3 ms·

The reality in Ireland is still that Ireland is a wealthy, stable, safe, educated liberal democracy, which is not at all what it was when I was young. Although

The reality in Ireland is still that Ireland is a wealthy, stable, safe, educated liberal democracy, which is not at all what it was when I was young. Although suffering from the same housing-, cost-of-living-, refugee-, and public-service-crises as most other Western nations, its path has been extremely successful and beneficial to its citizens. I think you might just be too young and too insulated to see how successful the policies have been.

tejinderss 3y ago
> how successful the policies have been. I don't know how these “successful” policies are sustainable if they are not playing level field with the rest of EU.
- closewith 3y ago
  Well, they are not sustainable, but Ireland no longer relies on them, so it's a moot point. The policies enabled the rapid development over a 25 year period and as the country became richer and the progress became self-sustaining, the arrangements were discontinued. For example, the "Double Irish" arrangement, which is the subject of this case, was only in use up to 2014 (and was modelled on and often paired with the "Dutch Sandwich" BEPS arrangement, so you should note that Ireland wasn't the only EU country playing these games). It was this case that closed the Double Irish arrangement and while "Green Jersey"/CAIA partially took it's place, the legitimate tax take was already more than sustainable. Now that Ireland has agreed to a global minimum corporate tax (CT) rate, it's likely that the CT take in Ireland will fall over time, but the inflated CT take of recent years has been treated as a windfall and not current income.
  - tejinderss 3y ago
    > Ireland no longer relies on them If Ireland has closed all the loopholes then why do the phantom exports (US subsidiary buying IPs) account for 38% of total exports of this year? > Now that Ireland has agreed to a global minimum corporate tax (CT) rate. Provided that they dont find another loophole. Edit: Someone asked for baseline, the phantom exports were 6 billion in 2012, they are 134 billion this year. https://www.businesspost.ie/news/irish-phantom-exports-surge-to-e134-billion/ https://www.businesspost.ie/news/irish-phantom-exports-surge...
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 3y ago
      Without providing a baseline, 38% means nothing. In the past it could have been 80%?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - closewith 3y ago
      > If Ireland has closed all the loopholes then why do the phantom exports (US subsidiary buying IPs) account for 38% of total exports of this year? I didn't say they have closed all the loopholes (nor have other EU countries). What I said was that Ireland is no longer reliant on them, in that the country does not fund current expenditure from the CT take. They are openly viewed as windfalls. > Provided that they dont find another loophole. It may happen, but one thing's for sure, Ireland won't be alone.
      - tejinderss 3y ago
        > Ireland is no longer reliant on them, in that the country does not fund current expenditure from the CT take https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2023/09/05/corporate-tax-take-triggers-fears-of-revenue-volatility-with-1bn-dip-ahead-of-budget/ https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2023/09/05/corpo...
        closewith 3y ago
        Thank you for sharing an article supporting my comments. From the article, which outlines the stance of the Department and Minister for Finance: > Corporation tax growth has been a key support to the exchequer in recent years, though the Department of Finance has consistently said that much of the increase cannot be relied upon as it does not directly relate to economic activity undertaken in Ireland and was thus windfall in nature. > It warned that the latest figures, which showed a decline greater than officials had anticipated to a monthly corporation tax payment of €1.7 billion, underlined that this source of revenue was potentially subject to " exceptional volatility”. As stated many times now, the exceptional CT take is seen as a windfall and the State does not rely upon it for current expenditure. Honestly, I think you've made up your mind that Ireland==bad and no amount of data or critical reasoning will change your mind. May I suggest travel? You will quickly learn that Ireland is not a poor, bad, or corrupt country. Edit: Okay, having read the parent commenter's replies, they seem to be commenting in bad faith. To anyone reading along, I recommend you read the OP and shared articles.
  - nix-zarathustra 3y ago
    >Well, they are not sustainable, but Ireland no longer relies on them, so it's a moot point. Not true. Foreign companies are 80% of Irish corporation tax, 25% of Irish labour, 25 of top 50 Irish firms, and 57% of Irish value-add. >For example, the "Double Irish" arrangement, which is the subject of this case, was only in use up to 2014 (and was modelled on and often paired with the "Dutch Sandwich" BEPS arrangement, so you should note that Ireland wasn't the only EU country playing these games). The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV).
    - closewith 3y ago
      > Not true. Foreign companies are 80% of Irish corporation tax, 25% of Irish labour, 25 of top 50 Irish firms, and 57% of Irish value-add. This isn't a rebuttal. Ireland is absolutely dependent on foreign firms, but no longer dependent on the inflated CT take from BEPS schemes. The majority of the above is now genuine work undertaken in Ireland, not IP tax avoidance schemes. > The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV). Yes, agreed (although Ireland is not alone in this, even in the EU). However, that doesn't change the fact that Ireland is no dependent on this tax income. Given your apparent knowledge of the schemes involved, this should be clear to you?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
moogly 3y ago
It could be argued it's just plain old corruption. Also, it's unclear to me the things you are listing followed due to aforementioned corruption.
- closewith 3y ago
  > It could be argued it's just plain old corruption. How so? That's certainly a novel take that hasn't been raised by any parties to the case including the plaintiffs, so I'd like to hear your reasoning here. > Also, it's unclear to me the things you are listing followed due to aforementioned corruption. As a side-note, Ireland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world and broadly comparable to, say, Sweden (https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ireland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ireland), so it's not a case that the country is a beneficiary of corrupt practices. It does, however, operate in its own interest. Honestly, I think you don't understand the issues at hand here well enough to make this accusation. Are you aware of the political environment at the time? Of the path into law of the Lisbon Treaty? Do you know what the Irish Guarantees are, and why at the time this deal was uncontroversial in Ireland? If anything, this is the opposite of corruption. It's likely that if the general public in Ireland knew of this outcome in 2009, the second Lisbon Treaty referendum wouldn't have passed and TFEU would have stalled completely. Short memories abound here.
  - anonymousDan 3y ago
    At last, someone actually talking sense on this thread.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tejinderss 3y ago

> how successful the policies have been. I don't know how these “successful” policies are sustainable if they are not playing level field with the rest of EU.

closewith 3y ago
Well, they are not sustainable, but Ireland no longer relies on them, so it's a moot point. The policies enabled the rapid development over a 25 year period and as the country became richer and the progress became self-sustaining, the arrangements were discontinued. For example, the "Double Irish" arrangement, which is the subject of this case, was only in use up to 2014 (and was modelled on and often paired with the "Dutch Sandwich" BEPS arrangement, so you should note that Ireland wasn't the only EU country playing these games). It was this case that closed the Double Irish arrangement and while "Green Jersey"/CAIA partially took it's place, the legitimate tax take was already more than sustainable. Now that Ireland has agreed to a global minimum corporate tax (CT) rate, it's likely that the CT take in Ireland will fall over time, but the inflated CT take of recent years has been treated as a windfall and not current income.
- tejinderss 3y ago
  > Ireland no longer relies on them If Ireland has closed all the loopholes then why do the phantom exports (US subsidiary buying IPs) account for 38% of total exports of this year? > Now that Ireland has agreed to a global minimum corporate tax (CT) rate. Provided that they dont find another loophole. Edit: Someone asked for baseline, the phantom exports were 6 billion in 2012, they are 134 billion this year. https://www.businesspost.ie/news/irish-phantom-exports-surge-to-e134-billion/ https://www.businesspost.ie/news/irish-phantom-exports-surge...
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 3y ago
    Without providing a baseline, 38% means nothing. In the past it could have been 80%?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - closewith 3y ago
    > If Ireland has closed all the loopholes then why do the phantom exports (US subsidiary buying IPs) account for 38% of total exports of this year? I didn't say they have closed all the loopholes (nor have other EU countries). What I said was that Ireland is no longer reliant on them, in that the country does not fund current expenditure from the CT take. They are openly viewed as windfalls. > Provided that they dont find another loophole. It may happen, but one thing's for sure, Ireland won't be alone.
    - tejinderss 3y ago
      > Ireland is no longer reliant on them, in that the country does not fund current expenditure from the CT take https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2023/09/05/corporate-tax-take-triggers-fears-of-revenue-volatility-with-1bn-dip-ahead-of-budget/ https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2023/09/05/corpo...
      - closewith 3y ago
        Thank you for sharing an article supporting my comments. From the article, which outlines the stance of the Department and Minister for Finance: > Corporation tax growth has been a key support to the exchequer in recent years, though the Department of Finance has consistently said that much of the increase cannot be relied upon as it does not directly relate to economic activity undertaken in Ireland and was thus windfall in nature. > It warned that the latest figures, which showed a decline greater than officials had anticipated to a monthly corporation tax payment of €1.7 billion, underlined that this source of revenue was potentially subject to " exceptional volatility”. As stated many times now, the exceptional CT take is seen as a windfall and the State does not rely upon it for current expenditure. Honestly, I think you've made up your mind that Ireland==bad and no amount of data or critical reasoning will change your mind. May I suggest travel? You will quickly learn that Ireland is not a poor, bad, or corrupt country. Edit: Okay, having read the parent commenter's replies, they seem to be commenting in bad faith. To anyone reading along, I recommend you read the OP and shared articles.
- nix-zarathustra 3y ago
  >Well, they are not sustainable, but Ireland no longer relies on them, so it's a moot point. Not true. Foreign companies are 80% of Irish corporation tax, 25% of Irish labour, 25 of top 50 Irish firms, and 57% of Irish value-add. >For example, the "Double Irish" arrangement, which is the subject of this case, was only in use up to 2014 (and was modelled on and often paired with the "Dutch Sandwich" BEPS arrangement, so you should note that Ireland wasn't the only EU country playing these games). The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV).
  - closewith 3y ago
    > Not true. Foreign companies are 80% of Irish corporation tax, 25% of Irish labour, 25 of top 50 Irish firms, and 57% of Irish value-add. This isn't a rebuttal. Ireland is absolutely dependent on foreign firms, but no longer dependent on the inflated CT take from BEPS schemes. The majority of the above is now genuine work undertaken in Ireland, not IP tax avoidance schemes. > The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV). Yes, agreed (although Ireland is not alone in this, even in the EU). However, that doesn't change the fact that Ireland is no dependent on this tax income. Given your apparent knowledge of the schemes involved, this should be clear to you?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

moogly 3y ago

It could be argued it's just plain old corruption. Also, it's unclear to me the things you are listing followed due to aforementioned corruption.

closewith 3y ago
> It could be argued it's just plain old corruption. How so? That's certainly a novel take that hasn't been raised by any parties to the case including the plaintiffs, so I'd like to hear your reasoning here. > Also, it's unclear to me the things you are listing followed due to aforementioned corruption. As a side-note, Ireland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world and broadly comparable to, say, Sweden (https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ireland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ireland), so it's not a case that the country is a beneficiary of corrupt practices. It does, however, operate in its own interest. Honestly, I think you don't understand the issues at hand here well enough to make this accusation. Are you aware of the political environment at the time? Of the path into law of the Lisbon Treaty? Do you know what the Irish Guarantees are, and why at the time this deal was uncontroversial in Ireland? If anything, this is the opposite of corruption. It's likely that if the general public in Ireland knew of this outcome in 2009, the second Lisbon Treaty referendum wouldn't have passed and TFEU would have stalled completely. Short memories abound here.
- anonymousDan 3y ago
  At last, someone actually talking sense on this thread.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]