Michael Noonan to make concessions on corporate tax?!?!?!?

hatrickpatrick

:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/noonan-to-begin-talks-on-changes-to-bailout-package-148145.html

FINANCE MINISTER Michael Noonan will begin discussions with the European Commission and the European Central Bank today on a package to ensure sufficient funding to keep Irish banks afloat, cut interest rates on the EU loan and agree concessions on some element of company tax.

So much for election promises, eh? :mad:

femur61

Why would he even contemplate discussing coporation tax, because the French when all the tax breaks are applied to companies their corporation tax is 8%! And Ireland is at a major disadvantage that we are an island.

ixtlan

femur61 wrote: »

Why would he even contemplate discussing coporation tax, because the French when all the tax breaks are applied to companies their corporation tax is 8%! And Ireland is at a major disadvantage that we are an island.

Well part of the purpose of a CCTB is make clear exactly what level of tax a company is paying. So if there are companies in France paying 8% or 0% this may be an issue. However the reality is, despite what most people seem to think, that companies on average in France likely pay more tax, and this is used to fund their better public services, which ironically we all seem to want.

A CCTB, as has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere is not an actual tax rate, but a common system for calculating tax and in some cases where to pay tax. It would have negative consequences for Ireland, but not anything like a common tax rate would have. I could imagine a compromise where we agreed to a CCTB with some conditions, and I think Enda was a bit hasty in calling is "a common rate by the back door". I expect we'll have quite a lot of spinning to do in a few weeks.

Ix.

ixtlan

Hmmm... having read the article you can see the compromise right there...

No common rate...
No common consolidated base... which Enda says is a common rate by the back door.
But yes to a common base... which probably is a consolidated base by the back door, but which is probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

France will be annoyed, but will feel they dragged us some tiny way along the road to a common rate.

And BTW, as I mentioned before I actually think we should be thinking of a higher corp rate anyhow... thinking... can't do it now clearly... but we need to work ourselves into a frame of mind to understand that low taxes are not the only way to be competitive, there is a moral/ethical question to letting companies get away with higher profits, and there is a balance to be struck.

Ix.

ei.sdraob

I see it now, paying more taxes and destroying what is left of the private sector is moral and ethical :rolleyes:

I think someone needs to apply for a job at the Ministry of Truth, send your CV to the Dept. of Spin in room 102

ixtlan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I see it now, paying more taxes and destroying what is left of the private sector is moral and ethical :rolleyes:

I think someone needs to apply for a job at the Ministry of Truth, send your CV to the Dept. of Spin in room 102

The point I am making is that something must be wrong with the way we are looking at the world when a Marxist political party like Sinn Fein has adopted the same corporate tax policy as centre right parties.

We get a very large chuck of FDI into the EU. If we slashed the corp rate to zero, maybe we would get more, but how much more? Would the increase in employment balance the loss in tax revenue? If our EU neighbour states started slashing corp rates to compete, would we cheer that? Would we say excellent, they understand now how a proper economy works?! Would we all spiral down to zero corp tax, depending only on employment levels to offset lost tax to corporations. So, corporations pay no tax, the entire tax burden is placed on the individual tax payer? Is that moral or ethical?

ix.

MagicSean

We shouldnt be getting so hung up on corpo tax. We should be trying to make Ireland attractive on more than just this basis. The lowering of the minimum wage should have helped this. Investment in communications as well as lowering fuel and utility charges would also benefit us.

Dannyboy83

ixtlan wrote: »

So, corporations pay no tax, the entire tax burden is placed on the individual tax payer? Is that moral or ethical?

It's pragmatic.
Corporations paying little tax = more corporations, more employment, less social welfare, economic stimulation

Corporations paying high tax = No corporations, No employment, More social welfare, No economic stimuatlion

The mistake we make is assuming that these companies will stay if they don't have this advantage. Why would they?

AFAIK, a 1% reduction in the interest rate saves something like €600 million per year.
But the MNCs put about €7 billion per year into our economy which also saves us something like 200,000 people on the dole queue (about €4 billion per year).

ei.sdraob

Lets stand back for a minute and tell me what is wrong with this picture:


2009

EU - "Corporation tax will not be touched"
IE - "Ok, here you go have a shiny YES to Lisbon"


2010

EU - "Here have some high interest debt to solve a debt problem while we kick the can down the road"
IE - "Ok, gimme gimme! better the devil you know than the evil markets"


2011

EU to Greece - "Here lets more than double your repayment period and lower the rate"
Greece - "Excellent, a brand shiny new road to kick a can down"

EU to Ireland - "Handover the corpo tax and we might lower the rate"
IE - "Yes mister Sarcozy, bending over for the common good is very nice"


2012-13?

Ireland goes back to the markets as planned,
rate is still high as nothing has changed,
unemployment has soared as companies left,
the country is in a bigger hole,
what then? back to our friend in EU for more shafting?


Seems like Merkel and Sarcozy would like nothing better than see Ireland return to the backwater that it was once was
Since when is the EU project all about Germany and France Yes they have the biggest economies but not a majority
The Germans better get of their high horse and decide whether they want a EU or not,
once you go down the road of ****ting on your friendly neighbours its a slippery slope,

yes we have ****ed up big time,
but kicking the country while its down is not on

Nody

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Lets stand back for a minute and tell me what is wrong with this picture:


2009

EU - "Corporation tax will not be touched"
IE - "Ok, here you go have a shiny YES to Lisbon"


2010

EU - "Here have some high interest debt to solve a debt problem while we kick the can down the road"
IE - "Ok, gimme gimme! better the devil you know than the evil markets"


2011

EU to Greece - "Here lets more than double your repayment period and lower the rate"
Greece - "Excellent, a brand shiny new road to kick a can down"

EU to Ireland - "Handover the corpo tax and we might lower the rate"
IE - "Yes mister Sarcozy, bending over for the common good is very nice"

Nice way to paint a false picture. Greece got lower rate because they signed up to take drastic action (selling of 60 odd billions worth of state/semi state companies/areas) to address the fact their reforms are not going as planned. Now to sooth that bitter pill they got the lower interest rate to help sooth their population (not that it will help but hey).

Now Ireland was offered another deal, raise the CT and you'll get lower rate. Enda said no, you know what that is beeping ok to do. You are aware that Portugal borrowed at 5.99% last week yes? That 5.8% don't sound so high now does it but even if you think it is to high then why not lobby for the government to return to market then! They will lend money to Ireland at a nice big fat premium instead; you choose the premium to pay, either to the market in direct cash, by sticking to the planned interest and plan OR by negotiating a new premium to reduce the interest and plan, but you can be sure as hell that there WILL be a premium to pay no matter what option you go for. That premium is called risk and guess what, Ireland is considered (correctly) risky so why should a German, French or Finnish tax payer pay for Irish foolishness (voting in FF etc.)? As it stands short of the plan working out perfectly their tax payers will pay because of what the Irish government decided to do. You want to talk about solidarity and fair yet have other states tax payer pay for the mistakes of the Irish people electing clowns to government who made stupid decisions?

And the first to mention bank bonds will get a big spoon in the head for not knowing their facts as shown in the other thread that EU EUR banks did not, and has not, big amounts of cash in the Irish banks before, during or after the crash.

The Germans better get of their high horse and decide whether they want a EU or not,
once you go down the road of ****ting on your friendly neighbours its a slippery slope,

yes we have ****ed up big time,
but kicking the country while its down is not on

They are not kicking on Ireland when it is down; they are giving Enda an option to change the premium but something for something as the saying goes. Ireland will never get a chance to loan with out a premium; the only question is how big that premium is and at the moment EU offers the best deal for it even if you don't like it.

ei.sdraob

@Nody

the Greek prime minister denied that there are any strings attached such as selling state assets
anyways it is one thing to sell state assets, it is another to give up the only reason for companies to invest here. 1-2% of the loan will save few billion, giving away corporation tax will cost the country what remains of its economy.


oh and stop talking of "risk premium", these are meant to be our "friends" who promised before "solidarity" and "non interference in Irish taxation" :rolleyes:
how come the IMF and several other countries can give us a lower rate than our so called eurozone partners?

Nody wrote: »

They are not kicking on Ireland when it is down; they are giving Enda an option to change the premium but something for something as the saying goes. Ireland will never get a chance to loan with out a premium; the only question is how big that premium is and at the moment EU offers the best deal for it even if you don't like it.

Yes they are, during Lisbon there where "promises" made that taxation will not be used against us. Now we are meant to trust the same party which lied to us?

Flex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It's pragmatic.
Corporations paying little tax = more corporations, more employment, less social welfare, economic stimulation

Corporations paying high tax = No corporations, No employment, More social welfare, No economic stimuatlion

The mistake we make is assuming that these companies will stay if they don't have this advantage. Why would they?

AFAIK, a 1% reduction in the interest rate saves something like €600 million per year.
But the MNCs put about €7 billion per year into our economy which also saves us something like 200,000 people on the dole queue (about €4 billion per year).

Does that €7B a year only represent the corporation tax paid, or does it also factor in PAYE and so on paid by the thousands and thousands of people they also employ? (I thought corporation tax revenue was closer to ~€4B a year, may be wrong though!)

Cannibal Ox

ei.sdraob wrote:

EU to Greece - "Here lets more than double your repayment period and lower the rate"
Greece - "Excellent, a brand shiny new road to kick a can down"

While the government is kicking the can down the road to pay later, the Greek people are lifting the toll barriers on the road and refusing to pay at all. Sign of things to come? Unemployment is at 14.8%, youth unemployment at 39%, wages falling, cost of living rising, taxes rising. The Greek Government (think it's important to make the distinction!) agreed to sell off 5 billion in assets one year ago, now they've agreed to 50 billion. I'd say the Greeks are coming to the end of that particular road. More importantly for Ireland, when the idea was raised a month ago, their prime minister told the IMF not to meddle in their internal affairs. It didn't take to long for him to change his mind.

Nody

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Nody

the Greek prime minister denied that there are any strings attached such as selling state assets
anyways it is one thing to sell state assets, it is another to give up the only reason for companies to invest here. 1-2% of the loan will save few billion, giving away corporation tax will cost the country what remains of its economy.

Yes, a politican saying there were no strings attached to an agreement done behind closed doors sure sounds as something I'd trust blindly esp. when it is announced at the same time as two parties get what they want...

oh and stop talking of "risk premium", these are meant to be our "friends" who promised before "solidarity" and "non interference in Irish taxation" :rolleyes:
how come the IMF and several other countries can give us a lower rate than our so called eurozone partners?

Ireland IS getting a solidarity deal as the interest rate is far below what the market (who price in the risk, in general poorly but still) is asking for to loan to Ireland. In essence they are taking on Irish risk of a default by loaning out money at a lower premium then the market; that is solidarity no matter how you cut it except it is not good enough of a solidarity in your book. What else do you expect them to do? Make their citizen pay Irish debt because the Irish electorate voted in morons who made poor decisions? Is that your definition of solidarity? We make a mistake, you pay. Funny, that sounds exactly as people complain about the banks except in this case it is the Irish electorate that is the "bank" in the deal...

The difference between them and IMF how ever is that they don't have nations donating / borrowing in money to them with the sole purpose to save countries (like IMF). Now if Ireland went to IMF and said they wanted 80 Billion do you think IMF would say: "Sure, np, you get it for 2% interest a year and we hope you'll pay it back and do some reforms or something in the future" or would they say "You need to cut your expenditure by X to year Y, and we want the following areas opened up for competition etc."?

Yes they are, during Lisbon there where "promises" made that taxation will not be used against us. Now we are meant to trust the same party which lied to us?

And during the Lisbon treaty discussions did you hear any one from EU promise "We will never, under any circumstances talk about Irish taxation even if you come asking to renegoiate a deal with us?"? Because I can't recall that but I'm happily to stand corrected on that.

ei.sdraob

@Nody the ink is barely dry on Lisbon :rolleyes:

Like I said the Greeks are getting more "solidarity" while we are seeing less,
Hell even IMF and several countries are loaning us money at lower rates than the states we are meant to share the currency with.

Merkel and Sarcozy are shooting themselves in the foot with their rotten politics and putting the whole European project at risk.


If you support pissing away the only card Ireland has left and trusting parties that have lied to us before and view us with such disdain,
then thats fine, thats your opinion,
my opinion is that we should not be negotiating with liars and bullies who have reduced EU politics to a kindergarten mud flinging match.

Salmon

How about halving the corporate tax rate to stimulate inward investment from multinationals. Maybe that might increase employment here!

ixtlan

Salmon wrote: »

How about halving the corporate tax rate to stimulate inward investment from multinationals. Maybe that might increase employment here!

This argument is descending into no tax good, any tax bad.

Why did you suggest only halving the corp tax rate? Why not set it to zero? That way you would be sure to attract the most investment?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It's pragmatic.
Corporations paying little tax = more corporations, more employment, less social welfare, economic stimulation

Corporations paying high tax = No corporations, No employment, More social welfare, No economic stimuatlion

The mistake we make is assuming that these companies will stay if they don't have this advantage. Why would they?

Likewise... are you suggesting... zero corp tax, maximum/full employment, no social welfare?

There is a line to be drawn somewhere. That's all I'm saying. The mistake you make is assuming that there is no line, and no company will ever invest in a country that has a higher tax rate than another.

ix.

Finnbar01

Salmon wrote: »

How about halving the corporate tax rate to stimulate inward investment from multinationals. Maybe that might increase employment here!

AFAIK the tax rate can't go below 10%.

Nody

Salmon wrote: »

How about halving the corporate tax rate to stimulate inward investment from multinationals. Maybe that might increase employment here!

Only works if a company makes a profit using employees in Ireland and not a shell company (which would be more likely).

I'd be more inclined to go with Permabear's idea of a company who has 500+ employees (or equalent of 500 full time employees located, and taxed, in Ireland) get a discount (this would not help the companies not making any profit, 61% of all companies was mentioned in another thread) nor would it help small businesses to start up/grow (which is what is needed long term) but it is a step in the right direction.

ei.sdraob

Nody wrote: »

Only works if a company makes a profit using employees in Ireland and not a shell company (which would be more likely).

I'd be more inclined to go with ei.sdraob idea of a company who has 500+ employees (or equalent of 500 full time employees located, and taxed, in Ireland) get a discount (this would not help the companies not making any profit, 61% of all companies was mentioned in another thread) nor would it help small businesses to start up/grow (which is what is needed long term) but it is a step in the right direction.

Its Permabears idea

Nody

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Its Permabears idea

Sorry thought it was yours; I'll edit the post.

Tora Bora

Nody wrote: »

Only works if a company makes a profit using employees in Ireland and not a shell company (which would be more likely).

I'd be more inclined to go with Permabear's idea of a company who has 500+ employees (or equalent of 500 full time employees located, and taxed, in Ireland) get a discount (this would not help the companies not making any profit, 61% of all companies was mentioned in another thread) nor would it help small businesses to start up/grow (which is what is needed long term) but it is a step in the right direction.

Mick O Leary would be happy:D Time to buy Ryanair shares:cool:

Dannyboy83

Flex wrote: »

Does that €7B a year only represent the corporation tax paid, or does it also factor in PAYE and so on paid by the thousands and thousands of people they also employ? (I thought corporation tax revenue was closer to ~€4B a year, may be wrong though!)

That is PAYE only.
Does not include profits from corporation tax.

The MNC wage bill for 200,000 people is €7 billion.
The Public sector pay and pensions bill for 330,000 people is €19 billion

ixtlan wrote: »

This argument is descending into no tax good, any tax bad.
Why did you suggest only halving the corp tax rate? Why not set it to zero? That way you would be sure to attract the most investment?

Likewise... are you suggesting... zero corp tax, maximum/full employment, no social welfare?

[/quote]

We are not allowed to move it below 10%.

But theoretically, it depends on how much investment we could realistically attract.

For example, say if you reduce the CRT to 0%, you will lose €4 billion in tax.
But if a 0% CRT means attracting sufficient investment to get 435,000 unemployed people back into work, you are not spending a massive chunk of the €20 billion social welfare bill.

There isn't even a debate, it's a no brainer.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed.
But you are arguing this from the point of ethics/morality.

Don't you agree it would be unethical/immoral to have 250,000 people out of work if could be avoided, simply to impose a tax on the profits of companys?

The mistake you make is assuming that there is no line, and no company will ever invest in a country that has a higher tax rate than another.

Disagree, there is most definitely a line and I'm fully aware of it.

There is a balancing act to be performed - how much could be gained from lowering it?
How much would be lost from raising it?
Perhaps 12.5% is already the sweet spot.

HellFireClub

femur61 wrote: »

Why would he even contemplate discussing coporation tax, because the French when all the tax breaks are applied to companies their corporation tax is 8%! And Ireland is at a major disadvantage that we are an island.

We are not disadvantaged because we are an island, we are disavantaged because we take the short lazy route to everything here in Ireland, taxes go up, it's a fact of life, anyone who assumed otherwise should not be running a business...

Riskymove

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The MNC wage bill for 200,000 people is €7 billion.
The Public sector pay and pensions bill for 330,000 people is €19 billion

.

I see made up figures still abound on these threads

Originally Posted by ei.sdraob
Lets stand back for a minute and tell me what is wrong with this picture:

2009

EU - "Corporation tax will not be touched"
IE - "Ok, here you go have a shiny YES to Lisbon"

all the spin and election promises are about the corporation tax rate an importnat distinction for Govt wiggle room

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Nody

the Greek prime minister denied that there are any strings attached such as selling state assets

And he's rather visibly talking rubbish/desperately spinning, as a quick read around the subject makes clear. I really wouldn't keep beating that particular drum if I were you.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways it is one thing to sell state assets, it is another to give up the only reason for companies to invest here. 1-2% of the loan will save few billion, giving away corporation tax will cost the country what remains of its economy.

It shouldn't, if the French CT rate is really below ours anyway - it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh and stop talking of "risk premium", these are meant to be our "friends" who promised before "solidarity" and "non interference in Irish taxation" :rolleyes:

What, so we can just dismiss the fact that they're putting their taxpayers' money on the line for our debts while we shout that we're going to default?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how come the IMF and several other countries can give us a lower rate than our so called eurozone partners?

The IMF has a formulaic rate - but I suspect you're leaving out the currency conversion costs involved. The bilaterals are on the same basis as the EFSF, which is a multilateral fund - and one that Ireland agreed the lending conditions for before we ever needed to tap it.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes they are, during Lisbon there where "promises" made that taxation will not be used against us. Now we are meant to trust the same party which lied to us?

No, you're meant to use your brains. Lisbon was misrepresented as being a Treaty that would allow the EU to make changes to our taxes through our Treaty commitments. That was false, and we got a guarantee that it was - needlessly, since it was false all along.

That guarantee was not a commitment from EU Member States that they would never ask us to make changes to our tax affairs. It was a guarantee that the Lisbon Treaty did not legally empower them to do so.

That remains the case. No European country can legally require us to change our tax affairs, either through the EU or indeed through any other mechanism.

What they can do is say "if you want X, you must give us Y", where, on this occasion, X is a lower interest rate on money we need, and Y is Irish movement on CCCTB, because the rest of Europe want CCCTB. That is called 'bargaining', and it happens when two parties want something from the other - you give, you get.

regards,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

What they can do is say "if you want X, you must give us Y", where, on this occasion, X is a lower interest rate on money we need, and Y is Irish movement on CCCTB, because the rest of Europe want CCCTB. That is called 'bargaining', and it happens when two parties want something from the other - you give, you get.

It is not about 2 parties wanting something different.
It is about both parties wanting the EUro to have a stable future, it is in their interests as much as ours to get Ireland out of this mess for which both parties are responsible.
Stop acting as Ireland going under will have no impact on Europe.

Giving us a loan at high interest and then waving the corporation tax stick is not "solidarity" it is extortion, and btw I am not blaming the whole EU for this but Merkel and Sarcozy in particular, they better get their heads out of their rears and stop acting like Mr and Mrs Keiser.

You might think that corporation tax is unimportant but I weigh the opinion of the directors of all large companies here (who employ plenty of people) such as Intel and Google above yours.


God knows how much investment the country has lost due to all this talk of increasing corpo rates, they dont even have to bring it in to do damage and cost the country jobs.

professore

Is there any chance we could restructure the bank debt and borrow the remaining money we might need (far less than € 67.5 billion) from the IMF ? We could then implement their austerity programme and get our budget back to balance. The IMF would not require us to raise corporation tax - quite the opposite in fact.

There is no advantage for us whatsoever with the ECB component of the money - in fact it is being used to screw concessions out of us.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is not about 2 parties wanting something different.
It is about both parties wanting the EUro to have a stable future, it is in their interests as much as ours to get Ireland out of this mess for which both parties are responsible.
Stop acting as Ireland going under will have no impact on Europe.

Giving us a loan at high interest and then waving the corporation tax stick is not "solidarity" it is extortion, and btw I am not blaming the whole EU for this but Merkel and Sarcozy in particular, they better get their heads out of their rears and stop acting like Mr and Mrs Keiser.

You might think that corporation tax is unimportant but I weigh the opinion of the directors of all large companies here (who employ plenty of people) such as Intel and Google above yours.


God knows how much investment the country has lost due to all this talk of increasing corpo rates, they dont even have to bring it in to do damage and cost the country jobs.

And God knows how you managed to get the idea I was supporting increasing the CT rate. It's not from reading what I write, anyway.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

professore wrote: »

Is there any chance we could restructure the bank debt and borrow the remaining money we might need (far less than € 67.5 billion) from the IMF ? We could then implement their austerity programme and get our budget back to balance. The IMF would not require us to raise corporation tax - quite the opposite in fact.

There is no advantage for us whatsoever with the ECB component of the money - in fact it is being used to screw concessions out of us.

The IMF won't deal bilaterally with an EU country. There is no ECB component - the ECB loans to our banks are a separate issue, although one that would undeniably be impacted by restructuring. As to restructuring the bank debt - that's what's being done, albeit very gradually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Idbatterim

I read some good articles on how Europe has a large part to play in this mess too, the German & French Central Banks, why didnt they stop the reckless lending by their banks, the way we should have stopped our banks reckless borrowing? or do the central banks or regulator even have the power to do this? the low interest rate to suit Germany when, we needed higher ones...

Stark

ixtlan wrote: »

The point I am making is that something must be wrong with the way we are looking at the world when a Marxist political party like Sinn Fein has adopted the same corporate tax policy as centre right parties.

It wasn't that long ago when Sinn Féin were advocating a 30% corporate tax rate. They only changed their tune when they needed something to bash Lisbon with.

ixtlan

Stark wrote: »

It wasn't that long ago when Sinn Féin were advocating a 30% corporate tax rate. They only changed their tune when they needed something to bash Lisbon with.

Yes, I was quite aware of that, but they changed the policy before Lisbon. They in fact changed it when I assume their political advisors told them that the public was so bought into the idea of low corporation that they would be unable to argue their case, and wanting a higher corp tax rate was a political liability.

They then did the politically expedient thing of ditching the policy.

Note again, that no one here is advocating an increase in corp tax. Now is the wrong time to do it, and from a political point of view the wrong time to even talk about doing it. However we are not politicians, so we can discuss long term strategies for getting a larger tax base to pay for better public services. Increased corp tax might be a possible arrow in that quiver, 5 years, or 10 years down the line.


ix.

ixtlan

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We are not allowed to move it below 10%.

But theoretically, it depends on how much investment we could realistically attract.

For example, say if you reduce the CRT to 0%, you will lose €4 billion in tax.
But if a 0% CRT means attracting sufficient investment to get 435,000 unemployed people back into work, you are not spending a massive chunk of the €20 billion social welfare bill.

There isn't even a debate, it's a no brainer.

I stand corrected on the 10%, but the point remains. You are correct if a 0% rate means full employment, but realistically, with our other competitiveness issues, we are unlikely to get 435k jobs just like that. So it is quite unclear that this sum does favour a lower tax rate. There is a debate and it is not a no-brainer.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But you are arguing this from the point of ethics/morality.

Don't you agree it would be unethical/immoral to have 250,000 people out of work if could be avoided, simply to impose a tax on the profits of companys?

Absolutely, but if the gain was 2000 people, and the result was a higher tax burden on all other workers, and poorer services for everyone, then the situation is not so clear. Maybe describing it as a question of ethics was wrong. It's more a question of economics, and where to collect tax most effectively. Low corporation tax and high income tax may not be the best thing for an economy.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Disagree, there is most definitely a line and I'm fully aware of it.

There is a balancing act to be performed - how much could be gained from lowering it?
How much would be lost from raising it?
Perhaps 12.5% is already the sweet spot.

Hmmm :rolleyes: but now you are agreeing with me?! You just are not flexible in the way you look at it. There is a line, we both agree. It is possible that money might be gained by raising the tax level, and lost by lowering it. I don't know and neither do you. Clearly there is a sweet spot. Who says it's 12.5%? Maybe it's 13%, or 14% or 15%, or indeed 12 or 11 or 10. I don't know. What I do know is the obsession with a fixed number is rather unhealthy.

Again though... as always I add that I and others are not arguing for the tax to increase. Just pointing out that at some point in the future a small increase might be justified.

ix.

Scofflaw

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read some good articles on how Europe has a large part to play in this mess too, the German & French Central Banks, why didnt they stop the reckless lending by their banks, the way we should have stopped our banks reckless borrowing? or do the central banks or regulator even have the power to do this? the low interest rate to suit Germany when, we needed higher ones...

Central Banks vary in their powers, but for the lending to be 'reckless', it would first need to have actually happened, and then need to be reckless. However, the available evidence points to other way - eurozone banks don't seem to have loaned particularly into Ireland, and Irish banks had good credit ratings.

All the evidence actually suggests that our banks primarily did business in the English-speaking world - their subsidiaries are in the US, the UK, the Channel Islands, the English-speaking Caribbean. And the Central Bank records of counter-parties to Irish bank debt show the eurozone as a minimal component - a maximum of about 15-16% of Irish bank debt - and one that hasn't been paid off - of the eurozone holdings of debt at the time of the Guarantee (€14.1bn), 70% are still there (€9.9bn), whereas 70% of the rest of world holdings have been paid back (€67.8bn down to €19bn).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

ixtlan wrote: »

I stand corrected on the 10%, but the point remains. You are correct if a 0% rate means full employment, but realistically, with our other competitiveness issues, we are unlikely to get 435k jobs just like that. So it is quite unclear that this sum does favour a lower tax rate. There is a debate and it is not a no-brainer.

I painted a hypothetical scenario of full employment.
In that situation, it's a no brainer.

I'm not advocating lowering it or raising it btw, I'm not sufficiently well informed to predict the consequences specifically.
Agree with your point that we have other issues to address which are a barrier.

Hmmm :rolleyes: but now you are agreeing with me?!

No, I was disagreeing with your statement:

The mistake you make is assuming that there is no line, and no company will ever invest in a country that has a higher tax rate than another.

Maybe describing it as a question of ethics was wrong.

Good, that's the point I was opposed to.
I think we pretty much agree on the rest.