undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdisgruntledphd29mo ago0 comments

> ... because after Ireland agreed to implement the OECD minimum corporate tax rate (15%) same as everyone else, Ireland just didn't do as agreed, came up with some excuse (I would tell you which excuse, but they keep retroactively changing it), the prime minister explained in at least 5 extensive speeches how fabulous, fantastic and great he was for implementing it, and kept it at 12.5%. Then the minister of finance signed up to another minimum tax initiative in 2023 (the "EU Minimum Tax Directive"), in trade for EU money. In this they agreed to retroactively impose EU taxes up to 15% on all companies (oh and no deductions allowed to get it below 15%), and pay most of that money to the EU instead.

Can you provide a source for this assertion? AFAIK, we've implemented the 15% rate (but the profit shifting part died in the US senate, which Ireland is not responsible for).

> the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2]

They all look to be 40+ from the linked page (except for one lady who looks to be late 20's/early 30s).

> omposed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)

I really hate Fianna Fail (the Taoiseach's party) but Micheal Martin has never been corrupt. He is literally the most boring person in the world, but he's not corrupt.

> For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.

Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but it's worth noting that most US tech companies are booking all non-US revenue in Ireland (taxed at 15%) rather than Bermuda (taxed at 0%) for about a decade now.

Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP? Was this moral? And then basically be put into controls on the part of the EU (who are the people preventing them from burning the bondholders).

Ireland is basically the most indebted country per head in the world at this point (the GDP looks better because of the tax dodging multinationals).

And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there.

To answer the question above about properties in Dublin, this has a number of reasons:

1. post 2007 (the crash) housebuilding stopped for about a decade 2. Over the past decade, Ireland has seen significant immigration, particularly in the cities which has driven up prices 3. A zoning/planning system which is very similar to California and a culture where people object to the opening of an envelope 4. Lots and lots of investment in rental properties which pushes up house prices, which pushes up rents, which pushes up house prices.

Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, which Ireland is bad at dealing with because we've basically never had any success before.

0 comments

spwa49mo ago

> Can you provide a source for this assertion?

https://www.google.com/search?q=current+tax+rate+for+multina...

> They all look to be 40+ from the linked page

Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?

> Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but

(it is)

> Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP?

(yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)

> And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there ...

I couldn't make my point any better than you did here. This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.

> Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, ...

Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.

disgruntledphd2OP9mo ago

> The new global minimum effective tax rate of 15% means that many large multinational corporations operating in Ireland will face a top-up tax.

From the second line of the AI overview. I mean, seriously?

So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).

> Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?

You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like. They mostly look like the kind of middle-aged people I work with. And I think you're missing that most of those roles are pretty low-level, the investment fund is very very small by investment fund standards.

> (yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)

So, the Irish government tried (repeatedly) to renegotiate those deals. The bondholders were (mostly) fine with it (as they'd bought the bonds later). The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian. This lead to basically all capital projects (housing/water etc) being cut, and basically the entire public service taking massive pay cuts. And remember, at this point the multinationals were paying approximately zero tax, so people like me (higher rate taxpayers) funded all of this.

And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis (where this thread got started).

> This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.

This is a ridiculous argument, who does the tax revenue "belong" to? If the US charges Shell taxes on their US activity is that stealing? If the Feds charge Shell tax revenue on their Texas activities is that stealing? If Shell pay all their corporate tax in Delaware is that stealing?

I'm making the assumption that you are Dutch (based on previous comments). Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India? Is that also against your moral code? Do you plan to make reparations to the Indians about this?

> Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.

Again, on the assumption that you are Dutch, do you realise that most of the schemes avoiding all of the tax (the double irish with a dutch sandwich) involved your country? Was that OK? How come you haven't changed your tax laws?

Note: i think there's a really interesting question here around where revenue "should" be taxed so even if you're annoyed at the rest of the comment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.

spwa49mo ago

First, you're right that Ireland is the currently worst offender (in tax law). It is not at all the only country violating EU treaties when it suits them.

> So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).

And what IS a "multinational"? It is a collection of country-limited companies owned by a single global entity. So in other words, these days almost EVERY multinational IS an "Irish headquartered company". Meta (Facebook) Ireland is the European headquarters. Amazon Ireland is ...

And if you look at the stats, the 12.5% is exactly what Ireland charges multinationals, because of the above reason. If you look at who pays this, it's American pharma companies, US internet companies, ... it's multinationals.

> You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like

Yes we do seem to. When it comes to leadership of large funds, the people usually look like mummies.

> The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian ...

Actually true, kind of. Ireland demanded the whole EU lowers it's corporate tax rate, together with Ireland and the whole EU said "fuck off". Then Ireland just ignored it's obligations, made a lot of money off that, and called it a success.

As a result, the future seems to be that all payments will be taxed when they happen. Any kind of payment, across any border. You want to send 5$ to another EU country? You have to declare what for and it will be fully taxed during the money transmission, in 20 different ways at least. Right now that happens for VAT, but it will happen for VAT, various taxes, company tax, profit tax, "top up" tax, ... That's what they're negotiating, that's what's coming. It will be a total disaster, but if Ireland (and others, true) keep just violating treaties everyone will violate treaties (not just tax treaties) and there is simply no other choice.

> And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis ...

Which Ireland is solving by causing an even bigger problem everywhere else in the EU.

> who does the tax revenue "belong" to?

The consensus of everyone, including the Irish state is that income should be taxed where it is earned. Which is the same reason most financial analysts call Ireland's revenue "artificial": it has nothing to do with Ireland. It comes from the large EU economies, and the UK. France, UK, Germany, Italy. THAT is where Irish GDP is produced, and it is taxed in Ireland, which goes against international treaties Ireland signed. That's the point.

So Ireland's government has signed (more than once) that this is illegal ... and does it anyway.

> Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India?

In my opinion, yes. EVEN by the standards of the time they were. Also from the Dutch citizens btw: they paid no tax, because they were owned by the royal family. But it happened a long time ago ...

They crashed and burned, by the way, the Dutch East India company, by the way, crashed and burned when foreign states started "enforcing tax" (well ... really just outright preventing the system the Dutch East India company operated under through outright military force, which resulted in Wars, that of course were NOT paid for by the company, or the royal family for that matter. We paid for them. Not even just the Dutch)

> Dutch tax law ...

Dutch tax law still follows the treaties the Netherlands signed. Corporate tax in the Netherlands is pretty high (26%, and because dividends are taxed, the effective tax rate is closer to 40%)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse