Shane Ross: Reduce Corporation Tax to 9.9%

Mr. Loverman

From The Irish Independent:

Enda should go further. He should let his fellow heads of government know that Ireland is contemplating encouraging further multinational investment with a unilateral cut in the rate, bringing it down to 9.9 per cent.

They would go ape; but he can remind them that Ireland's tax is Ireland's business. He should point out that Ireland is not in a position to repay its mountain of debt, that Europe has a responsibility for our plight.

He should then return from Brussels after the summit on March 24 and announce that he intends to hold a referendum on the EU/IMF deal.

Referendums in Ireland usually put the fear of God into Europe.

We have a record of awkward popular outbreaks of democracy that refuse to be bullied by Brussels.

If we are about to take a hard line in the interests of the economy, we need ministers who understand economics and can read balance sheets.

Gotta love that guy. :pac:

erictheviking1

Love it! 2 Fingers to the EU.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

I like it. Finger on the pin of a grenade.

Joey the lips

Man is a pleb and starting to loose all my respect. You maybe cannot see it but he makes Michael o leary look like a saint.

Just to help you understand if ireland has a referendum on the bail out it effects the value of the euro.

If this happen the dollar gains strength. This makes our imports of oil more expensive

Good man shane.

ei.sdraob

Is Shane Ross a boardsie
I think it was pointed out in one thread that we cant lower it below 10% due to some treaty, maybe someone can provide more legal details

Joey the lips wrote: »

Man is a pleb and starting to loose all my respect. You maybe cannot see it but he makes Michael o leary look like a saint.

Just to help you understand if ireland has a referendum on the bail out it effects the value of the euro.

If this happen the dollar gains strength. This makes our imports of oil more expensive

Good man shane.

put a few billion on $ rising , it give you a better return than NAMA for sure...

edwinkane

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why 500? I'm not sure you could discriminate against non multinationals or against employers of under 500. But, in principle, I am all for taxing less in the sure knowledge that governments spend our money less efficiently and wisely than we do ourselves.

Mr. Loverman

Joey the lips wrote: »

Man is a pleb and starting to loose all my respect. You maybe cannot see it but he makes Michael o leary look like a saint.

Just to help you understand if ireland has a referendum on the bail out it effects the value of the euro.

If this happen the dollar gains strength. This makes our imports of oil more expensive

Good man shane.

But it also makes our exports cheaper, and we are one of the world's largest exporters.

Look at Germany, they are booming because of the weak Euro.

Chuck Stone

Joey the lips
Just to help you understand if ireland has a referendum on the bail out it effects the value of the euro.

Just to help you understand how up to thier necks in it the big British German banks are I've provided this diagram.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/IRELAND_bail_out-002.jpg

Who's bailing out who?

Joey the lips

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

But it also makes our exports cheaper, and we are one of the world's largest exporters.

Look at Germany, they are booming because of the weak Euro.

Our biggest export is Tourism(Tourism is classed as invisable exports when people come into the country). The americans are not traveling so that only leaves the europeans. I dont imagine they will be in the mood for traveling if the euro falls and inflation rises..

Try again;)

AnonymousPrime

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is a very short sighted solution and will once again narrow our tax base, which is the reason why the current cuts feel as bad as they do.

Joey the lips wrote: »

If this happen the dollar gains strength. This makes our imports of oil more expensive

And it lowers the cost of doing business ireland relative to the US, and will (admittedly through tough measures) reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.


Although I don't agree with this idea I suspect that neither does Shane Ross. What I like about it is that he is suggesting standing up to the EU. Day by day I am loosing sight as to why we are bending over backwards for these people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whiteonion

Why is it that normal countries are able to have normal corporation tax rates without suffering from mass unemployment? The corp tax should be raised. The MMC:s are not going to leave the country because we jack up the corrp tax to 20% such a move would be very costly.

Scofflaw

They would go ape; but he can remind them that Ireland's tax is Ireland's business. He should point out that Ireland is not in a position to repay its mountain of debt, that Europe has a responsibility for our plight.

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My goodness, shhhhhhhhhhh. We must be the only two on boards who don't think the state should interfere at ever opportunity (and ever where there are not opportunities), and that the more money a state taxes, the better it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AnonymousPrime

whiteonion wrote: »

The MMC:s are not going to leave the country because we jack up the corrp tax to 20% such a move would be very costly.

They would over time.

ei.sdraob

edwinkane wrote: »

My goodness, shhhhhhhhhhh. We must be the only two on boards who don't think the state should interfere at ever opportunity (and ever where there are not opportunities), and that the more money a state taxes, the better it is.

you will never make a good politician :P

whiteonion

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was screaming at the top of my lungs when they made that guarantee. I said it was pure madness while the media sold it as a great plan. It was obvious from the beginning that the bank guarantee would fail.

Mr. Loverman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh I think the way our Government has handled this country over the past decade has been a complete joke. And I think the way people paid crazy money for crappy property is a joke. We are an embarrassment.

But forgetting all that, we cannot afford to pay back the debt, and the EU cannot afford to let us default.

So both Ireland and the EU need to cop on and come to an agreement which works for everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AnonymousPrime

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am not disputing that. In the short term you are correct, but jobs come and go.
With no property tax, huge tax free allowances and your proposed 0 corporation tax, the state is reliant on income tax and VAT, and the next bust (and you are naive if you think it will not happen) will be felt much MUCH harder.

Income from corporation tax is the only thing keeping our heads above the water at the moment

Scofflaw

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Oh I think the way our Government has handled this country over the past decade has been a complete joke. And I think the way people paid crazy money for crappy property is a joke. We are an embarrassment.

But forgetting all that, we cannot afford to pay back the debt, and the EU cannot afford to let us default.

So both Ireland and the EU need to cop on and come to an agreement which works for everyone.

That's something I'm 100% behind - but we won't get there by whipping everyone up into a frenzy of "they owe us" and "they're shafting us". They don't owe us a darn thing. They're putting their taxpayers' money on the line for us, and if they want something more in return than a load of whining, that's hardly unfair in princple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

senordingdong

I think there's merit to the idea.
Considering how every other cost of operating in Ireland has soared, the low corporate tax rate is not as attractive as it once was.

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's something I'm 100% behind - but we won't get there by whipping everyone up into a frenzy of "they owe us" and "they're shafting us". They don't owe us a darn thing. They're putting their taxpayers' money on the line for us, and if they want something more in return than a load of whining, that's hardly unfair in princple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually, for many years ireland made the ""they owe us" and "they're shafting us" into something of an art form in the EU.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently

This is something I've wanted to do since the "bail out". Tie our corpo rate relative to the debt interest rate. (does anyone have estimated figures for what a 3.5% drop in corpo would generate in investment? ). I would have put our corpo rate at 9% and raise it relative to any interest rate drop. I'd also like to see the tax paid by large companies in rural areas ringfenced and reinvested locally in transport for goods / workers and education / courses in the region.

This is coming from someone who wants us to ease ourselves off MNC's and instead build our own sustainable indigenous economy with small / medium Irish businesses. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures though and we have to use wisely what little we have in our economic arsenal. Jobs and growth are the only way out of this. Jobs and growth in Ireland is bad for Sarkozy though and I'm sure he'd prefer to see Ireland stagnate if it meant foreign investment in France.

whiteonion

If low taxes were good for the economy Finland would be struggling whereas Ireland still would be doing great... just sayin...

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

Actually, for many years ireland made the ""they owe us" and "they're shafting us" into something of an art form in the EU.

Unfortunately, the beal bocht looks a little less convincing when you're the second wealthiest country by GDP/capita in the EU. Even adjusting for GNP rather than GDP, we're still richer than France, or Spain, or Italy - and GNP isn't quite right, because we do tax the GNP-GDP gap.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hmmm

I'm disappointed with Ross, this suggestion is like something out of a playground and not something a grown-up should consider. It's all very well for SF and the ULA to shout out mindless slogans, I expect more from Ross.

hmmm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the beal bocht looks a little less convincing when you're the second wealthiest country by GDP/capita in the EU. Even adjusting for GNP rather than GDP, we're still richer than France, or Spain, or Italy - and GNP isn't quite right, because we do tax the GNP-GDP gap.

I'm sure someone has also pointed out to Kenny that he is still paid more than most EU Prime Ministers. We are in there negotiating for a bailout because we are still spending too much on ourselves, I'm not surprised he has been told to take a hike and stop being ridiculous.

ei.sdraob

hmmm wrote: »

I'm disappointed with Ross, this suggestion is like something out of a playground and not something a grown-up should consider. It's all very well for SF and the ULA to shout out mindless slogans, I expect more from Ross.

Merkel and Sarcozy have done a good job at reducing european politics into a playground where they are the 2 bullies. Whatever happened to solidarity and not interfering with our taxes.

hmmm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Merkel and Sarcozy have done a good job at reducing european politics into a playground where they are the 2 bullies. Whatever happened to solidarity and not interfering with our taxes.

Solidarity? We are begging for money so we can continue to have some of the highest social welfare rates and richest public servants in Europe. It's like the rich neighbour begging the poorer neighbours for money so he can continue to put truffles on his plate.

We don't have to take European money if we lived within our means. We can politely decline their offer and conditions at any time.

ei.sdraob

hmmm wrote: »

Solidarity? We are begging for money so we can continue to have some of the highest social welfare rates and richest public servants in Europe. It's like the rich neighbour begging the poorer neighbours for money so he can continue to put truffles on his plate.

We don't have to take European money if we lived within our means. We can politely decline their offer and conditions at any time.

You are half correct

public/welfare expenses did go out of control and have nowhere near been addressed, ive plenty of posts/threads on subject here

but good chunk of that "bailout" is for the banks not to keep the country running, dont forget that

edwinkane

hmmm wrote: »

I'm disappointed with Ross, this suggestion is like something out of a playground and not something a grown-up should consider. It's all very well for SF and the ULA to shout out mindless slogans, I expect more from Ross.

In life, I've invariably found that when one doesn't have an argument, one ends up calling names and hurling abuse as a smokescreen for the lack of argument.

Dionysus

hmmm wrote: »

I'm disappointed with Ross, this suggestion is like something out of a playground and not something a grown-up should consider. It's all very well for SF and the ULA to shout out mindless slogans, I expect more from Ross.

In fairness to Ross, I've never got the impression from him that he'd shed a tear if Ireland left the EU and was back under the British "sphere of influence" (to be euphemistic about it). He has always been much more at home in that cultural milieu, and been honest about it. I believe he at least once described himself as a "Southern unionist".

While I have a degree of respect for his criticisms of the economic situation - I'd probably have more if he weren't writing for the rag that is the Irish/Sunday Independent - I have little trust that his views on the EU are motivated by a sense of patriotism (in the positive sense) to the idea of an independent sovereign Ireland.

irishh_bob

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

But it also makes our exports cheaper, and we are one of the world's largest exporters.

Look at Germany, they are booming because of the weak Euro.

euro is strong right now

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Solidarity? We are begging for money so we can continue to have some of the highest social welfare rates and richest public servants in Europe. It's like the rich neighbour begging the poorer neighbours for money so he can continue to put truffles on his plate.

We don't have to take European money if we lived within our means. We can politely decline their offer and conditions at any time.

You are half correct

public/welfare expenses did go out of control and have nowhere near been addressed, ive plenty of posts/threads on subject here

but good chunk of that "bailout" is for the banks not to keep the country running, dont forget that

To make it fully correct, then - a richer neighbour begging his poorer neighbours for money to keep putting truffles on his plate and cover his pal's gambling losses. It was the Irish government that decided to absorb the Irish banks' debts, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

To make it fully correct, then - a richer neighbour begging his poorer neighbours for money to keep putting truffles on his plate and cover his pal's gambling losses. It was the Irish government that decided to absorb the Irish banks' debts, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The poorer neighbours wouldn't have a banking system now if we didnt decide to be good europeans, and as you know well unlike yourself i was very vocal against giving anything to the banks, and calling Anglo a bank is really stretching it...

look @Scofflaw we are either all in this together or we are not, considering that there is still no institutions and legislation in place to prevent all of this from happening again, i dont think the EU partners are serious about the future of the euro, so far all attempts amounted to kicking the can down the road and hoping some other politicians solve the problem.

hmmm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

look @Scofflaw we are either all in this together or we are not, considering that there is still no institutions and legislation in place to prevent all of this from happening again, i dont think the EU partners are serious about the future of the euro, so far all attempts amounted to kicking the can down the road and hoping some other politicians solve the problem.

On the contrary, the EU has created the powerful European Banking Authority to supervise regulators. They shouldn't need to have created this because each nation was supposed to have appointed competent regulators themselves, but because of the feckless nature of regulation in countries like Ireland the EU has decided it needs another layer of powerful regulation.

The EU's "grand bargain" amongst governments is an attempt to promote greater fiscal alignment and again stop the feckless like ourselves from behaving like children in the financial sweetshop. This will put limits on deficits, wage levels and borrowing.

I'm also amused that the same people who would be shouting down the EU amidst cries of "fascism" and "fourth Reich" if they had tried to regulate our banks are now often the same people who are blaming the EU for not getting involved. Pure hypocrisy.

ei.sdraob

@hmm you must be new here I have never cried "fascism" and "fourth Reich" when it came to EU

infact i take offence to your post considering how pro EU I have been over the course of thousands of my posts especially around the last 2 Lisbon debates we had here

the EU has let Irish people down

hmmm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@hmm you must be new here I have never cried "fascism" and "fourth Reich" when it came to EU

infact i take offence to your post considering how pro EU I have been over the course of thousands of my posts especially around the last 2 Lisbon debates we had here

Only since 2001. I didn't accuse you of saying this, get a grip of yourself.

whatawaster

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But at the same time, what about the German, French, British and other banks who lent into failing institutions in Ireland. Why shouldn't the taxpayers of Europe as a whole bear the burden of this. It certainly shouldn't be Ireland alone, imo.

Our sovereign debt would be manageable if we were braver and got our deficit under control.
What is not manageable are the debts of Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland and AIB.
Why are we more responsible for these debts than Germany or France. We were neither the borrower nor the lender.
If Europe is obsessed with keeping our banks afloat then they should fairly share the cost of this.

hmmm

whatawaster wrote: »

Our sovereign debt would be manageable if we were braver and got our deficit under control.
What is not manageable are the debts of Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland and AIB.
Why are we more responsible for these debts than Germany or France..

I don't think many would disagree that the bondholders should take their hit, that's not the problem. The problem is that the Irish government decided when they signed the guarantee that the debts become Ireland's debts and Ireland's debts alone.

The real question isn't "why shouldn't the bondholders pay" but "how do we extricate ourselves from a promise made by an Irish government without major damage to our credibility and future prospects".

The problem with us simply rowing back on the guarantee is that we destroy trust in the Irish government credibility - if Ireland is willing to tear up a contract, why should Ireland ever be trusted again in the future? Who is going to invest in a country where the government changes the rules overnight? What happens to all those people who invested in Ireland on the back of the guarantee, who now find they have lost money?

The consequences are not simple, we have put ourselves in this mess and we are begging Europe to help us find a way out - and unfortunately most of the ways Europe can help us is by asking their taxpayers to pay. Why should German or French taxpayers be any more asked to pay for Irish bank debts than Irish taxpayers? We were the ones who elected the government which signed this guarantee, we were the ones who elected the government which put the regulator in place.

whatawaster

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think many would disagree that the bondholders should take their hit, that's not the problem. The problem is that the Irish government decided when they signed the guarantee that the debts become Ireland's debts and Ireland's debts alone.

The real question isn't "why shouldn't the bondholders pay" but "how do we extricate ourselves from a promise made by an Irish government without major damage to our credibility and future prospects".

The problem with us simply rowing back on the guarantee is that we destroy trust in the Irish government credibility - if Ireland is willing to tear up a contract, why should Ireland ever be trusted again in the future? Who is going to invest in a country where the government changes the rules overnight? What happens to all those people who invested in Ireland on the back of the guarantee, who now find they have lost money?

The consequences are not simple, we have put ourselves in this mess and we are begging Europe to help us find a way out - and unfortunately most of the ways Europe can help us is by asking their taxpayers to pay. Why should German or French taxpayers be any more asked to pay for Irish bank debts than Irish taxpayers? We were the ones who elected the government which signed this guarantee, we were the ones who elected the government which put the regulator in place.

Wasn't the guarantee to expire after two years? I know it was extended to the end of 2010, but what is it's status now?

hmmm

whatawaster wrote: »

Wasn't the guarantee to expire after two years? I know it was extended to the end of 2010, but what is it's status now?

Extended to the end of June (with some small changes). One of the problems is that you can't simply wait till July 1 and cancel it, if a new guarantee hasn't been signed by the end of June all the existing bondholders will have taken their money and run.

HellFireClub

erictheviking1 wrote: »

Love it! 2 Fingers to the EU.

Aren't we the big man aren't we?!? Telling the EU to go f*k themselves, as if we are the United States... We are a small backwater kip of an island, with 4 million people on it, 1.5 mil of those are working... We are irrelevant in terms of every decision that gets made at EU level, we are 1% of the population if not less, yet we present ourselves as if we are central to everything that goes on within the EU...

We are in for a very very rude awakening, we are deluding ourselves with our pathethic anti competitive stance on our corporate tax rate. Here's just how deluded we are at the moment, the majority of corporate entities in this state are struggling to stay open let alone make a profit. Yet we allow the small number of multinational businesses in this country who are making a profit, to not only dictate their own tax rate, but by extension, we allow them to set the tax rate for the rest of us that have to carry their tax burden.

When did we ever tell any multinational organisation before they arrived here, that we would never adjust CT rates, no more than when did we ever gave an assurance to a citizen of this state that their income tax would remain fixed??????????

Wake up lads, the country is in bits and everyone has to contribute, especially the billionaire multinational organisations that creamed it in the boom years, so lets stop codding ourselves that we have a big swinging micky around when we have the smallest c*ck in the room, let's not lose any more face with the pretence that we matter, we've been punching above our weight by basically cheating the system and now it's time to get real at the poker table because our bluffing has been sussed...

senordingdong

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, but that is made even more difficult when you see how all these soaring costs come from the top down.

Scofflaw

hmmm wrote: »

Wasn't the guarantee to expire after two years? I know it was extended to the end of 2010, but what is it's status now?

Extended to the end of June (with some small changes). One of the problems is that you can't simply wait till July 1 and cancel it, if a new guarantee hasn't been signed by the end of June all the existing bondholders will have taken their money and run.

This is another one that really needs to be a sticky, like 'bailout' and 'bailout'. The Guarantee (capital G) of September 2008 expired last September. It was not extended.

That Guarantee, the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Scheme 2008 (CIFS), was a blanket guarantee on all bank debt then in the covered institutions howsoever and whenever acquired by the banks. It could only be called on during the lifetime of the guarantee. The total guaranteed under that scheme was about €400bn.

In September 2009, the government instituted a second, and separate scheme, called the "Eligible Liabilities Guarantee" (ELG). In contrast to the first scheme, this scheme only guarantees specifically named newly issued debt, but guarantees it for the lifetime of the debt. The total guaranteed under the current scheme is c. €21bn.

Existing debt was not guaranteed under the ELG, so the coverage for the pre-existing debts of the covered banks expired last September - hence the very small storm over the repayment of €750m of Anglo senior debt at the end of January. The reason for the massive jump in ECB borrowing by the Irish banks over the last few months is because the Guarantee expired - those who were still holding Irish bank bonds made sure their bonds matured at the latest just before the Guarantee expired, and that debt was repaid with money borrowed from the ECB:



The red line on the graph is the date of expiry of the original Guarantee. As you can see, things become excitingly different around that point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's something I'm 100% behind - but we won't get there by whipping everyone up into a frenzy of "they owe us" and "they're shafting us". They don't owe us a darn thing. They're putting their taxpayers' money on the line for us, and if they want something more in return than a load of whining, that's hardly unfair in princple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

While this is true, the current situation is our government is putting our tax payers on the line for european bank debts. They had a private debt arrangement with banks in this country, they were risky and everyone knew it. Dublin was considered the 'wild west' from wall street to frankfurt and still the money flowed in. These people wanted a return that they knew was risky but relied on Moody's and S&P and ignored the consequences. Anglo facilitated this and our government were complicit, but a government interfering in private banking contracts????

For my pennies worth, the question is with such a massive state dependency on borrowing are we prepared to let private debt be private debt or are we dependent on borrowing from the very banks or institutions we want to burn.

This is a question I think every aspect of our country considers taboo for public discourse. The answers are not palatable. It was however answered in the election. They want to continue borrowing and keep the massive state.