Mellsblue wrote:I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.
I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.
I wouldn't take the view I'd want to minimise my tax, I'm more of the school of thought that taxes of the price of a civilised society, and it's ultimately in my interest that a lot of services are delivered by society.
The Irish government isn't free to offer them that deal is the EU claim which may or may not prove valid, my issue with it would be Ireland just providing that deal for a select few, including in this instance where there's clearly no need for any state aid/subsidy to deliver a successful business. And were Ireland free to offer those rates to any business then they should be available to all businesses, I utterly fail to see why some people should pay and others not.
If Ireland is free to set those rates, and can run with a corporation rate of say 0.5% then good luck to them. I would agree we need much more progress on where profits are declared.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a blanket tax rate regardless of ancillary benefits to the economy. I can see why a struggling sme or start-up would be hacked off but at the same time I wonder how many sme's and startups are there due, directly or indirectly, to Apple's presence in the country.
I've a similar view on non doms here in the UK, pay your damn tax or get out.
What I would be happy to have a talk about with Apple about is whether taxing profits is actually a good idea. But whilst there's huge change needed globally in taxation we are where are right now, and fair is fair.
Digby wrote:
I wouldn't take the view I'd want to minimise my tax, I'm more of the school of thought that taxes of the price of a civilised society, and it's ultimately in my interest that a lot of services are delivered by society.
The Irish government isn't free to offer them that deal is the EU claim which may or may not prove valid, my issue with it would be Ireland just providing that deal for a select few, including in this instance where there's clearly no need for any state aid/subsidy to deliver a successful business. And were Ireland free to offer those rates to any business then they should be available to all businesses, I utterly fail to see why some people should pay and others not.
If Ireland is free to set those rates, and can run with a corporation rate of say 0.5% then good luck to them. I would agree we need much more progress on where profits are declared.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a blanket tax rate regardless of ancillary benefits to the economy. I can see why a struggling sme or start-up would be hacked off but at the same time I wonder how many sme's and startups are there due, directly or indirectly, to Apple's presence in the country.
I've a similar view on non doms here in the UK, pay your damn tax or get out.
What I would be happy to have a talk about with Apple about is whether taxing profits is actually a good idea. But whilst there's huge change needed globally in taxation we are where are right now, and fair is fair.
Agree with the need for change. Why should taxes benefit the US when value was created in France (for example)? Equally, the ability to charge tax at borders is now undermined by concepts like the EU and the increase in digital services. Whilst the companies themselves can probably tell you exactly how much presence they have in individual countries in the virtual world, is that sufficient for tax purposes? Finally, would customers nGermany accept paying more for downloaded content that those in Ireland due to the increased corporation tax in the former?
BBD wrote:It's a win for them whatever the result of the appeal
Unless other EU governments claim some of it as theirs, like the EC commissioner suggested they should, a suggestion which seems odd given the judgement.
I would like to manufacture smart phone parts using slave labour in South East Asia, but it would be wonderful if I could set up a tax haven in Ireland in return for a couple of thousand minimum wage sales jobs. Who in the Irish government do I need to pay off to do this, because I shouldn't be taxed the same as ordinary people as I am fabulously wealthy. You understand.
morepork wrote:I would like to manufacture smart phone parts using slave labour in South East Asia, but it would be wonderful if I could set up a tax haven in Ireland in return for a couple of thousand minimum wage sales jobs. Who in the Irish government do I need to pay off to do this, because I shouldn't be taxed the same as ordinary people as I am fabulously wealthy. You understand.
Big kiss.
a) Lots of people would love a secure minimum wage job. I work in Bradford, and 3000 minimum wage jobs would transform the city.
b) I'm suprised you had to time to write this post as you must be busy making your 'Google is a cunt' placard.
c) The Irish chap I spoke to when my iPhone stopped charging sounded as happy as Larry. I think. I couldn't understand half the things the fecker was saying.
Mass minimum wage, or close to, jobs can change lives and communities. Just ask those working in the car plants in the north east of England or, on the other side of the coin, those working in the steel plants at risk of closure.
Whether you think the minimum is where it needs to be is a different argument, and we'd probably agree on that one. Whether you think pay at the top is justifiable when compared to pay at the bottom is yet another, if related, argument, and I assume we'd be on the same side again. However, there's no getting away from the fact that lots of people in depressed areas wouldn't give a shiny shit how much tax Apple does or doesn't pay if they gave them a secure job.
I'd also add that a minimum wage job isn't necessarily a minimum wage for life. It's a chance to get your foot on the rung of the ladder and work your way up.
Mellsblue wrote:Mass minimum wage, or close to, jobs can change lives and communities. Just ask those working in the car plants in the north east of England or, on the other side of the coin, those working in the steel plants at risk of closure.
Whether you think the minimum is where it needs to be is a different argument, and we'd probably agree on that one. Whether you think pay at the top is justifiable when compared to pay at the bottom is yet another, if related, argument, and I assume we'd be on the same side again. However, there's no getting away from the fact that lots of people in depressed areas wouldn't give a shiny shit how much tax Apple does or doesn't pay if they gave them a secure job.
I'd also add that a minimum wage job isn't necessarily a minimum wage for life. It's a chance to get your foot on the rung of the ladder and work your way up.
There's been a terrible program on recently on minimum wage jobs and how they can be a trap. I would suggest that unemployment is more of a trap. At least on minimum wage you can progress within a company.
All of which is very interesting, but entirely beside the point. This is a rule of law issue. governments can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to one particular entity.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:All of which is very interesting, but entirely beside the point. This is a rule of law issue. governments can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to one particular entity.
I think we're beyond the legalities of it now and discussing whether it's morally acceptable and/or economically advantageous enough to treat different entities differently.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:All of which is very interesting, but entirely beside the point. This is a rule of law issue. governments can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to one particular entity.
I think we're beyond the legalities of it now and discussing whether it's morally acceptable and/or economically advantageous enough to treat different entities differently.
To me there's no contest. You can't feed people on moral scruples. Unless the proposed company is doing something completely reprehensible, then I'd be all for encouraging them to locate into a run down area. The gains on I come tax and NI would be sufficient justification, as well as the social gains that higher employment makes to an area.
It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
It sounds as though the anti-competitive thing is coming through strongly in the EU's ruling. Like you say, its basically a government backed advantage over other players in the industry, how is it a level playing field for competition when one company is paying 0.005% tax?
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
It sounds as though the anti-competitive thing is coming through strongly in the EU's ruling. Like you say, its basically a government backed advantage over other players in the industry, how is it a level playing field for competition when one company is paying 0.005% tax?
It's not, but, you know "just pull your socks up" and all that.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:All of which is very interesting, but entirely beside the point. This is a rule of law issue. governments can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to one particular entity.
I think we're beyond the legalities of it now and discussing whether it's morally acceptable and/or economically advantageous enough to treat different entities differently.
To me there's no contest. You can't feed people on moral scruples. Unless the proposed company is doing something completely reprehensible, then I'd be all for encouraging them to locate into a run down area. The gains on I come tax and NI would be sufficient justification, as well as the social gains that higher employment makes to an area.
Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
Morals, shmorals in the words of Salvor Hardin 'Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right'. Ithe Irish
goevernment decided to give Apple a tax break to give their economy a bit of a boost & creat a couple of thousand jobs. All
OK as far as I'm concerned
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
Morals, shmorals in the words of Salvor Hardin 'Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right'. Ithe Irish
goevernment decided to give Apple a tax break to give their economy a bit of a boost & creat a couple of thousand jobs. All
OK as far as I'm concerned
It's OK for Ireland and their government as Apple have paid the taxes due there, but the the Irish government seem happy to shaft the rest of Europe by letting them fund money through Ireland to avoid tax elsewhere in Europe
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
Morals, shmorals in the words of Salvor Hardin 'Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right'. Ithe Irish
goevernment decided to give Apple a tax break to give their economy a bit of a boost & creat a couple of thousand jobs. All
OK as far as I'm concerned
It's OK for Ireland and their government as Apple have paid the taxes due there, but the the Irish government seem happy to shaft the rest of Europe by letting them fund money through Ireland to avoid tax elsewhere in Europe
And? Your not telling me that any other EU country wouldn't have done the same. The EU has all these rules & regulations but I bet
that not a single one of them follows them all religously. look at CAP, fishing quotas etc, the all just follow them when it suits them, the
moment the can see a way of gaining an advantage the just ignore them
morepork wrote:It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?
Only if Apple had located in Ireland and paid normal taxes anyway. I can fully understand why the Irish government, wanting to rejuvenate an depressed area, gave them an incentive to locate in Ireland. Better to have 6000 people mployed, paying income tax and not claiming benefits, than dream of the corporation tax that wasn't being paid anyway.
