to be a fair measure of border controls in Ireland. But it won't be case of the EU "hitting us with sanctions and tariffs"; it will be a case of us exploring with the EU about the nature and level of the minimal controls needed to protect the single market and the integrity and openness of Ireland's trade with the EU-26. But, yeah, even those minimal controls will be painful for us. Which is why we won't accept a Withdrawal Agreement that doesn't contain effective measures to keep the border open.

nice_guy80

What genius thought to put a 23% VAT on health supplements and vitamins?

talk about hitting those who actually spend money on their own health

Irishmale0399

If there is a hard Brexit I expect the EU to tell Ireland very quickly to implement a hard border with the UK. I could however imagine a EU supported system from day one.....ie. EU police/customer officers manning the border until Ireland is in a position to do so itself. Additionally I would expect EU funding going towards the infrastructure.

As for the UK not wanting a border or being reluctant to implement one.....send 500-600 refugees accross at Newry or any other crossing and it wont take long for the UK to get a move on. That is one of their major concerns...they want to know who is in their country and to have full control of it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

As for the UK not wanting a border or being reluctant to implement one.....send 500-600 refugees accross at Newry or any other crossing and it wont take long for the UK to get a move on. That is one of their major concerns...they want to know who is in their country and to have full control of it.

The 52% want to know yes, but the Elites than run the country are more concerned with sourcing cheap domestic staff.

Health tourism costs them 1.25bn per annum, years of understaffed border force and images of lorry hoppers filled the tabloids for many years. This month is 'fish an Iranian from the Eng Channel month'.

Ideally they'll want the EU to pay for any new border, as will have to start saving their pennies if it's a hard and fast exit. Besides refugees might get a better deal in the south if their end aim is the JSA. Folks in Calais (for Dover) might also shift to other ports (for Dublin).

Harry Palmr

So then the begging bowl is out

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/05/ireland-and-eu-discuss-emergency-funds-to-offset-no-deal-brexit

Ireland is in talks with the EU over a substantial Brexit emergency fund to offset the damage caused to the country’s €4.5bn (£3.96bn) food exports to Britain if the UK crashes out of the bloc with no deal next month.

As Theresa May prepares for a crunch meeting in Brussels on Thursday, officials at the European commission are already looking at continuous compensatory measures for Ireland as part of an ongoing arrangement that could last years.

Contingency funds to compensate farmers have already been discussed at the highest levels and are expected to arise in talks with the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, during a round of meetings in Brussels on Wednesday.

Sources say Ireland will be looking for a “long-term fix” in EU budget talks in April rather than a lump sum Brexit bailout.

Okay I'm being cheeky, but you'd not need to be a genius to see the potential for a slide into fiscal clientelism as sectoral representatives decide some EU money would be great rather than reply on wit and enterprise. The EU would be wise to limit the monies to a time frame and not budge an inch from it.

Peregrinus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Okay I'm being cheeky, but you'd not need to be a genius to see the potential for a slide into fiscal clientelism as sectoral representatives decide some EU money would be great rather than reply on wit and enterprise.

False dichotomy there, surely?

Infini

Harry Palmr wrote: »

So then the begging bowl is out

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/05/ireland-and-eu-discuss-emergency-funds-to-offset-no-deal-brexit



Okay I'm being cheeky, but you'd not need to be a genius to see the potential for a slide into fiscal clientelism as sectoral representatives decide some EU money would be great rather than reply on wit and enterprise. The EU would be wise to limit the monies to a time frame and not budge an inch from it.

In fairness it's less of a begging bowl and more of an emergency insurance payout for damage caused by a 3rd party. It's what the EU is meant to do in times of hardship: Help out the worst affected expecially when they're being damaged by outside parties.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

There is nothing to stop any EU country offering the same - or lower- tax rate as Ireland.

This. 100%. Why can't Irish people who are repelled at the idea of tax harmonisation across the EU wake up to the short-term/time-limited nature of our low corporation tax? Tax harmonisation will be in Ireland's interest because lower cost economies will ultimately undercut even our ridiculously low taxes and everything else on the wealthy and their corporations.

Anybody here who is not a billionaire will surely agree that billionaires and their corporations legally paying income tax of 3% or something similar while the rest of us pay a marginal rate of between 50% and 60% is politically unsustainable. It must go, and I look forward to Ireland's central place in this race to the bottom/expanding income inequality in our societies being ended by tax harmonisation.

If people want a wake-up call about how the current low-taxes-on-the-rich-high-taxes-on-the-middle-classes tax system is contributing hugely to growing inequality, read this:

Piketty’s Inequality Story in Six Charts

oscarBravo

More to the point, why can't Irish people who are repelled by the idea of tax harmonisation across the EU wake up to the fact that it has nothing to do with tax rates?

4068ac1elhodqr

More to the point, why do people choose to ignore the EU's clear ambitions, desire and focus for Ireland to increase specifically it's 'Corporation Tax'.
- Without referring to some 'tax harmonisation' specific policy, whether that's regarding 'digital' tax policies, the central collection of taxes, income taxes, and so on.

Agree with Fuaranach, the rich, elite and mega-corporations can no longer squirm away their earnings
- maybe France's 'yellow vest' is an early indicator or income inequality protests to come.

oscarBravo

Jaxon Stocky Machine wrote: »

More to the point, why do people choose to ignore the EU's clear ambitions, desire and focus for Ireland to increase specifically it's 'Corporation Tax'.

The EU has no ambitions, desire or focus for Ireland to increase its corporation tax, for one simple reason: direct taxation is not an EU competence.

I could have sworn we'd had this conversation before.

sandbelter

Deleted User wrote: »

This. 100%. Why can't Irish people who are repelled at the idea of tax harmonisation across the EU wake up to the short-term/time-limited nature of our low corporation tax? Tax harmonisation will be in Ireland's interest because lower cost economies will ultimately undercut even our ridiculously low taxes and everything else on the wealthy and their corporations.
Piketty’s Inequality Story in Six Charts

Because every major study of economic growth to three point to three key thing driving economic growth: Access to markets, low company tax rates and good education.

All landmark economic research (Barro, Sala-i-Martin ect) point out the welfare gained from increased employment outweighs that of corp tax receipts. This may change with AI, but lets park that.

You also need to look through to the holder of these stocks and these are not individuals but small personal holdings. Again the poor pay the tax. the second issue is that encourages the use of debt, China Light and Power purchase of some regional electricity networks in Australia, it was done via a lease out of Hong Kong, interest set at WACC and never makes a profit...worse CLP then goes to the regulators as asks for rate increases because they are "loss making".

So the issue is: what you define as profit is as important at the rate you levy.

For tax accounting, some jurisdictions mitigate their high rates with a narrow profit definition, so effective tax is can be (3-4%) yet published rate is 30%.

I fully agree with the need to tax billionaires more. But a range of options will needed to be used both to tax and prevent evasion. Trickle down doesn't work instead a combination of high personal income taxs, definition of tax residency of assets, definition of corporate structures, business purpose tests, trust taxes aggressive withholding taxes on remittances jurisdictions like Jersey, Dubai, Lichtenstein, etc. Since most billionaires live in the Middle east and China taxes at borders maybe more effective as well.

Low company taxes work, there are more effective ways to tackle wealth imbalances.

nice_guy80

We need the likes of Apple and other large companies to pay their fair share of taxes
We'll need every cent in the next few years with brexit and the incompetence on delivering structural projects

Wanderer78

nice_guy80 wrote:

We need the likes of Apple and other large companies to pay their fair share of taxes We'll need every cent in the next few years with brexit and the incompetence on delivering structural projects

Oh it ll be a long time before this one happens, if at all, but on we go with the continual taxation of labour