The Apple tax case and the direction of the EU

[Goweresque]

Any Remainians beginning to understand exactly what direction the EU is taking now, in the light of the Apple tax situation in Ireland? That the EU is attempting to move towards a unified taxation system, which is the basis of a unified system of governance? The EU made the mistake of putting the unification of the monetary system (the Euro) before the unification of the fiscal system (taxation and public spending), and have paid the price in terms of the massive economic dislocation within the Eurozone. They are now taking the first steps to rectify that mistake. If the EU commission can get EU law to state that they have the power to strike down an individual country's tax laws, then they (the Commission) are de facto in charge of taxation throughout the EU. They can thus harmonise tax rates, and reduce national Parliaments to the status of local councils - who can raise little money themselves, and have what they are given by a higher authority.

If Ireland loses its case over Apple, its the death knell for nation states within the EU, and the start of the process of the creation of the United States of Europe.

 

[JP1]

Not so sure. Think it's more a sad indictment on globalisation and transfer pricing.

If the UK said to Apple, Google, Amazon, Starbucks, McDonalds whoever, you can set up your transfer pricing and your global HQ wherever you want but if you want to SELL in the UK, you've got to contribute to the tax spend here and also you are forbidden as a large corporation to disadvantage a smaller UK company's trading with lower tax liabilities, we would all be better off.

Now if the EU mandated that in every Country, the big (mostly American) boys would have to play ball

 

[arcobob]

This is a first class example of the way in which large corporations hold a gun to the head of the worlds largest governments. How can the Americans be so hypocritical in condemning the EU for their actions ? If the boot was on the other foot the fines and penalties would be flowing thick and fast. I applaud the EU for their actions even though it looks like a move to take control of member`s taxation policy but perhaps the G8 should take this a step further..

 

[5312]

I am very anti EU and glad we left, but I am also anti huge corporations getting huge advantages that smaller business's would never get therefore making it much harder to compete against them.

I don't really think anyone can condone Apple transferring most of it's profits to a "head office" that had no staff, no premises and was not subject to taxes anywhere on Earth.

If it is legal for Apple to do that then it should it be legal for everyone as well. Then there would be no taxes collected at all.

 

[fudge]

Any Remainians beginning to understand exactly what direction the EU is taking now, in the light of the Apple tax situation in Ireland? That the EU is attempting to move towards a unified taxation system, which is the basis of a unified system of governance? The EU made the mistake of putting the unification of the monetary system (the Euro) before the unification of the fiscal system (taxation and public spending), and have paid the price in terms of the massive economic dislocation within the Eurozone. They are now taking the first steps to rectify that mistake. If the EU commission can get EU law to state that they have the power to strike down an individual country's tax laws, then they (the Commission) are de facto in charge of taxation throughout the EU. They can thus harmonise tax rates, and reduce national Parliaments to the status of local councils - who can raise little money themselves, and have what they are given by a higher authority.

If Ireland loses its case over Apple, its the death knell for nation states within the EU, and the start of the process of the creation of the United States of Europe.

It's why we should have stayed in. How can you tax corporations equitablely without international cooperation?

 

[Goweresque]

You're all not getting the point. The Apple case has been chosen by the Commission precisely because who is going to stand up for a multi-national conglomerate with $200bn sat largely (legally) untaxed in the Bahamas? No-one of course.

So you take aim at Apple, and if you win you've established the legal principle that the Commission has jurisdiction over tax law within the EU, under the basis of maintaining the Single Market. Then its just a matter of time. Those powers will be steadily extended to all types of taxation, probably income tax rates eventually. Not immediately, but thats the direct of travel. Its how the EU works, get the principle established on something that no-one argues too much about, then incrementally extend it until you've got where you wanted to be in the first place, which if you'd proposed it straight off everyone would have gone ballistic over.

 

[Goweresque]

It's why we should have stayed in. How can you tax corporations equitablely without international cooperation?

We have international co-operation on multi-national corporations right now. The EU is not the entire world. There's massive amount of bi-lateral work that goes on in accounting rules and taxation principles between independent states, as they all have a vested interest in getting their own share of the tax revenue from multi-nationals. Leaving the EU makes not a jot of difference to all that bi-lateral co-operation.

 

[arcobob]

You're all not getting the point. The Apple case has been chosen by the Commission precisely because who is going to stand up for a multi-national conglomerate with $200bn sat largely (legally) untaxed in the Bahamas? No-one of course.

So you take aim at Apple, and if you win you've established the legal principle that the Commission has jurisdiction over tax law within the EU, under the basis of maintaining the Single Market. Then its just a matter of time. Those powers will be steadily extended to all types of taxation, probably income tax rates eventually. Not immediately, but thats the direct of travel. Its how the EU works, get the principle established on something that no-one argues too much about, then incrementally extend it until you've got where you wanted to be in the first place, which if you'd proposed it straight off everyone would have gone ballistic over.

If the EU adopts a policy regarding this situation which our government likes we are perfectly entitled to adopt it independently rather than having it foisted upon us. Call it taking advantage if you wish but we are now able to be more selective, add weight where we agree with the policy and take a different approach where we do not.

 

[fudge]

You're all not getting the point. The Apple case has been chosen by the Commission precisely because who is going to stand up for a multi-national conglomerate with $200bn sat largely (legally) untaxed in the Bahamas? No-one of course.

So you take aim at Apple, and if you win you've established the legal principle that the Commission has jurisdiction over tax law within the EU, under the basis of maintaining the Single Market. Then its just a matter of time. Those powers will be steadily extended to all types of taxation, probably income tax rates eventually. Not immediately, but thats the direct of travel. Its how the EU works, get the principle established on something that no-one argues too much about, then incrementally extend it until you've got where you wanted to be in the first place, which if you'd proposed it straight off everyone would have gone ballistic over.

I could equally argue that the nation state has lost democratic control to global corporations who play one country off against another.
These corporations want profits from trading in stable democratic territories but don't want to pay tax. The question remains how do you tax them without international cooperation? Sorry didn't see your last post. Of course leaving the EU reduces international cooperation. Fragmentation only plays into the hands of these companies. Our own govt is looking at reducing corporate tax rates already!!

 

[5312]

You're all not getting the point. The Apple case has been chosen by the Commission precisely because who is going to stand up for a multi-national conglomerate with $200bn sat largely (legally) untaxed in the Bahamas? No-one of course.

So you take aim at Apple, and if you win you've established the legal principle that the Commission has jurisdiction over tax law within the EU, under the basis of maintaining the Single Market. Then its just a matter of time. Those powers will be steadily extended to all types of taxation, probably income tax rates eventually. Not immediately, but thats the direct of travel. Its how the EU works, get the principle established on something that no-one argues too much about, then incrementally extend it until you've got where you wanted to be in the first place, which if you'd proposed it straight off everyone would have gone ballistic over.

I agree that the EU has persistantly broken it's own laws and treaties to further it's own end , one of the main reasons I voted to leave.

But I can't support Apple either.

 

[rob1]

not sure which is worse, huge international companies that think they are above the law or unelected politicians that think they are above the citizens of the world and the democratic process

 

[JP1]

not sure which is worse, huge international companies that think they are above the law or unelected politicians that think they are above the citizens of the world and the democratic process

Your little local democratically elected ones have done sweet FA to curb the ravages of globalisation though have they?

 

[Goweresque]

Your little local democratically elected ones have done sweet FA to curb the ravages of globalisation though have they?

The ravages of globalisation that have resulted in the largest reduction in the number of the poorest people in the world we have ever seen?

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030

Some people in the West bemoan 'globalisation' as making us in the West poorer, it isn't, it may possibly be slowing the rate at which we get wealthier, but even if it was, it would be worth it to improve the lot of the poorest people in world. One of the reasons there are currently so many people trying to get to the West is that the global poor are no longer so poor. Instead of being starving and living from day to day, they now have money and savings, and can spend those savings on attempting to get to the West. Economic migrants from Africa and the Middle East at Calais have mobile phones. There were no Ethopians at Calais 30 years ago, because none of them had enough money to travel. Economic migration is the consequence of increasing wealth, not increasing poverty.

 

[JP1]

The ravages of globalisation that have resulted in the largest reduction in the number of the poorest people in the world we have ever seen?

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030

Some people in the West bemoan 'globalisation' as making us in the West poorer, it isn't, it may possibly be slowing the rate at which we get wealthier, but even if it was, it would be worth it to improve the lot of the poorest people in world. One of the reasons there are currently so many people trying to get to the West is that the global poor are no longer so poor. Instead of being starving and living from day to day, they now have money and savings, and can spend those savings on attempting to get to the West. Economic migrants from Africa and the Middle East at Calais have mobile phones. There were no Ethopians at Calais 30 years ago, because none of them had enough money to travel. Economic migration is the consequence of increasing wealth, not increasing poverty.

Not sure many at Calais are there because of those reasons

Unbridled Capitalism / globalisation may benefit large corporations, not necessarily individuals in any Country without some social backdrop / control.

 

[Goweresque]

Not sure many at Calais are there because of those reasons

Unbridled Capitalism / globalisation may benefit large corporations, not necessarily individuals in any Country without some social backdrop / control.

One billion people have been lifted out of extreme global poverty over the last 20 years, since globalisation kicked off in the late 90s. If things continue as they are by 2030 we will have virtually eradicated the worst levels of poverty globally. This is a process you want to stop?

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

 

[JP1]

One billion people have been lifted out of extreme global poverty over the last 20 years, since globalisation kicked off in the late 90s. If things continue as they are by 2030 we will have virtually eradicated the worst levels of poverty globally. This is a process you want to stop?

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

No I don't.You cannot deny globalisation has had negative impacts as well?

 

[ollie989898]

No I don't.You cannot deny globalisation has had negative impacts as well?

I am not certain globalisation per se to blame for the ills that you have eluded to. The spread of international commerce and industry, and trade, has benefited billions of people. As recently as 1960, China, for example, had 15 million deaths from famine. Today, China is home to over a billion and is churning out more PhD students than any other country. Trade did that.

It is right and just that we, as consumers and investors, have access to international suppliers and markets. I want Jaguar to try to sell cars abroad, and see no reason that Ford, or Apple, or Samsung cannot do the same in the UK.

The problem is that business must be tightly regulated, to protect the environment, or worker safety, or consumer rights, or food safety. All things that don't appear when viewed through a harsh economic prism. To protect the interests of it's citizens, a government must tax businesses, it must force them to protect the environment, or provide safe conditions for it's workers, oblige it to produce safe products.

The fact that there are inept, stupid or corrupt governments in the world who permit businesses to operate within their territories without having any controls upon them is not the fault of globalisation. It is the fault of the governments and the people who elected them.

With the vastly improved system of global communications and transport links, globalisation was inevitable. Never before have consumers had such a raft of choice. It is still up to those consumers, however, to insist that their elected governments protect their rights as citizens. If Ireland want to play host to a major corporation and permit it to remain without any tax burden, then more fool them. The UK government recently hauled a whole load of people across the coals at various select committee meetings (another fantastic export from the US if I understand it correctly) and were grilled in extremis about their activities and tax plain old tax avoidance, something that was facilitated by Blair's government years ago and had continued unabated until recently.

Membership of the EU is not a pre-requisite for co-operation on corporate taxation, any more than it is required for trade agreements, anti-trust measures, security or intelligence co-operation. It can be equally well organised outside of it.

 

[Goweresque]

No I don't.You cannot deny globalisation has had negative impacts as well?

Such as what?

 

[arcobob]

Not sure many at Calais are there because of those reasons

Unbridled Capitalism / globalisation may benefit large corporations, not necessarily individuals in any Country without some social backdrop / control.

These people are in Calais because they don`t want to or cannot stay in France and prefer to come to GB. The differences between France and GB must make this worthwhile but what are they ?

 

[jendan]

These people are in Calais because they don`t want to or cannot stay in France and prefer to come to GB. The differences between France and GB must make this worthwhile but what are they ?

Good question,and one that has been asked on here before.The brexiteers cant seem to answer it.