Another EU referendum on the way

later12

professore wrote: »

If say Intel make chips here and sell 80% of them in Germany then under CCCTB rules they would pay 80% of their corporation tax at the German rate. So even if we had 0% CT it would make almost no difference to Intel etc. - they're certainly not here to sell to the Irish market.

Nope.

You don't understand CCCTB, do you?

Because you have it badly wrong there.

sensibleken

Orando Broom wrote: »

Remember boys and girls; vote yes to Lisbon for jobs.


Lots of lovely jobs.

You can always get a job in the EU army or as an abortionist or Euthanasia technician. They only pay €1.84 though

K-9

professore wrote: »

This argument that it's not going to affect our corporation tax rate "but don't be stupid (rolleyes) you're mixing up corporation tax again but it's only the common corporation tax base (CCCTB) so that's grand" argument doesn't hold water. One is as bad as the other for us.

If say Intel make chips here and sell 80% of them in Germany then under CCCTB rules they would pay 80% of their corporation tax at the German rate. So even if we had 0% CT it would make almost no difference to Intel etc. - they're certainly not here to sell to the Irish market.

It wouldn't work like that as that would be a fundamental change to tax, never mind the tax base.

Companies based here like the Intel example, would still pay there CT where they are based. What CCTB would get at is things like the double Irish scheme, companies setting up here with tiny admin offices and transferring say British profits to Ireland, that type of thing. There would be a set of common rules between all the members.

It is a threat but it's better to get what the threat is right. The actual basic operation of taxes wouldn't change.

professore

later10 wrote: »

Nope.

You don't understand CCCTB, do you?

Because you have it badly wrong there.

Well here's my source - in fact there's lots of them out there - please produce evidence that what I said is badly wrong. Ok it wasn't 100% correct either, but the devil is in the detail of that formula ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/eu-renews-push-for-common-company-tax-base-challenging-ireland.html

Tax Return

Under the new draft EU law, companies would have the choice of consolidating all profits and losses across the bloc. The single consolidated tax return would be used to establish the tax base of the company, after which the EU nations in which the company is active would be entitled to tax at their own rate a portion of that base according to a formula linked to assets, labor and sales, the commission said.

“This would all be done through the tax authorities of the company’s principal member state,” said the commission, which called it a “one-stop-shop system.”

sensibleken

professore wrote: »

Well here's my source - in fact there's lots of them out there - please produce evidence that what I said is badly wrong. Ok it wasn't 100% correct either, but the devil is in the detail of that formula ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/eu-renews-push-for-common-company-tax-base-challenging-ireland.html

Tax Return

Under the new draft EU law, companies would have the choice of consolidating all profits and losses across the bloc. The single consolidated tax return would be used to establish the tax base of the company, after which the EU nations in which the company is active would be entitled to tax at their own rate a portion of that base according to a formula linked to assets, labor and sales, the commission said.

“This would all be done through the tax authorities of the company’s principal member state,” said the commission, which called it a “one-stop-shop system.”

Unless I've missed something, there is no mention of any form of tax harmonisation in what was agreed last week but rather it is entirely to do with budget supervision. Of course we'll have to wait for the finished product to be sure

Chips Lovell

Also from that Bloomberg piece:

The European Commission proposed a single method for calculating income to save companies the cost of complying with different rules in each EU country where they file a return. Tax rates would remain in national hands under the draft law on a common consolidated corporate tax base, or CCCTB, which the commission says would save companies 700 million euros ($977 million) a year in compliance costs.

In other words, companies are already filing return in multiple jurisdictions, i.e. they are already paying tax there. Under the proposed scheme they file one return in one jurisdiction and the tax then gets divvied out.

Doc Ruby

If there is a referendum they better hope tax doesn't get a mention, people are jumpy as hell already over Sarkozy's posturing.

K-9

professore wrote: »

Well here's my source - in fact there's lots of them out there - please produce evidence that what I said is badly wrong. Ok it wasn't 100% correct either, but the devil is in the detail of that formula ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/eu-renews-push-for-common-company-tax-base-challenging-ireland.html

Tax Return

Under the new draft EU law, companies would have the choice of consolidating all profits and losses across the bloc. The single consolidated tax return would be used to establish the tax base of the company, after which the EU nations in which the company is active would be entitled to tax at their own rate a portion of that base according to a formula linked to assets, labor and sales, the commission said.

“This would all be done through the tax authorities of the company’s principal member state,” said the commission, which called it a “one-stop-shop system.”

In your example, Intel are based in Ireland and are selling from here to Germany. There base is here and that is a basic and fundamental rule for where profits are taxed. If they don't have any assets or labour in Germany it would be extremely difficult for Germany or any other country to get a share of the profits.

hooradiation

sensibleken wrote: »

You can always get a job in the EU army or as an abortionist or Euthanasia technician. They only pay €1.84 though

We prefer the term "murder artists", thankyouverymuch.

Batsy

ejmaztec wrote: »

A bit of light relief from the Daily Rag trying to con their readers again..



...and this wild generalisation resulted after millions of 1020 people took part in a poll

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072616/Yes-Cameron-got-right-Most-voters-agree-PM-vetoing-treaty-changes--half-think-quit-EU.html

The vast majority of the time polls of around 1,000 or so people are reflective of the whole of the country.

A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.

Mathematical and statistical theories prove that, in a random poll of 1,000, 19 times out of 20 a poll will be accurate to within 3 per cent.

Therefore I would very much believe the poll that says the majority of British people support Cameron's stance on the EU.

I would also believe the poll which says that, due to Cameron's stance, the Tories have gained a surge in the polls and have leapfrogged Labour as the most popular party.

mikom

Going well this ould fiscal plan.

Debt crisis: Brussels accord on the verge of collapse.

Germany's cherished European fiscal compact was unravelling as Hungary and the Czech Republic said it would be damaging, and protesters in Warsaw demanded Poland stands firm against Angela Merkel.

Amid fresh warnings that Europe is triggering a 1930s global depression, the German Chancellor faced open rebellion against the key plank of her Brussels accord. The leaders of Hungary and the Czech Republic told a joint conference in Budapest they were ready to reject the planned treaty changes and implied plans for a centralised tax system. Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas said he was "convinced that tax harmonisation would not mean anything good for us".

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said central Europe had the potential to become the most competitive region in Europe. "The only kind of co-operation we can have with the eurozone is one which does not damage Hungary's competitiveness," he said.

Poles marched under banners that read: "We want sovereignty, not the euro." They were protesting against the Brussels deal that could see EU countries, including those outside the eurozone, face penalties for breaking tough centralised spending laws. Britain used its veto in Brussels, sparking an intense backlash. Ireland and Sweden are also nervous about the fiscal pact, but Germany and France still expect the other 26 members, minus the UK, to approve it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8959632/Debt-crisis-Brussels-accord-on-the-verge-of-collapse.html

eth0

To hell with em!

k.p.h

We should do what Sweden dose, they are smarter than us ..

later12

professore wrote: »

If say Intel make chips here and sell 80% of them in Germany then under CCCTB rules they would pay 80% of their corporation tax at the German rate.

Wrong.

First of all, the profits get divided into 3 different groups and end up (i) where the assets are (ii) where the sales are and (iii) no. of employees in various jurisdictions within the EU and also based on the salary structure within this allocation.

So you see it is not all based on sales

So even if we had 0% CT it would make almost no difference to Intel etc. -

Wrong again.

CCCTB is entirely voluntary. It is in the best interests of the EU that it be voluntary. It is in the best interests of Ireland that it be voluntary. And it is certainly in the interests of MNCs that it be voluntary too.

Why would any MNC choose to opt in to CCCTB if it increased their effective tax rate?

They just wouldn't do it, and under EU law they cannot be and will not be forced to do so.

Augmerson

k.p.h wrote: »

We should do what Sweden dose, they are smarter than us ..

We are not good looking enough to emulate the Swedes.

K-9

Draft agreement here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75872473/Draft-International-Agreement-on-a-Reinforced-Economic-Union

No mention of taxes, corporation or financial. Basically the budget rules that are already in existence are extended and strengthened.

Phill Ewinn

It'll pass either way. The spanners who voted FF/FG in the last election will let this one pass aswell.

K-9

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It'll pass either way. The spanners who voted FF/FG in the last election will let this one pass aswell.

Large sections of FF/FG don't tend to vote on party lines in European referenda, the only ones that do are Shinners.

Phill Ewinn

K-9 wrote: »

Large sections of FF/FG don't tend to vote on party lines in European referenda, the only ones that do are Shinners.

And???

Eric Cartman

cant wait for this

and the result is 58% no

enda : the irish voting public were ill informed about the descision

repeat until yes

K-9

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And???

Your generalisation is incorrect.

Not that I voted FF or FG for that matter.

Paco Rodriguez

I cant see them holding a referendum at all. They will think of something as to withold on one. They will wait until something big hits the news, and then announce in the background that there wont be one.

K-9

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

I cant see them holding a referendum at all. They will think of something as to withold on one. They will wait until something big hits the news, and then announce in the background that there wont be one.

It'll depend on what the actual powers are, the Govt. can't push it through. Somebody can take a case to the Supreme Court under the Crotty judgment.

Does anyone really think that the Euro will wait around long enough for this referendum to happen?
The bad news flows thick and fast, more banks just downgraded and France on a negative warning.

Next please...

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone really think that the Euro will wait around long enough for this referendum to happen?
The bad news flows thick and fast, more banks just downgraded and France on a negative warning.

Next please...

We don't know if it requires a referendum.

I suppose the sharks will have easier targets if the Euro breaks up. WE wont have to worry as we'll be dependent on the IMF for years, that's if the IMF can finance all the countries needing it!

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

We don't know if it requires a referendum.

I suppose the sharks will have easier targets if the Euro breaks up. WE wont have to worry as we'll be dependent on the IMF for years, that's if the IMF can finance all the countries needing it!

The way things are going, i.e. lack of growth and the likelihood of there never being any real growth ever again, will concentrate minds and there may be a forced global debt writedown just to prevent the whole system from completely unravelling in a disorderedly manner.

It's a new financial model they need, one that can work in a world without growth!

later12

Surely it's now clear that Ireland must have a referendum.

From the draft release:

The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall be introduced in national binding provisions of a constitutional or equivalent nature.

Constitutional or equivalent nature?

If Enda Kenny knew this last week, why on Earth was he suggesting that it wasn't clear that Ireland needed a referendum.

What was Creighton, a Junior Counsel, on about a 50/50 chance for?

Any constitutional provision requires a referendum...

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

likelihood of there never being any real growth ever again

What?

Where are you getting this?

later10

later10 wrote: »

What?

Where are you getting this?

It is based on the fact that the supply of oil (the prime source of energy in the economy) has reached its maximum level of production at a price that allows the economy to grow.

From now on the cost of oil will be too high to sustain growth, we have seen that over the past five years every time the cost of oil (brent) going over $110 a barrel, the economy goes into recession, as soon as it drops there is a recovery. This recovery is short lived as it causes the demands for oil to increase, driving up the price until it gets too high again.

A vicious circle that will cycle the economy into an ever declining standard of living.

Until there is an alternative fuel source, this one step forwards two step backwards cycle will continue onwards into the future. We will be forced to cut back on unnecessary services as the economy has to fit the supply of energy. not the other way round.

The parasitic financial sector will hopefully be trimmed to allow the real economy to function better.

My name is URL

Just saw this video posted elsewhere.. it's worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU