Multinational

darkpagandeath

I was wondering why the government is obsessed with lowering social welfare an easy target. even though people are acting within the law to claim while not working.

And on the other hand let Multi Nationals pay the bare minimum of tax "Dutch Irish sandwich and so on" because they say there acting within the law aggressively avoiding huge amounts of tax.
I understand they create jobs but i cant see them just upping sticks once there made to pay the actual amount of low corporate tax we have.

why not let the revenue do what there doing to normal people to make them pay the household charge. Take directly from there bank accounts do that with the multinationals ?

AnonoBoy

You might not be able to see them upping sticks and moving because they're made to pay more tax but that's what they'd probably do.

darkpagandeath

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You might not be able to see them upping sticks and moving because they're made to pay more tax but that's what they'd probably do.

hmm so you see them moving to another country setup with the needed infrastructure and workforce already provided ? and carry on as normal within days weeks ? I'm sure the cost of moving just like that would be to prohibitive.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I was wondering why the government is obsessed with lowering social welfare an easy target. even though people are acting within the law to claim while not working.

And on the other hand let Multi Nationals pay the bare minimum of tax "Dutch Irish sandwich and so on" because they say there acting within the law aggressively avoiding huge amounts of tax.
I understand they create jobs but i cant see them just upping sticks once there made to pay the actual amount of low corporate tax we have.

why not let the revenue do what there doing to normal people to make them pay the household charge. Take directly from there bank accounts do that with the multinationals ?

Social welfare rates are way too high and make our economy wildly uncompetitive.
Would you like to bet the multi-nationals wouldn't up sticks, they would be gone like a hot snot!

Banjo String

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Social welfare rates are way too high and make our economy wildly uncompetitive.
Would you like to bet the multi-nationals wouldn't up sticks, they would be gone like a hot snot!

The cost of living here is still too high. Swings/roundabouts.

darkpagandeath

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Social welfare rates are way too high and make our economy wildly uncompetitive.
Would you like to bet the multi-nationals wouldn't up sticks, they would be gone like a hot snot!

CSO figures beg to differ were in line with the rest of Europe a lot of people like to exaggerate our social welfare system for there own needs.

minidazzler

darkpagandeath wrote: »

hmm so you see them moving to another country setup with the needed infrastructure and workforce already provided ? and carry on as normal within days weeks ? I'm sure the cost of moving just like that would be to prohibitive.

No, within years it would take..... but that's what governments are supposed to do, look out for the FUTURE of the country. It's better to have a Multi-national pay low tax and hire a fcuk ton of people paying tax on their incomes than have that same Multi-national paying no tax and have all those people on the Live Register.

Celly Smunt

Multinationals pay their tax through employing people.

darkpagandeath

minidazzler wrote: »

No, within years it would take..... but that's what governments are supposed to do, look out for the FUTURE of the country. It's better to have a Multi-national pay low tax and hire a fcuk ton of people paying tax on their incomes than have that same Multi-national paying no tax and have all those people on the Live Register.

The Americans don't seem to be worried about that there already cracking down on tax dodging. closing loopholes offshore. Swiss banks played out a load of money not to be pursued by the new laws. Seems the government it to afraid of Multi nationals and let them run the show.. the G20 are closing these tax loopholes too were are they going to setup once all country's are on the same page pray tell ? should we not make them pay there fair share now rather than later ?

Micky Dolenz

It would put off companies setting up here too which is probably more important than short term gain.

minidazzler

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The Americans don't seem to be worried about that there already cracking down on tax dodging. closing loopholes offshore. Swiss banks played out a load of money not to be pursued by the new laws. Seems the government it to afraid of Multi nationals and let them run the show.. the G20 are closing these tax loopholes too were are they going to setup once all country's are on the same page pray tell ? should we not make them pay there fair share now rather than later ?

We're not America. We're not the home country of these business and we don't have laws that allow us to Tax citizen non-residents.

If we keep Company taxes low, we keep jobs which pays taxes. If we put them on par with everyone else, we are a highly paid workforce, so there is no reason to stay here. They'd make less profit.

darkpagandeath

minidazzler wrote: »

We're not America. We're not the home country of these business and we don't have laws that allow us to Tax citizen non-residents.

If we keep Company taxes low, we keep jobs which pays taxes. If we put them on par with everyone else, we are a highly paid workforce, so there is no reason to stay here. They'd make less profit.

But there not even paying anything close the the actual tax rate that we have. Some people seem to be of the attitude that there doing us some kind of favour ? did not a lot of these come in on the 10 years no tax or little tax rate and after it’s run out there still here. If these company's were named and shamed into showing how little tax they pay people would boycott there products hit them in the wallet and see how fast they would become tax compliant.

UCDVet

I work for a large multinational financial company. It started in the US, but has offices all over the world - our European presence is in Ireland.

All we do is try to maximize profit. We have laws that dictate what we can and can't do - but if we *can* do something, we will - if we think it will make money. There is no moral attachment, no sense of right and wrong.

We have employees who do nothing but deal with taxes. You might have heard about countries adding new taxes to financial transactions - that tax gets added to our calculation and if a trade isn't profitable because of it, we don't do it. If we can do the trade somewhere else without the tax, we do. We're like Spock - we do what is logical for the business.

We've opened entire offices, and closed entire offices because of changes in tax law. We want offices in Europe because there is money to be made in Europe....but we don't care which country. They didn't open the offices in Dublin because they love Ireland, they reviewed the costs and decided they could make the most money here.

If you raise taxes, our tax expert folks will do some calculations....and THE VERY SECOND....that it costs us less money to move than it does to pay increased taxes - we will.

*poof*

I'd lose my job, and that'd suck.

But it's the honest reality of it. Multinationals, by definition, aren't tied to a single country - and any publicly traded multinational has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to act in the share-holder's best interest (well, at least for ones with a presence in the US? AKAIK there would be similar laws in other places).

Low corporate taxes brought in lots of businesses....it creates jobs, brings in a lot of money for the country, and the government still gets a lot in taxes from the employees. Raise corporate taxes a little - maybe it's okay. But it's a dangerous game....too much and the company packs up.

darkpagandeath

UCDVet wrote: »

I work for a large multinational financial company. It started in the US, but has offices all over the world - our European presence is in Ireland.

All we do is try to maximize profit. We have laws that dictate what we can and can't do - but if we *can* do something, we will - if we think it will make money. There is no moral attachment, no sense of right and wrong.

We have employees who do nothing but deal with taxes. You might have heard about countries adding new taxes to financial transactions - that tax gets added to our calculation and if a trade isn't profitable because of it, we don't do it. If we can do the trade somewhere else without the tax, we do. We're like Spock - we do what is logical for the business.

We've opened entire offices, and closed entire offices because of changes in tax law. We want offices in Europe because there is money to be made in Europe....but we don't care which country. They didn't open the offices in Dublin because they love Ireland, they reviewed the costs and decided they could make the most money here.

If you raise taxes, our tax expert folks will do some calculations....and THE VERY SECOND....that it costs us less money to move than it does to pay increased taxes - we will.

*poof*

I'd lose my job, and that'd suck.

But it's the honest reality of it. Multinationals, by definition, aren't tied to a single country - and any publicly traded multinational has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to act in the share-holder's best interest (well, at least for ones with a presence in the US? AKAIK there would be similar laws in other places).

Low corporate taxes brought in lots of businesses....it creates jobs, brings in a lot of money for the country, and the government still gets a lot in taxes from the employees. Raise corporate taxes a little - maybe it's okay. But it's a dangerous game....too much and the company packs up.

This is a constant trotted out comment it's not true they have an obligation not to deliberately cause any loss to the shareholders there is nothing in the law you speak of saying you have to maximise profits that's just the interpretation people have made to keep and get more shareholders. An unprofitable company that has not broken any laws cannot be sued by a shareholder because they lost his money.

Red Kev

darkpagandeath wrote: »

hmm so you see them moving to another country setup with the needed infrastructure and workforce already provided ? and carry on as normal within days weeks ? I'm sure the cost of moving just like that would be to prohibitive.

We did a major installation for a multinational in Tipperary in 2006-07, they employ a couple of thousand people down there in a manufacturing facility (no research, just manufacturing).

One of the managers there asked us did we notice anything unique about the production facility, turns out every machine, table and component was on wheels, they could shut the place down and have it shipped out in 72 hours if they wanted, but certainly within 7 days and move it anywhere in the planet.

All the rest could stay: building, furniture, facilities, even the computer screens (hard drives would be moved but they're small). It was all calculated in the cost of moving here, and they know that they can shift whatever parts they want in a few days. That's how multnationals work, UCDVet above gave an excellent explanation of how they work from a tax and profit point of view as well.

You need solid proof, then just look at Dell in Limerick, all production moved away. But in all the shouting of that I remember the comment made by the mayor of Lodz where Dell moved to: "We know they are here for 10, 15, maybe 20 years, and then they will go, but in the meantime we have money and jobs from them, which will give us breathing space and time to pllan for when they leave again to go to a cheaper production market".

The man spoke sense and believe me Lodz are planning already for post-Dell, something that we here fail to do so often.

Menas

Trying to increase corp tax or the cost of doing business in ireland would be cutting off our nose despite our face.
There is nothing special about ireland or our workforce despite what we try to convince ourselves. It is the profits that can be made here that make us special...for now.

Every large multi will regularly examine each of their operations to see if there is a better alternative, near, far or best shore. If ireland increased its corp tax rate then moving would be on the cards for most of them. Confidence and trust that these companies have in ireland would be gone for ever.

We would be In 1982 all over again.

darkpagandeath

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Trying to increase corp tax or the cost of doing business in ireland would be cutting off our nose despite our face.
There is nothing special about ireland or our workforce despite what we try to convince ourselves. It is the profits that can be made here that make us special...for now.

Every large multi will regularly examine each of their operations to see if there is a better alternative, near, far or best shore. If ireland increased its corp tax rate then moving would be on the cards for most of them. Confidence and trust that these companies have in ireland would be gone for ever.

We would be In 1982 all over again.

I don't remember saying raise the corporate tax rate at all ? just to make them pay the actual rate. People seem to equate making them pay the actual rate to raising the current level. And its worse than 1982 already the level of emigrating is higher than then

UCDVet

darkpagandeath wrote: »

This is a constant trotted out comment it's not true they have an obligation not to deliberately cause any loss to the shareholders there is nothing in the law you speak of saying you have to maximise profits that's just the interpretation people have made to keep and get more shareholders. An unprofitable company that has not broken any laws cannot be sued by a shareholder because they lost his money.

Fair enough - they don't have to maximize profit; but they do have fiduciary duties and do need to act with a bona fide regard for the stockholders (this is in the US though).

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/articles/business-law/federal/a-breach-of-fiduciary-duty.html

Boards of Directors have legal, and arguably moral, responsibilities to the shareholders who depend on them to run a business. Those duties are called fiduciary duties and include the duties of care and loyalty. When a Board member breaches those duties and shareholders are harmed as a result the shareholders have the right to recover damages

directors of a corporation . . . are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge

goose2005

This shows that what we need to actually do is build up indigenous industry, tax fiddles and multinationals can't last for long

Zen65

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I don't remember saying raise the corporate tax rate at all ? just to make them pay the actual rate. People seem to equate making them pay the actual rate to raising the current level.

Because from the perspective of the multinational, that's what it is. In this case, the people you speak of are more in tune with the situation than you are!

darkpagandeath

Zen65 wrote: »

Because from the perspective of the multinational, that's what it is. In this case, the people you speak of are more in tune with the situation than you are!

Yes i agree with this point but . When the global tax loopholes are closed and emerging economy become similar to our own were will this cheap tax/labour come from. This cant last forever. More and more economy’s are becoming reliant on services rather than traditional manufacturing. so moving from country to country will eventually become pointless as the price of services will be similar across the board

AtomicHorror

darkpagandeath wrote: »

hmm so you see them moving to another country setup with the needed infrastructure and workforce already provided ? and carry on as normal within days weeks ? I'm sure the cost of moving just like that would be to prohibitive.

Companies do it frequently for cost reasons, though I can't comment on the tax things specifically. Relocate to Bangalore etc. They do the math, if it works out cheaper overall to make the move, they do it. Something like 100 jobs went from the last place I worked- and straight to India. Expensive to set up but cheaper than staying, I guess.

darkpagandeath

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Companies do it frequently for cost reasons, though I can't comment on the tax things specifically. Relocate to Bangalore etc. They do the math, if it works out cheaper overall to make the move, they do it. Something like 100 jobs went from the last place I worked- and straight to India. Expensive to set up but cheaper than staying, I guess.

They tried this in the Multinational i worked in sending the highly skilled technical support department to Bangalore also. After a day of it being up they closed it down because The people in the Uk/Europe would rather talk to Irish technical support rather than Indian. So not in all cases this will work or be viable. In this case some things can be moved and people will put up with it but not in all cases. They rang up complaining they could not understand the Bangalore guys, and they were just reading off a script and not being helpful at all.

AtomicHorror

darkpagandeath wrote: »

They tried this in the Multinational i worked in sending the highly skilled technical support department to Bangalore also. After a day of it being up they closed it down because The people in the Uk/Europe would rather talk to Irish technical support rather than Indian. So not in all cases this will work or be viable. In this case some things can be moved and people will put up with it but not in all cases. They rang up complaining they could not understand the Bangalore guys, and they were just reading off a script and not being helpful at all.

What's your point? An anecdote about this not working in a particular context one particular time doesn't mean companies won't do it. Technical support/call centres are a very specific example where there can be problems, but even in that context, a bad reaction from consumers does not mean the company will reverse it's decision. They may consider the tradeoff of customer satisfaction versus cost to be acceptable, or they may not want to pay yet again to undo a mistake.

Anyway, the company I worked for wasn't running a call centre, and their experience with Bangalore (which wasn't problem-free) convinced them to move even more of their operation over there.

darkpagandeath

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What's your point? An anecdote about this not working in a particular context one particular time doesn't mean companies won't do it. Technical support/call centres are a very specific example where there can be problems, but even in that context, a bad reaction from consumers does not mean the company will reverse it's decision. They may consider the tradeoff of customer satisfaction versus cost to be acceptable, or they may not want to pay yet again to undo a mistake.

Anyway, the company I worked for wasn't running a call centre, and their experience with Bangalore (which wasn't problem-free) convinced them to move even more of their operation over there.

So your anecdote about it working in 1 particular case is more valid then ? A lot of companies who use metrics such as customer satisfaction this is the most important metric to them. They would not move if this would be to heavily affected. Most company's take into account there customer base and how it will affect them over a % saving in the short term over long term customer loss to another company.

Annasopra

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Multinationals pay their tax through employing people.

Yes but they pay very little corporation tax.

jimmycrackcorm

To answer the ops question, the government obsession is that SW benefits discourage people from taking up jobs at even reasonable salaries.

I've a good friend who has been out of work for four years and was talking to me about a job offer he had paying €32k. When we sat down and worked out the difference, it turned out that because of the travel expenses and loss of benefits he'd actually need a job at €35k to match his social welfare.

Every multinational we get in to the country creates jobs that pay for those benefits he gets through their employee taxation.

So the real obsession is to cut SW rates AND get more multinationals to both come here and stay.

darkpagandeath

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

To answer the ops question, the government obsession is that SW benefits discourage people from taking up jobs at even reasonable salaries.

I've a good friend who has been out of work for four years and was talking to me about a job offer he had paying €32k. When we sat down and worked out the difference, it turned out that because of the travel expenses and loss of benefits he'd actually need a job at €35k to match his social welfare.

Every multinational we get in to the country creates jobs that pay for those benefits he gets through their employee taxation.

So the real obsession is to cut SW rates AND get more multinationals to both come here and stay.

Stop saying SW is to high.. it's in line with the rest of Europe. No one says the rest of Europe's SW is to high. The reason its 60% of the budget is not the massive payments people get its the amount of people with no job. They keep crying that we should have the same level as the rest of Europe (It already is). The reason the Government is obsessed with SW is that the Troika says it's to high! not the payments the fact that so many are receiving it. And the only way our Idiotic Government can tackle this is to cut the rate as they are to retarded to come up with any way to create jobs or stimulate the economy. Job bridge give employers free employees why would they employ someone? (when they can get people for free to do the job) I'm sure all these shelf stacking coffee shop running car cleaning fruit picking Internships are actually jobs are they not? as you don't need to have any skill to do them there just menial labour. And any I.T jobs you see on there are looking for already Qualified people to do them (so there actually jobs being displaced as there not being trained any more than company policy and the mandatory health and safety and such) if you can already do the job why is it an internship ? The Grim reality is that until there are jobs SW will be high as there are so many people receiving it. And you point about people not taking jobs unless they get 35k (is boll*x frankly only way to put it €188 x 52 = €9,776 so all other allowances add up to about 25k do they) not everyone unemployed even applies for all those reliefs let alone qualifies . Have you ever actually tried to get anything off the SW except basic payments ?? if there not giving people in wheelchairs proper treatment you think your gonna get rent allowance easily ?

NuckingFacker

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Multinationals pay their tax through employing people.

I employ people. I still have to pay tax. So does every other small business. Also, have to laugh at the whole "they create jobs" mantra. The IDA pour money down their necks to locate here. They bend over backwards to provide locations, rent breaks, tax breaks, grants, etc etc. And for what? They'll leave at the drop of a hat anyway whenever it suits them and the workers will be dropped like hot snots regardless. Look at Dell ffs.

Ireland has a massive blind spot to their own indigenous companies, they give them s.f.a except a huge tax bill at the end of the year. If we developed our own industries, with our own native companies, and lost our obsession with blockbuster companies and the short term lift associated, we could be the F.M.C s of the future, locating our plants in other countries, and re-patriating the profits to Ireland, instead of the profits being shipped off to America or Sweden or Japan. It's a cap-doffing, inferiority complex based attitude towards anything perceived as foreign or wealthy that drives me up the wall.