With all the huge brains from both Ireland and Apple involved in the initial agreement I find it unfathomable that an outcome like this was not at least considered.
I mean, these are the double Dutch Irish sandwich tax experts. If the whole arrangement hinged on some form of preferential treatment... If it looks like a duck.
Here is a quote from an Irish citizen on this: "Unfortunately this kind of political bullying in regard to our corporate tax is nothing new here in Ireland with regard to the EU. We have had a low corporate tax for decades due to having very little industry in a tiny (island) country with a population at it’s highest in centuries but still only around 5million people in the entire country. We needed to do SOMETHING to attract large corporations here when this country was on its arse and this was our opportunity
Isn't Ireland's standard 12.5% corporate tax rate already one of the lowest in the world? If so then that by itself should be enough to attract multinational corporations to claim a home there. A relatively secret sub-3% rate agreement with Apple and perhaps others too is plainly unfair to smaller companies trying to compete without the special tax arrangements. THAT'S what the EU commission is complaining about. There's absolutely no reason to make the rich richer by taking more from smaller companies and startups.
That's where the unfair competition claim comes from.
Yes, its not the 12.5%. And I also think there should be some consolidation there.
I expected them to get that down by now. Suggesting it works that way would give a strange impression with any company that operates at lower margins.
In most states, Best Buy would be required to collect if they have any presence in that state. Otherwise you would owe it directly. This falls under use tax laws in most states, so it is well defined that you are responsible for it. They aren't always strictly enforced, so many people don't report everything. Your notion that Best Buy was responsible is incorrect either way. Don't make assumptions about the way a law should work based on personal ideology.
By the way, this is sufficiently accurate. It mentions the origin of this, which predate the use of the internet as a sales channel.
In some states, this is not how it works. In Texas, the state comptroller doesn't care if a business collected sales tax from their customers. The state basically wants to know the amount of my taxable sales made, and then calculates a straight percentage. The business owner is responsible for paying the tax, not the customer. If a business did not collect sales tax, they are still on the hook for the tax bill.
That being said, why are we even talking about sales tax which is a use tax? Doesn't the Apple/Ireland situation involve tax on corporate profits?
I think I need to adjust my updates. It didn't mention your response.
Anyway I was referring to cases where the company lacks a physical presence in that state. Amazon now collects sales tax in a number of states regardless, but they did not previously do this. As my link pointed out, states were previously unable to compel businesses from other states to collect sales tax for their state. I would have to look up how that works in Texas with businesses that are wholly located in other states.
Also note that the person I responded to referred to it as a tradeoff between convenience and savings. I wanted to be clear that it doesn't technically work that way.
All corporate income taxes are evil. They simply end up being paid by the consumer in the cost of goods.
Not necessarily. In the case of goods with high margins such as Apple, the price is set predominantly by supply and demand. Apple couldn’t raise their prices significantly without their sales crashing (we are starting to see that perhaps, their prices are already a little too high - see Apple’s guidance for next quarter). Apple can easily afford to pay their fair share (which in Ireland is 12.5%) without price increases.SpamSandwich said:
Yeah, or maybe the world isn’t black and white.
You're right. The world isn't black and white, however self-interest is forever and universal to the human animal.
Here is a quote from an Irish citizen on this: "Unfortunately this kind of political bullying in regard to our corporate tax is nothing new here in Ireland with regard to the EU. We have had a low corporate tax for decades due to having very little industry in a tiny (island) country with a population at it’s highest in centuries but still only around 5million people in the entire country. We needed to do SOMETHING to attract large corporations here when this country was on its arse and this was our opportunity
Isn't Ireland's standard 12.5% corporate tax rate already one of the lowest in the world? If so then that by itself should be enough to attract multinational corporations to claim a home there. A relatively secret sub-3% rate agreement with Apple and perhaps others too is plainly unfair to smaller companies trying to compete without the special tax arrangements. THAT'S what the EU commission is complaining about. There's absolutely no reason to make the rich richer by taking more from smaller companies and startups.
That's where the unfair competition claim comes from.
There's no such thing as "fairness". That's a meaningless Socialist catchphrase. It's meaningless because every component part of the EU is already quite different. Look at Germany. They are one of the VERY FEW well run and economically solid nations and they are being gutted to support idiots whom have ruined their own horrendously mismanaged economies, burdened with even more destructive state employment problems.
Some here don't believe it, but I still say the EU is going to collapse under the weight of their competing Marxist and Socialist elements. They are the embodiment of the "madness of crowds" theory (aka the "a camel is a horse built by a committee" theory).
Comments
I mean, these are the double Dutch Irish sandwich tax experts. If the whole arrangement hinged on some form of preferential treatment... If it looks like a duck.
Dont think Apple came into this naively.
Anyway I was referring to cases where the company lacks a physical presence in that state. Amazon now collects sales tax in a number of states regardless, but they did not previously do this. As my link pointed out, states were previously unable to compel businesses from other states to collect sales tax for their state. I would have to look up how that works in Texas with businesses that are wholly located in other states.
Also note that the person I responded to referred to it as a tradeoff between convenience and savings. I wanted to be clear that it doesn't technically work that way.
Some here don't believe it, but I still say the EU is going to collapse under the weight of their competing Marxist and Socialist elements. They are the embodiment of the "madness of crowds" theory (aka the "a camel is a horse built by a committee" theory).