8 ms·

Just to be clear - I don't think many people have (much) of a problem with ireland's "headline" 12.5% CT rate. The problem is the selective tax rates that Irel

Just to be clear - I don't think many people have (much) of a problem with ireland's "headline" 12.5% CT rate. The problem is the selective tax rates that Ireland gave to many multinationals, often as low as 0.005% (effectively in return for ensuring x amount of jobs were created in Ireland). I think these are really very much sneaky schemes.

benoau 2y ago
Corruption with a twist: the government is the one who got the kickback.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cco 2y ago
  The opposite, no? The government accepted _much_ less money than is required in exchange for jobs for their constituents. This is an example of a government prioritizing benefits for some of their constituents (emphasis on some) over the collection of tax dollars (direct benefit to the "government") or monetary reward for themselves (corruption).
  - nothrabannosir 2y ago
    Apple settled on Ireland precisely because of that tax scheme. Had Ireland levied taxes at a normal rate, they wouldn't have gotten any dollars. The choice for Ireland was between jobs and nothing. Apple (& al) played countries out against each other and had Ireland not done it another one would've. It's a tragedy of the commons, and as always, that can only be solved through collective action (cue TFA).
    - nickpp 2y ago
      Competition is a good thing. We all lose when powerful players band together and form a cartel. If companies did that - it's illegal. If government politicians do it - their populism brings them votes.
      - nothrabannosir 2y ago
        Correct: a market where sellers compete is good for buyers. Unfortunately in this market the buyers are corporations and the sellers are democratic governments (us). That’s why this is not good for people.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        We aren't democratic governments. We are subjects to governments, who we must pay taxes to, and customers of corporations, who we pay if they can produce stuff we like for cheap enough.
        nothrabannosir 2y ago
        This moves the conversation to questioning the notion of representation of a people by its government. It is true that the entire conversation about whether or not it's good if Apple can play governments out against each other in order not to pay any taxes, rests in part on that assumption. That's a fine conversation to have. But in TFA and in here so far, it is assumed. Note btw that even in your narrower definition of what government is to us, you still mention taxes, and that is precisely what is in question here, so even according to your formulation everything holds and it is still good for us if corporations can't play out governments against each other to lower their tax bill, because that's directly us footing that bill. You'd have to find some kind of definition of government that doesn't cover that, or argue that if Apple doesn't pay taxes, all those gains are passed on to us, the people, in a better way than if they do. Through a stronger tech market leading to better tech products, or something? Anyway I think the original assumption is fair and the discussion holds. "Cheating on your taxes = stealing from the people" is a such a well established fundamental axiom that challenging it basically changes the conversation entirely.
        nickpp 2y ago
        > "Cheating on your taxes = stealing from the people" is a such a well established fundamental axiom Excuse me?! Cheating on your taxes is illegal. Minimizing your taxes is what everyone of us does - it is perfectly normal and justified behavior. And the discussion was not about that - companies are paying their taxes just fine. The discussion was about governments colluding to form a cartel to uniformly raise taxes. That is not OK. Even if the stated purpose is somehow justifiable, government collusion is not good for the people. By definition governments are natural monopolies, they don't have internal competition. The only competition keeping them in check is external. And it comes in two forms: destructive (wars) and constructive (free trade). Without competition democracy alone cannot keep governments in check - just witness the decay towards populism and autocracy together with the raise of left and right extremism of the Western governments during the last few years. We need alternatives. We, the people, need to be able to pack our bags and go to a place with values and laws better aligned to ours. Otherwise we will end up prisoners behind barbed wire on the borders like the Eastern Europe the Cold War or facing fines and exit taxes like certain countries already impose on their citizens today. In a world of bigger and bigger governments, with larger and larger budgets and deficits but smaller and crappier results, inter-national competition is the only recourse we have left. For example, the EU would be supremely satisfied with itself right now if USA's economic performance didn't point out that the Emperor is naked. > argue that if Apple doesn't pay taxes, all those gains are passed on to us Yes, smaller costs for Apple directly translate in cheaper products for us or larger profits for its shareholders - which is also us. On the other hand, that money going to the tax man will fund millions of fat bureaucrat jobs and countless wasteful government programs out of which an extremely tiny part will actually benefit us. > democratic governments (us) Even if you think democratic governments represent us (a debatable idea at best, then logically you should want competition for them. Because like us, without competition, they go lazy, wasteful and abusive.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The problem with all of this is that it's all sneaky schemes. You probably have something in mind for how a government is supposed to spend tax revenues. Assistance for the poor or something like that. But as a sovereign state they get to decide for themselves. Except that as soon as you admit this there is no point in having any kind of minimum rate etc., because there are a thousand ways for the state to return the money to corporations if they intend to. Subsidize energy costs so they have the lowest electricity prices and tech companies build data centers there. Provide something like the earned income tax credit but with no phase out, subsidizing employers who hire workers there. Just offer generous tax credits and deductions in general, leaving the nominal rate high while lowering the effective rate. There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing. Is a country that offers public healthcare subsidizing employers who then don't have to pay for employee health insurance? What if you create a 100% tax credit for constructing non-fossil power plants up to the amount of the buyer's total taxes? Apple would commission $13B in solar farms and nuclear reactors, take the credit and then turn around and sell them to get all the cash back. Can you even say that would be a bad policy? It might have a desirable result. But it would also zero out their taxes.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > But as a sovereign state they get to decide for themselves. Not really no. The results of the court case prove that. > There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing Well. No way, except for through the result of an EU court case that just ruled that the tax scheme wasn't allowed. > Apple would Woulda coulda shoulda. The real question is "did they"? And the answer is no. They didn't do these other schemes, and they lost the court case.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You seem to be assuming that this isn't an iterative process. The process continues until the scheme is convoluted enough to satisfy the court while still being effective in attracting companies through de facto lower taxes. Meanwhile Ireland now has $13B to throw at Apple somehow to convince them to stay.
fennecbutt 2y ago
All tax havens are like that and they should be obliterated. 1% bs.

benoau 2y ago

Corruption with a twist: the government is the one who got the kickback.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cco 2y ago
The opposite, no? The government accepted _much_ less money than is required in exchange for jobs for their constituents. This is an example of a government prioritizing benefits for some of their constituents (emphasis on some) over the collection of tax dollars (direct benefit to the "government") or monetary reward for themselves (corruption).
- nothrabannosir 2y ago
  Apple settled on Ireland precisely because of that tax scheme. Had Ireland levied taxes at a normal rate, they wouldn't have gotten any dollars. The choice for Ireland was between jobs and nothing. Apple (& al) played countries out against each other and had Ireland not done it another one would've. It's a tragedy of the commons, and as always, that can only be solved through collective action (cue TFA).
  - nickpp 2y ago
    Competition is a good thing. We all lose when powerful players band together and form a cartel. If companies did that - it's illegal. If government politicians do it - their populism brings them votes.
    - nothrabannosir 2y ago
      Correct: a market where sellers compete is good for buyers. Unfortunately in this market the buyers are corporations and the sellers are democratic governments (us). That’s why this is not good for people.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        We aren't democratic governments. We are subjects to governments, who we must pay taxes to, and customers of corporations, who we pay if they can produce stuff we like for cheap enough.
        nothrabannosir 2y ago
        This moves the conversation to questioning the notion of representation of a people by its government. It is true that the entire conversation about whether or not it's good if Apple can play governments out against each other in order not to pay any taxes, rests in part on that assumption. That's a fine conversation to have. But in TFA and in here so far, it is assumed. Note btw that even in your narrower definition of what government is to us, you still mention taxes, and that is precisely what is in question here, so even according to your formulation everything holds and it is still good for us if corporations can't play out governments against each other to lower their tax bill, because that's directly us footing that bill. You'd have to find some kind of definition of government that doesn't cover that, or argue that if Apple doesn't pay taxes, all those gains are passed on to us, the people, in a better way than if they do. Through a stronger tech market leading to better tech products, or something? Anyway I think the original assumption is fair and the discussion holds. "Cheating on your taxes = stealing from the people" is a such a well established fundamental axiom that challenging it basically changes the conversation entirely.
        nickpp 2y ago
        > "Cheating on your taxes = stealing from the people" is a such a well established fundamental axiom Excuse me?! Cheating on your taxes is illegal. Minimizing your taxes is what everyone of us does - it is perfectly normal and justified behavior. And the discussion was not about that - companies are paying their taxes just fine. The discussion was about governments colluding to form a cartel to uniformly raise taxes. That is not OK. Even if the stated purpose is somehow justifiable, government collusion is not good for the people. By definition governments are natural monopolies, they don't have internal competition. The only competition keeping them in check is external. And it comes in two forms: destructive (wars) and constructive (free trade). Without competition democracy alone cannot keep governments in check - just witness the decay towards populism and autocracy together with the raise of left and right extremism of the Western governments during the last few years. We need alternatives. We, the people, need to be able to pack our bags and go to a place with values and laws better aligned to ours. Otherwise we will end up prisoners behind barbed wire on the borders like the Eastern Europe the Cold War or facing fines and exit taxes like certain countries already impose on their citizens today. In a world of bigger and bigger governments, with larger and larger budgets and deficits but smaller and crappier results, inter-national competition is the only recourse we have left. For example, the EU would be supremely satisfied with itself right now if USA's economic performance didn't point out that the Emperor is naked. > argue that if Apple doesn't pay taxes, all those gains are passed on to us Yes, smaller costs for Apple directly translate in cheaper products for us or larger profits for its shareholders - which is also us. On the other hand, that money going to the tax man will fund millions of fat bureaucrat jobs and countless wasteful government programs out of which an extremely tiny part will actually benefit us. > democratic governments (us) Even if you think democratic governments represent us (a debatable idea at best, then logically you should want competition for them. Because like us, without competition, they go lazy, wasteful and abusive.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

The problem with all of this is that it's all sneaky schemes. You probably have something in mind for how a government is supposed to spend tax revenues. Assistance for the poor or something like that. But as a sovereign state they get to decide for themselves. Except that as soon as you admit this there is no point in having any kind of minimum rate etc., because there are a thousand ways for the state to return the money to corporations if they intend to. Subsidize energy costs so they have the lowest electricity prices and tech companies build data centers there. Provide something like the earned income tax credit but with no phase out, subsidizing employers who hire workers there. Just offer generous tax credits and deductions in general, leaving the nominal rate high while lowering the effective rate. There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing. Is a country that offers public healthcare subsidizing employers who then don't have to pay for employee health insurance? What if you create a 100% tax credit for constructing non-fossil power plants up to the amount of the buyer's total taxes? Apple would commission $13B in solar farms and nuclear reactors, take the credit and then turn around and sell them to get all the cash back. Can you even say that would be a bad policy? It might have a desirable result. But it would also zero out their taxes.

stale2002 2y ago
> But as a sovereign state they get to decide for themselves. Not really no. The results of the court case prove that. > There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing Well. No way, except for through the result of an EU court case that just ruled that the tax scheme wasn't allowed. > Apple would Woulda coulda shoulda. The real question is "did they"? And the answer is no. They didn't do these other schemes, and they lost the court case.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You seem to be assuming that this isn't an iterative process. The process continues until the scheme is convoluted enough to satisfy the court while still being effective in attracting companies through de facto lower taxes. Meanwhile Ireland now has $13B to throw at Apple somehow to convince them to stay.

fennecbutt 2y ago

All tax havens are like that and they should be obliterated. 1% bs.