Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

paul71

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I completely disagree.

We have a chronic, and getting worse, generational welfare dependency culture.

Anyway this is off topic.

Untrue 5.16% unemployment.

Truth = ranked most efficient workers on the planet.

Opinion is not fact, it is only ---- opinion.

joeysoap

Is there any record kept of the number ( later to be the ‘ new Irish) of the number of immigrants Crossing the border? I’m from Dundalk and have been caught up in garda roadblocks a few times. No, not tax and insurance and diesel ( though they do that too), the full Monty, guns etc

Padre_Pio

paul71 wrote: »

Untrue 5.16% unemployment.

Truth = ranked most efficient workers on the planet.

Opinion is not fact, it is only ---- opinion.

Yep, that's a good point.

Unemployment will always be there.
Stay at home mother's claiming job seekers, people between jobs, people who's work is more cash in hand, people on X's and Os, a significant amount of people between retirement age and pension. Then you get the life long dolers.

Igotadose

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yet uk ranks below Eu average and way below Ireland in productivity

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/productivity?continent=europe

This article puts Ireland at the top of 'worker productivity.' https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-workers-now-ranked-as-most-productive-in-world-1.3783173

But, if you read it, it says:

The Republic’s position at the top of the global rankings has a lot to do with the high concentration of multinationals here, which typically drive the biggest productivity gains.

and also

The report also highlighted a gulf between indigenous and foreign-owned firms. Productivity growth among foreign-owned entities averaged 10.9 over the period but was only 2.5 per cent for indigenous firms.

Anecdotally, having lived my entire professional life in the USA, I find it remarkable just how unproductive Ireland is. A small country with poor internet infrastructure that can't be agreed on. Poor roads. Low-efficiency farming, which has a lot of plusses to it but requires enormous subsidies both direct and indirect, and personally the extreme difficulty in getting good, reliable tradespeople to do work at home. Home projects here are much harder than in the US, just obtaining materials is much more difficult.

So, I would not crow about Irish worker productivity vs. anything, without at least removing the multinational impact.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

So UK has managed to sign a FTA with Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein which is worse than what they had in EU with all three countries getting better tariffs. UK's big win is once again a cheese quota which will get lower tariffs compared to WTO (compared to zero in EU). Can someone please explain to me what is Liz Truss obsession with UK cheese exports yet again? Does she have family working in the cheese industry or something? Because this is becoming more than a meme now with her constant push for cheese exemptions at the cost of things that actually matters...

They have also opened up these countries for musicians to travel again. And think it is some sort of major achievement and are bragging about it. The important thing is they used photos with a flag and a picture of the Queen though.

Leroy42

The standard of reporting in the UK is so frustrating.

They simply claim X trade deal is worth Xxxbn, without even trying to mention what the level of trade already is.

So the impression is given that it Xxxbn new trade, when it is more simply roughly the same, just a different name on the deal.

Is it any wonder that people are so easily duped when even the media is happy to simply be a PR team.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: The Irish welfare system is not the topic of this thread. Please feel free to start a new one if desired.

joeysoap

Overall this is quite a standard trade agreement, with limited economic value

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/04/uk-strikes-trade-deal-norway-iceland-liechtenstein-liz-truss

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

The standard of reporting in the UK is so frustrating.

They simply claim X trade deal is worth Xxxbn, without even trying to mention what the level of trade already is.

So the impression is given that it Xxxbn new trade, when it is more simply roughly the same, just a different name on the deal.

Is it any wonder that people are so easily duped when even the media is happy to simply be a PR team.

The whole trade deal issue is a red herring. The original British Eurosceptics of about 10-15 years ago never believed for a moment the economic arguments for Brexit or bought into the nonsense that the UK could secure better trade deals outside the SM.

It's a mere smokescreen to cover up the fact that Brexit cannot work economically or leave it better off. The impetus for it was always political and nationalist.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

So UK has managed to sign a FTA with Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein which is worse than what they had in EU with all three countries getting better tariffs. UK's big win is once again a cheese quota which will get lower tariffs compared to WTO (compared to zero in EU). Can someone please explain to me what is Liz Truss obsession with UK cheese exports yet again? Does she have family working in the cheese industry or something? Because this is becoming more than a meme now with her constant push for cheese exemptions at the cost of things that actually matters...

They are painting it as a win but the total cheese quota remains unchanged.

Under the deal, Norway has reduced its duties in 26 areas of agriculture, which includes provisions to allow a quantity of West Country farmhouse cheddar, Orkney Scottish Island cheddar, traditional Welsh caerphilly, and Yorkshire wensleydale cheese to avoid full 277% export tariffs. The total quota of UK cheese that can be sold into the Norwegian market tariff free has not increased, however.

Blessed are the blue cheesemakers.

The deal will allow caps on the charges mobile operators are allowed to charge each other for international mobile roaming, a world-first in a free trade deal, keeping costs low for holiday makers and business travellers.

Another win ! The UK now have roaming in countries with 1% of the population of the roaming area they used to belong to.

Norway’s government, meanwhile, celebrated securing the same trading relationship in goods with the UK as the EU under its trade and cooperation agreement and that there will be zero duty on frozen peeled shrimp from 1 January 2023, a key export.

It's just equivalent to deal they would have got by staying in the EU so maybe not a win.

However, the final deal published by the Norwegian government revealed that both sides had refused to budge significantly on their red lines.

Easiest trade deals ever. :rolleyes:

Leroy42

Norway seem less than impressed with the deal.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1400906591570890762?s=19

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Norway seem less than impressed with the deal.

You need to keep in mind there are asymmetrical expectations here. Norway had someone who knew what they were doing getting more quotas in important areas etc. but not as much as they hoped. In the UK on the other hand they have Liz Truss where the fact there's even a deal that's only 20/80 in favor of UK is a success based on her competency level in negotiations. Hence UK are happy if the deals are only a bit worse than what they had before is about where the expectations are set as highest.

fash

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another win ! The UK now have roaming in countries with 1% of the population of the roaming area they used to belong to. :

And roaming is a win that disproportionately benefits the EEA: in the same way as the CTA is a much bigger benefit to Ireland/Irish (get access to the whole UK versus UK/Brits only having access to a small island, a Liechtensteiner gets free roaming around the entire UK while the UK gets free roaming around half a mountain.

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

And roaming is a win that disproportionately benefits the EEA: in the same way as the CTA is a much bigger benefit to Ireland/Irish (get access to the whole UK versus UK/Brits only having access to a small island, a Liechtensteiner gets free roaming around the entire UK while the UK gets free roaming around half a mountain.

But did they not have free roaming throughout the EU and the EEA, but now only have it in the EEA? Is this new FTA better than the deal they had before they left the EU?

And that is a win!

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Norway seem less than impressed with the deal.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1400906591570890762?s=19

Of course it's going to lead to extra costs because the UK is no longer an EU county and the four freedoms etc were lost.


The UK is Norway's second biggest trading partner after the EU. It's a case where the UK could rightly claim "they need us more than we need them" and that's the context this trade deal should be looked at.

The UK should have 'won' this deal easily.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This g7 tax agreement has interesting brexit dimension, here we have Brexiteers happy and cheerful at other countries telling them what to do ...

France and Germany amongst them. Last I heard, they were still EU members, weren't they? That sovereignty thing is a slippery fish ... :pac:

Sam Russell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This g7 tax agreement has interesting brexit dimension, here we have Brexiteers happy and cheerful at other countries telling them what to do, I guess they have not woken up to the irony of situation

It is a lot simpler than that.

The multinationals currently manage to pay zero tax on the vast majority of their profits, and a small amount to countries like Ireland, Luxemburg, and The Netherlands, and a trivial amount to small island economies like the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands, etc.

So under the new scheme, who will collect all this extra tax - not countries like Ireland, or the island economies, but countries like UK, France, and Germany. If the profits are assigned according to sales, then small economies must miss out - just because they are small economies.

The details have yet to be agreed - the emphasis will be on the greed.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is a lot simpler than that.

The multinationals currently manage to pay zero tax on the vast majority of their profits, and a small amount to countries like Ireland, Luxemburg, and The Netherlands, and a trivial amount to small island economies like the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands, etc.

So under the new scheme, who will collect all this extra tax - not countries like Ireland, or the island economies, but countries like UK, France, and Germany. If the profits are assigned according to sales, then small economies must miss out - just because they are small economies.

The details have yet to be agreed - the emphasis will be on the greed.

I assume that you're referring to the greed of the shareholders who want the largest slice of the cake and don't care about anyone else. These are the people who will quite happily see a country go down the pan if it gets between them and the largest slice.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

So under the new scheme, who will collect all this extra tax - not countries like Ireland, or the island economies, but countries like UK, France, and Germany.

Hmmm. I wouldn't count on the UK collecting it. I read the other day (sorry, don't remember where - but a "reputable" news source) that the legislation already exists in the UK ... but is not applied. Where have I heard that of scenario before?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume that you're referring to the greed of the shareholders who want the largest slice of the cake and don't care about anyone else. These are the people who will quite happily see a country go down the pan if it gets between them and the largest slice.

Well, we all know who was driving the Brexit deal, and the preference for a No Deal Brexit, but a hard Brexit was nearly the same.

Well, the same crowd are driving this to repatriate profits and therefore resultant taxes back to the G7 economies. Now company profits are nor necessarily earned in the countries where sales are made, but hey, if a large economy can claim those profits then they will.

The big issue is IP. Where should that be taxed? That is the major question.

For example, Apple make an iPhone for say $90, but sell it retail for $900, but charge the local Apple shop $800. Local shop make $100, and Apple Corps makes $710, but books $700 to their IP subsidiary, and books $10 to their own Apple Corps profit. The IP sub pays no tax because it is in a zero tax haven.

Now how can that be unravelled fairly without greatly benefitting the G7 countries while not harming the smaller countries? Any of these global changes never work out as altruistic as they originally appear.

If African countries got their fair share of tax, they would be very much richer than they ae instead of being very poor. If the USA traded on a level playing field and did not use their economic power to improve their economic power, they would not be as wealthy as they are.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, we all know who was driving the Brexit deal, and the preference for a No Deal Brexit, but a hard Brexit was nearly the same.

Well, the same crowd are driving this to repatriate profits and therefore resultant taxes back to the G7 economies. Now company profits are nor necessarily earned in the countries where sales are made, but hey, if a large economy can claim those profits then they will.

The big issue is IP. Where should that be taxed? That is the major question.

For example, Apple make an iPhone for say $90, but sell it retail for $900, but charge the local Apple shop $800. Local shop make $100, and Apple Corps makes $710, but books $700 to their IP subsidiary, and books $10 to their own Apple Corps profit. The IP sub pays no tax because it is in a zero tax haven.

Now how can that be unravelled fairly without greatly benefitting the G7 countries while not harming the smaller countries? Any of these global changes never work out as altruistic as they originally appear.

If African countries got their fair share of tax, they would be very much richer than they ae instead of being very poor. If the USA traded on a level playing field and did not use their economic power to improve their economic power, they would not be as wealthy as they are.

Multiple ways in other areas not IP as well; for example internal loans with a very high interest rate to local company with the loaner sitting in said tax haven. Suddenly all the profit is required to pay for the "loan" instead, or internally charged services for "accounting" etc. Plenty of ways to move real profits out of a country's taxation scope.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Multiple ways in other areas not IP as well; for example internal loans with a very high interest rate to local company with the loaner sitting in said tax haven. Suddenly all the profit is required to pay for the "loan" instead, or internally charged services for "accounting" etc. Plenty of ways to move real profits out of a country's taxation scope.

Yes, like 'management charges' and transfer pricing - all designed to transfer profits to lower tax areas. Every possible trick and loophole has been tried and used.

It will still be the same winners and losers.

Enzokk

I think Lord Frost is furious with, checks notes...David Frost, when he discusses the deal they negotiated and Lord Frost now has to try and get changed.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1401541479345098754?s=20

So David Frost is not the sharpest tool in the box then. Or he is exactly what this government needs, a self serving believer who was happy to throw NI under the bus when it suited him. Now he has a seat in the House of Lords for this piece of trash he is trying to disown.

ambro25

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, we all know who was driving the Brexit deal, and the preference for a No Deal Brexit, but a hard Brexit was nearly the same.

Well, the same crowd are driving this to repatriate profits and therefore resultant taxes back to the G7 economies. Now company profits are nor necessarily earned in the countries where sales are made, but hey, if a large economy can claim those profits then they will.

The big issue is IP. Where should that be taxed? That is the major question.

For example, Apple make an iPhone for say $90, but sell it retail for $900, but charge the local Apple shop $800. Local shop make $100, and Apple Corps makes $710, but books $700 to their IP subsidiary, and books $10 to their own Apple Corps profit. The IP sub pays no tax because it is in a zero tax haven.

Now how can that be unravelled fairly without greatly benefitting the G7 countries while not harming the smaller countries? Any of these global changes never work out as altruistic as they originally appear.

If African countries got their fair share of tax, they would be very much richer than they ae instead of being very poor. If the USA traded on a level playing field and did not use their economic power to improve their economic power, they would not be as wealthy as they are.

Save for official renewal fees paid periodically to keep it alive, and (where it exists/applies-) stamp duty of the value of IP transfer agreements, IP is never taxed.

Income generated under the IP is.

That $710 (well, a portion thereof) is generated under the IP, through a licensing agreement. It is not "IP".

The 15% corporate tax floor initiative is not going to 'solve' that particular issue.

But a similar agreement at G7 level about the (min-max) valuation of IP could.

This is being done already, after a fashion and to a limited extent, with 'patent box' regimes gradually applying the OECD criteria (derived from BEPS initiative), which threshold the scope of relief under such regimes to the share of profit actually attributable to the IP (i.e. you can claim relief on taxable profits made from selling the iPhone, but now only in proportion to the patented tech actually in that iPhone, and you can't include profits made from other revenue streams associated with selling the iPhone - e.g. trade mark use, finance to sell the iPhone on the pump, etc.)

Used to be the case, most regimes extended the scope of applicability to every last form and variation of IP, including trade marks, designs, copyright, etc. So of course, just about the entire profit could be linked to one form of IP or the other, one way or the other. Not anymore. But there's still a lot of room for improvement.

Jizique

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Lord Frost is furious with, checks notes...David Frost, when he discusses the deal they negotiated and Lord Frost now has to try and get changed.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1401541479345098754?s=20

So David Frost is not the sharpest tool in the box then. Or he is exactly what this government needs, a self serving believer who was happy to throw NI under the bus when it suited him. Now he has a seat in the House of Lords for this piece of trash he is trying to disown.

He really is a dose; unelected minister giving in to terrorist threats

mick087

Jizique wrote: »

He really is a dose; unelected minister giving in to terrorist threats

Yes another case of someone unelected but selected, with power.

fash

Jizique wrote: »

He really is a dose; unelected minister giving in to terrorist threats

That's rather generous of you- rather, he is intentionally inciting and fomenting terrorism specifically in order to create a narrative to allow the UK to renege on its commitments.

Sam Russell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Wait a minute more than half worlds tax heaven’s are uk overseas territories and such (never mind city of London itself) what’s stopping uk government acting against those today

I would have thought that was obvious. The UK Gov are responsible for allowing their friends from benefiting from the tax free status afforded them by tax free havens. So why would they act against them? They already allow high net worth individuals to live in the UK without paying taxes by declaring them 'non dom' (non domiciled).

Of course Brexit has removed the UK from the veto they exercised to prevent these tax havens from being declared tax havens by the EU. The EU have now declared them as tax havens - we will see if tis changes anything.

Leroy42

What an odd opinion piece from Frost in the FT. He admits that 'we' (he means himself and Johnson) didn't understand what they were signing and hadn't done any actual review of the impact of the NIP and the WA as a whole.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1401541479345098754

His solution, unsurprisingly, if that the EU needs to abandon the SM rules it is spent 40 years progressing to help him and Johnson out of the hole they have dug themselves, the people of NI, and indeed the UK as a whole, out of.

Now of course the piece is aimed squarely at the domestic audience, but what I don't get is how they think this is going to help them in their negotiations with the EU. SUrely the EU will read this, see just how desperate Frost is, and can now (if they are so minded) extract quite a price for any movement.

'You want us to bend the rules to help you out? OK NI is immaterial, so in return, we want full and unfettered and unlimited access to UK fishing waters'.

peter kern

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought that was obvious. The UK Gov are responsible for allowing their friends from benefiting from the tax free status afforded them by tax free havens. So why would they act against them? They already allow high net worth individuals to live in the UK without paying taxes by declaring them 'non dom' (non domiciled).

Of course Brexit has removed the UK from the veto they exercised to prevent these tax havens from being declared tax havens by the EU. The EU have now declared them as tax havens - we will see if tis changes anything.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-list-of-non-cooperative-jurisdictions/

is there a newer list ?