RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

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.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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.

BBD wrote:It's a win for them whatever the result of the appeal

onlynameleft wrote:So the Irish Govt is appealing. If they don't want the money I'll gladly take some of it off their hands.

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.

morepork wrote:"Lots of people I know would love to secure a minimum wage job".

That's a cherry thought. A good old fashioned race to the bottom.

Thank you for looking out for us big business.

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.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:"Lots of people I know would love to secure a minimum wage job".

That's a cherry thought. A good old fashioned race to the bottom.

Thank you for looking out for us big business.

It beats the hell out of being unemployed. And I suspect plenty of the jobs created by the likes of Apple aren't paid that low.

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

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.

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?

jared_7 wrote:

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?

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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.

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?

belgarion wrote:

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

stud muffin wrote:

belgarion wrote:

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?