Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looks like Revenue are in a spot of bother

123578

Comments

  • #122
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,045 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    What does a government do when it is facing the destruction of entire regions and industries? It could let it be, or invest. Germany invested in new technology.

    Investment would still lead to job losses. The plan was to invest to try and use technology to mechanise the mines more which meant you didn't need as many workers.

    Needless to say the miners and their unions resisted this as well.

    The mines were costing billions - when you think that this was the 1980s that is a colossal amount of money. It was cheaper to import coal from the likes of Australia than it was to mine it in Britain.


  • #123
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    - The global hoarding of cash by corporations is a serious issue as a previous poster said an excellent book from Thomas Piketty required reading.

    - Private sector is not suited to certain tasks as they are not capitalist style profitable ventures.

    - As for the American Healthcare system just don't get sick without health insurance and when you are sick expect your insurance to be cancelled if you cost to much, again some more reading required.

    As far as I read Piketty is really talking about capital accumulations by individuals, more so than corporations. He thinks corporations tend to re0invest although as we have seen from Apple and Google et al. they just have too much money to invest.


  • #124
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    awec wrote: »
    Investment would still lead to job losses. The plan was to invest to try and use technology to mechanise the mines more which meant you didn't need as many workers.

    Needless to say the miners and their unions resisted this as well.

    The mines were costing billions - when you think that this was the 1980s that is a colossal amount of money. It was cheaper to import coal from the likes of Australia than it was to mine it in Britain.

    Sure, the miners were a bit intransigent, if you look at how the miners were treated throughout history, or how the British working class has been, particularly up north, then you might see why.


  • #125
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    relax carry on wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on how Revenue have been incredibly aggressive with small businesses?

    Running a small business over recent years has meant operating, for most part, close to the edge of profitability and of maintaining sufficient cash to keep the business open. Meeting VAT and other tax commitments has been a huge struggle throughout this period. I have been involved in the SME sector on a financial and negotiating side on and off. The Revenue/Collector General raise excessive tax demands within days of any late payment, slap interest and fines and force the businesses to spend huge amounts of time and professional fees dealing with the issue, never mind the stress and pressure on the business owners. All over relatively small amounts of money.
    It is not unusual for the RCG to raise assessments ten times or more larger than amounts really due. This is why I, and people inside the sector, laugh when we see quotes in newspapers of millions of euros in tax unpaid or outstanding. The real figure is a fraction of that.
    In my direct experience the bigger the business the less hassle they get from the RCG, which tells you more about the RCG management system and their complete lack of awareness or concern about small business or the fact that SMEs employ most of the employed people in the country.


  • #126
    Calibos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,846 ✭✭✭Calibos


    Piliger wrote: »
    Running a small business over recent years has meant operating, for most part, close to the edge of profitability and of maintaining sufficient cash to keep the business open. Meeting VAT and other tax commitments has been a huge struggle throughout this period. I have been involved in the SME sector on a financial and negotiating side on and off. The Revenue/Collector General raise excessive tax demands within days of any late payment, slap interest and fines and force the businesses to spend huge amounts of time and professional fees dealing with the issue, never mind the stress and pressure on the business owners. All over relatively small amounts of money.
    It is not unusual for the RCG to raise assessments ten times or more larger than amounts really due. This is why I, and people inside the sector, laugh when we see quotes in newspapers of millions of euros in tax unpaid or outstanding. The real figure is a fraction of that.
    In my direct experience the bigger the business the less hassle they get from the RCG, which tells you more about the RCG management system and their complete lack of awareness or concern about small business or the fact that SMEs employ most of the employed people in the country.

    We'd be at the smallest of the small end of the SME spectrum and are experiencing this intransigence from Revenue. As well as landlord and the Banks of course. If a bucket contains our financial troubles they all add to the contents of the bucket but if only one of them would just bloody be pragmatic the bucket wouldn't be perpetually on the verge of over-flowing. None of them seem to realise that if they demand their full pound of flesh the moment it comes due they could end up getting nothing and never getting anything again because the business will be dead. In terms of Revenue its especially galling because just down the road there is another small business trading that was prosecuted for never paying a cent of VAT to revenue for 9 years. Several Hundred Thousands of euro and yet the proprietor got a suspended sentence and is still trading. We who have never been late in a VAT payment till 2 years ago in 80 years of Trading however are being bent over a barrel by revenue with threats of all sorts all because our profitable business has liquidity problems at certain times of the year. Edge of profitablilty as you say but profitable all the same despite a 40% reduction in Turnover since this economic clusterfcuk started.

    It seems revenue want you dead and closed if you are a couple of months in Vat arrears but want you to stay open if you were 9 years in arrears. I suppose its like the old banking analogy. ie. If you owe the bank 10 million or less, they own you. However if you owe the bank 100 million, you own them!!"


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    What does a government do when it is facing the destruction of entire regions and industries? It could let it be, or invest. Germany invested in new technology.
    When those industries are government subsidized and operating at a loss the smart government cuts off the subsidy.

    How do you invest in new industries when the people you're dealing with refuse to do anything other than mine and demand the government use other people's money to keep them in a job?


  • #128
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    What do you think you are showing there? Britain from 1970-1979 had the same GDP per capita growth as 79-89

    Look at UK growth compared to other European countries before during and after Thatcher's tenure.


  • #129
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Look at UK growth compared to other European countries before during and after Thatcher's tenure.

    So thatcher reduced European growth? Remarkable.


  • #130
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    So thatcher reduced European growth? Remarkable.

    Nope she bucked the trend and increased British growth despite falling growth in neighbouring countries.

    It's sad that your hatred is blinding you to the facts. At least most Thatcher haters grudgingly accept she was good for growth.


  • #131
    Saadyst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Saadyst


    I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to close off a few loopholes to increase the amount of tax gained from corporations. We know they're not paying the headline 12.5% and it seems to be accepted as in turn they can employ more people (who in turn are taxed more than they might be). However closing a few loopholes to net a couple of hundred million more across the entire base should be possible?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Bog Standard User
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭Bog Standard User


    yr one wrote: »
    All Europe wants is Ireland to share the multi nationals,

    start speaking english then... most us companies like speaking english


  • #133
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    Hootanany wrote: »
    How much of encomamy could be solved if these companies paid their tax

    Imagine how much of the economy could be fixed if religious organisations paid tax!


  • #134
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Saadyst wrote: »
    I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to close off a few loopholes to increase the amount of tax gained from corporations. We know they're not paying the headline 12.5% and it seems to be accepted as in turn they can employ more people (who in turn are taxed more than they might be). However closing a few loopholes to net a couple of hundred million more across the entire base should be possible?

    I think that's the plan, but to do it in one concerted effort.

    Close all the loopholes, everywhere, at the same time and the corporates have nowhere to go, but in theory will stay here for the low tax rate.


  • #135
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    Saadyst wrote: »
    I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to close off a few loopholes to increase the amount of tax gained from corporations. We know they're not paying the headline 12.5% and it seems to be accepted as in turn they can employ more people (who in turn are taxed more than they might be). However closing a few loopholes to net a couple of hundred million more across the entire base should be possible?

    They're not loopholes. They are incentives deliberately introduced to attract foreign companies, as well as to encourage indigenous companies to expand.

    The incentives are available to all companies in Ireland, not just multi-nationals.

    Why would we reverse these incentives?

    The more other countries complain, the more it proves that we are doing the right thing.


  • #136
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Buzz Killington the third wrote: »
    Imagine how much of the economy could be fixed if religious organisations paid tax!

    Wow THAT's an idea ! and maybe if they paid up for the abuse they inflicted. Who is going to pay for the latest round of deaths and drug tests ?


  • #137
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Valetta wrote: »
    They're not loopholes. They are incentives deliberately introduced to attract foreign companies, as well as to encourage indigenous companies to expand.

    The incentives are available to all companies in Ireland, not just multi-nationals.

    Why would we reverse these incentives?

    The more other countries complain, the more it proves that we are doing the right thing.

    Exactly. The problem here is people who know nothing whatsoever about the tax system and why and how incentives work. The media mention 'loopholes' and away they ago like greyhounds after a rabbit ... oops it's not actually a rabbit.

    The tax regulations and incentives are under review every single year. They change regularly and are abolished and replaced by others regularly. They are in fact one of the great drivers of the Irish economy since the 1960s, being identified as such by a very imaginative government back then and have been imitated around the world ever since.
    Do they get abused from time to time ? of course they do. Like every other aspect of life. But there is no evidence that it is systematic or common.


  • #138
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Piliger wrote: »
    Do they get abused from time to time ? of course they do. Like every other aspect of life. But there is no evidence that it is systematic or common.

    Some bed time reading for you.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026675.shtml

    http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005150.shtml


  • #139
    Saadyst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Saadyst


    Piliger wrote: »
    Exactly. The problem here is people who know nothing whatsoever about the tax system and why and how incentives work. The media mention 'loopholes' and away they ago like greyhounds after a rabbit ... oops it's not actually a rabbit.

    The tax regulations and incentives are under review every single year. They change regularly and are abolished and replaced by others regularly. They are in fact one of the great drivers of the Irish economy since the 1960s, being identified as such by a very imaginative government back then and have been imitated around the world ever since.
    Do they get abused from time to time ? of course they do. Like every other aspect of life. But there is no evidence that it is systematic or common.


    The use of the term 'loopholes' should be obvious in that it refers to rules in the tax system that are being used in manner that the rule wasn't intended for. I'd be very surprised if the tax system is so robust here that corporates are aren't saving substantial amounts by using said 'loopholes'.

    If it's the case that Amazon and Apple can make profits in the billions and only pay tax in the double digit millions - due to incentives or regulation - then should it not be a worthwhile exercise to see if the incentives are being used for their original purpose?

    I don't think it is morally wrong to avoid paying tax, if you can. Wouldn't we all? But of course we know if everyone was able to avoid tax to the same level as corporations, tax intake would be devastated and virtually non-existent.

    When the difference between tax collected and profits made are so vast, you should look at whether the system is fair or not, whether it works effectively or not, and if as a society we're happy to trade the benefits of employment (at high tax rates) in exchange for our employers to make such profit.


  • #140
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Some bed time reading for you.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026675.shtml

    http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005150.shtml

    Nothing to do with what we were discussing.


  • #141
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Piliger wrote: »
    Nothing to do with what we were discussing.

    Of course it is. It's all part and parcel of the major tax loopholes that the eu want to close.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Of course it is. It's all part and parcel of the major tax loopholes that the eu want to close.

    You'll have to tell us which loopholes you are talking about. And for this purpose I would suggest that a loophole is a regulation in the tax code that is being used for purposes for which it was not intended ?


  • #143
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Piliger wrote: »
    You'll have to tell us which loopholes you are talking about. And for this purpose I would suggest that a loophole is a regulation in the tax code that is being used for purposes for which it was not intended ?

    If the Dutch/Irish sandwich was meant as a way corporates can reduce their tax bill from 12% to 2%, then why not just have a 2% tax rate?


  • #144
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If the Dutch/Irish sandwich was meant as a way corporates can reduce their tax bill from 12% to 2%, then why not just have a 2% tax rate?

    And where exactly does Ireland lose out ?


  • #145
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nope she bucked the trend and increased British growth despite falling growth in neighbouring countries.

    It's sad that your hatred is blinding you to the facts. At least most Thatcher haters grudgingly accept she was good for growth.

    I am not seeing any facts. You are merely speculating about counter factuals. The fact is - the only actual fact is - that the UK grew as much in the Keynesian 70's as it did it the Thatcherite 80's. Despite her pro cyclical boom shenanigans, which of course caused a bust just after she left. The future she left was a Britain devoid of manufacturing and with large social housing deficits - the full results of that have yet to play out.


  • #146
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Piliger wrote: »
    And where exactly does Ireland lose out ?

    Ireland doesn't probably lose out. Arguably the US loses out. But it's odd isn't it that rich economic actors pay 2% and I pay 52% marginal, 35% in total.


  • #147
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Ireland doesn't probably lose out. Arguably the US loses out. But it's odd isn't it that rich economic actors pay 2% and I pay 52% marginal, 35% in total.

    In that case on what basis is it being referred to as a loophole ?

    And, at the risk of attracting a load of abuse, I really don't know what all of this utter BS is about what tax corporations/companies pay. In my view companies should not pay ANY tax.

    The profits that companies make is distributed to the people who own the shares and they pay full income taxes wherever they are. I see no justification for double taxing them. It is anti jobs and limits innovation, business activity and growth imho. Companies already pay 10+% employment taxes, as well as generating VAT and other taxes. Why anyone should compare themselves with a company is totally beyond me.


  • #148
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    I am not seeing any facts. You are merely speculating about counter factuals. The fact is - the only actual fact is - that the UK grew as much in the Keynesian 70's as it did it the Thatcherite 80's. Despite her pro cyclical boom shenanigans, which of course caused a bust just after she left. The future she left was a Britain devoid of manufacturing and with large social housing deficits - the full results of that have yet to play out.

    Thatcher turned Britain from being the lowest performing major nation to the highest but you won't even acknowledge that because you have an ideological block.


  • #149
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Piliger wrote: »
    In that case on what basis is it being referred to as a loophole ?

    And, at the risk of attracting a load of abuse, I really don't know what all of this utter BS is about what tax corporations/companies pay. In my view companies should not pay ANY tax.

    The profits that companies make is distributed to the people who own the shares and they pay full income taxes wherever they are. I see no justification for double taxing them. It is anti jobs and limits innovation, business activity and growth imho. Companies already pay 10+% employment taxes, as well as generating VAT and other taxes. Why anyone should compare themselves with a company is totally beyond me.

    Why should anyone pay tax then?


  • #150
    poppyvally
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭poppyvally


    does anyone know what it's like to work in some of these multinational places I've heard of ppl lined up on both sides of the conveyor belt doing the same thing over & over & over every shift of their working lives. like robots which will eventually replace them anyway. Soul destroying! but what's the alternative?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    poppyvally wrote: »
    does anyone know what it's like to work in some of these multinational places I've heard of ppl lined up on both sides of the conveyor belt doing the same thing over & over & over every shift of their working lives. like robots which will eventually replace them anyway. Soul destroying! but what's the alternative?

    That's a gross distortion of work in a multinational. What are you thinking of ? canning baked beans or something ? :D


Advertisement