# Fiscal Council: Up to €6 billion of Corporation Tax may be temporary



## Brendan Burgess (28 Nov 2019)

Up to €6bn of corporate tax windfall may be temporary, State told
					

Fiscal watchdog highlights Government’s increasing reliance on business tax receipts




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Protocol (28 Nov 2019)

Indeed.

We have been using these very strong CT revenues to cover the continued annual massive cost over-runs in healthcare.

It is risky.

OK, there is now a rainy-day fund, I think, which is a help.

(EDIT - I see now that it has been established, but contributions to the fund have been postponed)

But our public finances are not as healthy as people think.

Any tax cuts (other than tax reforms, or growth-enhancing tax cuts) should be avoided.


----------



## Protocol (28 Nov 2019)

Fiscal report: How do our finances fare?
					

The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council was established to be an independent watchdog on Government budgetary policy.




					www.rte.ie
				








__





						Fiscal Assessment Report, November 2019 – Irish Fiscal Advisory Council
					






					www.fiscalcouncil.ie
				




Seamus Coffey is a sensible person.

The Fiscal Council analysis is sobering.


----------



## Zebedee (29 Nov 2019)

There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.

it’s worrying given Donohoe has lost control of expenditure (health service annual top up, NCH, Broadband etc. )


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Nov 2019)

Hi Zebedee 

I will be talking about this at 5.20 on Matt Cooper.   I will make that very point about the €200 bn of debt.

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (29 Nov 2019)

Zebedee said:


> There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.



National debt is never fully paid off. It's just rolled over.

It's okay to criticise Ireland's fiscal policy without thinking it's necessary or feasible to pay off all public debt.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Nov 2019)

Zebedee said:


> There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.



Except its not for per person today to actually pay it off. Its for existing persons, AND future generations - presently infinite - to pay it off. 
Im not saying not to be concerned about public finances, but public policy and associated expenditure cannot be devised around such calculations. 
It is also worth noting that paying off national debt in its entirety, while desirable on the one hand, can lead to negative more profound consequences. 
It is all about management and timing, and to a not insignificant extent, good fortune.


----------



## Zebedee (29 Nov 2019)

I agree that there is no requirement to pay it off today or in one go. However, given its level, we should be making inroads. Fixing the roof while the sun is shining etc.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Except its not for per person today to actually pay it off. Its for existing persons, AND future generations - presently infinite - to pay it off.



Yes we get the healthcare today and our children can pay the bill.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Yes we get the healthcare today and our children can pay the bill.



All generations will need healthcare. What is the alternative? Stop providing healthcare?


----------



## cremeegg (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> All generations will need healthcare. What is the alternative? Stop providing healthcare?



Not at all. The alternative is to meet the costs of this generations healthcare from this generations income.

This was not so essential in the past due to widespread inflation, but now that inflation has receded the debts being piled up to fund this generations needs are not going to be inflated away.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> The alternative is to meet the costs of this generations healthcare from this generations income.
> 
> This was not so essential in the past due to widespread inflation, but now that inflation has receded the debts being piled up to fund this generations needs are not going to be inflated away.



So increase taxes to pay for healthcare or cut spending, reducing services and increasing waiting lists?


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> So increase taxes to pay for healthcare or cut spending, reducing services and increasing waiting lists?


Or efficiently deliver health services. That's probably the best option; do it right and we'll have far better services and have to spend less.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.



Probably more smokers would actually be better for long term fiscal situation taking into account all the expenditure of the state in terms of pensions, medical cards etc. Grim, if your sole concern is the financial numbers, but there you have it.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Probably more smokers would actually be better for long term fiscal situation taking into account all the expenditure of the state in terms of pensions, medical cards etc. Grim, if your sole concern is the financial numbers, but there you have it.


I agree. Smokers die faster than fatties and they pay more tax. Fatties can live for decades, draining the health services like a a large tub of ice cream.


----------



## Sophrosyne (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Or efficiently deliver health services. That's probably the best option; do it right and we'll have far better services and have to spend less.



Any examples?


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Any examples?


Payroll in the HSE (standardization of contracts and T's & C's).
Hospital discharge policies.
Duplication of process everywhere.
The fact that Jack and Jill can provide services at 1/3 of the cost per child as the HSE.
The list is endless.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.



The situtation is not analagous.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and the risk increases in line with how much you smoke.

Most consumption of fatty foods is by non-obese people as part of a balanced diet which is not causing any increase in morbidity. Why should those people be taxed?


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The situtation is not analagous.
> 
> There is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and the risk increases in line with how much you smoke.
> 
> Most consumption of fatty foods is by non-obese people as part of a balanced diet which is not causing any increase in morbidity. Why should those people be taxed?


To encourage them not to get fat. It's the same reason we tax alcohol.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

According to the oracle of Dalkey, Mr. David McWilliams, we would have an economy like Albania's if it wasn't for the Multinationals.
Of course that can't be true as I distinctly remember the teachers telling us it was all down to them and our world class education system during the last boom (although the crassh had nothing to do with them). The cynic in my thinks that they just said that to get another pay rise but I try to rise above that sort of thinking. 

The point is that we don't just get the €6 billion a year from them, we probably get half out tax take when income tax, VAT and everything else the wages they pay generates is taken into account. So, if the €6 billion goes there will be far more than that going with it. 
Then we might start looking for value for money in state spending but of course by then it will be far too late.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Or efficiently deliver health services. That's probably the best option; do it right and we'll have far better services and have to spend less.



Of course, but speaking from my own personal experience, the service provided to me and my elderly parents has always been excellent, save some minor inconveniences. 
Its getting into the system that is the big issue as far as I can see. 
If the private health insurance industry was replaced by a universal healthcare system things would improve greatly.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> The point is that we don't just get the €6 billion a year from them, we probably get half out tax take when income tax, VAT and everything else the wages they pay generates is taken into account. So, if the €6 billion goes there will be far more than that going with it.




My question would be is - where are they to go? 
From a multinational prospective, Ireland offers competitive tax rates, mild climate, political stability (as stable as anywhere else), English speaking and educated workforce, access to EU market, modest Labour pressures, quick access to ports, business friendly government (nothing sells Ireland to corporates better than fighting off a €15bn windfall from Apple). 

You would be hard pressed to find as equal opportunity to tick all those boxes elsewhere in the EU. 
Corporations are in the business of doing good business. Ireland offers a good deal, we shouldn't be on the bended knee thanking them anymore than they should be grateful to Ireland.


----------



## 24601 (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> To encourage them not to get fat. It's the same reason we tax alcohol.



You'd have to tax calories. It's the over-consumption of calories causing obesity (mostly), not sugar or fat. Why not just cut out the middle man and tax fat people directly? You could have tax bands linked to BMI ranges.  Of course, there's no evidence any of your taxes work and they generally just serve as a tax on the poor and an incentive to make nice things taste awful.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> To encourage them not to get fat. It's the same reason we tax alcohol.



Isnt alcohol one of the heaviest taxed products? 
Could you honestly say that taxation of alcohol has discouraged consumption?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, but speaking from my own personal experience, the service provided to me and my elderly parents has always been excellent, save some minor inconveniences.
> Its getting into the system that is the big issue as far as I can see.


No my experience or, indeed, the experience of those on trolleys and waiting lists. 
A friend recently attended the Beacon Hospital in Dublin. She was discharged at 8 on a Sunday morning. When I had kids in Tallaght hospital we always had to spend the weekend hanging around waiting for the consultant to come in on the Monday afternoon to discharge us. The "He'll probably discharge you when he sees you" line on a Friday meant that we had to spend two days hanging around waiting for someone to do their job. Maybe someone earning €200k-€300k a year should have to work the odd weekend.


WolfeTone said:


> If the private health insurance industry was replaced by a universal healthcare system things would improve greatly.


 How would that help? The State would have to come up with €2 billion extra to fund the subsidy that the private healthcare industry currently plugs the public system with.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> My question would be is - where are they to go?
> From a multinational prospective, Ireland offers competitive tax rates, mild climate, political stability (as stable as anywhere else), English speaking and educated workforce, access to EU market, modest Labour pressures, quick access to ports, business friendly government (nothing sells Ireland to corporates better than fighting off a €15bn windfall from Apple).


 With all due respect that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how mobile capital is and what the MNC's actually use Ireland for (what they are paying tax on). You should also remember that one in four of the high-tech jobs in Ireland are filled by immigrants (those people who come here to "steal" the jobs that we can't or won't do). Take a look at the number of companies who have moved their manufacturing from Ireland to Costa Rica. Then look at what they still actually do here. 


WolfeTone said:


> You would be hard pressed to find as equal opportunity to tick all those boxes elsewhere in the EU.
> Corporations are in the business of doing good business. Ireland offers a good deal, we shouldn't be on the bended knee thanking them anymore than they should be grateful to Ireland.


 We make money from them paying their global tax bill here. They could still sell into Europe, have exactly the same market access, and be 10% of their current size. 

The point isn't hyperbole about bended knees and who is greatful, it is to understand that we are a tax haven which funds our inefficient public services by stealing taxes from other countries. We are fast running out of road as other countries rightly do what they can to stop our unethical behaviour. We need to realise that and plan for it. The threats are both political and economic and they are very real.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

24601 said:


> You'd have to tax calories. It's the over-consumption of calories causing obesity (mostly), not sugar or fat. Why not just cut out the middle man and tax fat people directly? You could have tax bands linked to BMI ranges.  Of course, there's no evidence any of your taxes work and they generally just serve as a tax on the poor and an incentive to make nice things taste awful.


Cheap calories in the form of sugars and fats are the main problem. If you don't understand the difference between the overall food value of an orange and a chocolate bar which may contain the same calories then there's little point in talking to you.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Isnt alcohol one of the heaviest taxed products?
> Could you honestly say that taxation of alcohol has discouraged consumption?


So why are so many campaigners in the area seeking minimum per unit pricing?
Could you honestly say that alcohol sales would not increase if there was no tax on it?


----------



## 24601 (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> So why are so many campaigners in the area seeking minimum per unit pricing?
> Could you honestly say that alcohol sales would not increase if there was no tax on it?



Because so many campaigners are nanny staters. Also, a calorie is a calorie. It's simply a unit of energy. If you eat enough oranges you'll put on weight. A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of lead. It's very basic maths, if your calories in > calories out you'll gain weight. The problem of over-consumption of calories is far more difficult to tackle than just taxing sugar/fat. All of this is totally off-topic - maybe it's deserving of its own thread?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

24601 said:


> Because so many campaigners are nanny staters. Also, a calorie is a calorie. It's simply a unit of energy. If you eat enough oranges you'll put on weight. A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of lead. It's very basic maths, if your calories in > calories out you'll gain weight. The problem of over-consumption of calories is far more difficult to tackle than just taxing sugar/fat. All of this is totally off-topic - maybe it's deserving of its own thread?


"a calorie is a calorie"... Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.

_At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.

He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.

Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.

“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”_


----------



## 24601 (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> "a calorie is a calorie"... Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.
> 
> _At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
> He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
> ...



That's great an all but that film has been largely discredited along with many of the scientific claims in it. And citing one Professor does not a scientific conclusion make.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

24601 said:


> That's great an all but that film has been largely discredited along with many of the scientific claims in it. And citing one Professor does not a scientific conclusion make.


Link please.

Are you honestly saying that, assuming the same physical activity level, someone who consumed 2500 calories  a day from crisps and chocolate will be as thin and healthy as someone who consumes 2500 calories a day from fruits, vegetables and lean meat?
Do remember that we use 20-30% of the calories in protein to digest that protein but only 3% of the calories in refined fat.


----------



## 24601 (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Link please.
> 
> Are you honestly saying that, assuming the same physical activity level, someone who consumed 2500 calories  a day from crisps and chocolate will be as thin and healthy as someone who consumes 2500 calories a day from fruits, vegetables and lean meat?
> Do remember that we use 20-30% of the calories in protein to digest that protein but only 3% of the calories in refined fat.



What this has to do with corporation tax is beyond me. A cursory Google search will bring up loads of articles debunking the film. The science isn't anywhere near as settled as you seem to think. For instance, your claim in relation to the 20-30% calorie expenditure for protein is from a study with 17 people. Seventeen. To bring this back on topic can you show me any examples of how sugar/fat taxes have worked? Also, would you be in favour of applying the tax to say, chicken dippers and waffles? Why are you targeting "refined" fat? How would such a tax be designed?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

24601 said:


> What this has to do with corporation tax is beyond me. A cursory Google search will bring up loads of articles debunking the film. The science isn't anywhere near as settled as you seem to think. For instance, your claim in relation to the 20-30% calorie expenditure for protein is from a study with 17 people. Seventeen. To bring this back on topic can you show me any examples of how sugar/fat taxes have worked? Also, would you be in favour of applying the tax to say, chicken dippers and waffles? Why are you targeting "refined" fat? How would such a tax be designed?


You are the one who dragged the thread off topic with what is quite frankly utter nonsense.

You haven't answered any questions but rather attacked sources with unsubstantiated opinion.
The idea that the type of foods we eat don't matter, just their calorie count, is ludicrous. The way in which energy is released, how foods make us feel full, the other health and nutrients they provide, their link to things such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes; all of these things matter. Calories are calculated based on the energy content of the raw food. Therefore sugary drinks, chocolate, crisps etc have the calories as stated on the wrapper but meat, for example, has a lower calorie count than stated if you cook it and drain off the fat.
We tax alcohol and tobacco to reduce consumption and encourage general health but being fat kills more people in the developed world than either tobacco or alcohol. It also costs billions. Alcoholics and fatties are the biggest blockers in the health sector.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Maybe someone earning €200k-€300k a year should have to work the odd weekend.



Certainly should. I would imagine anyone earning €300k is probably working the odd weekend, as a private consultant, in the Beacon.





Purple said:


> The State would have to come up with €2 billion extra to fund the subsidy that the private healthcare industry currently plugs the public system with.



The private healthcare industry does not 'plug' or subsidize the public system. Is that €2bn figure anything to do with with 2m+ people that pay private health insurance in addition to tax? 
The private healthcare industry is a scam of the highest order. A money fest for consultants and shareholders of insurance corporation selling their wares by way of shiny hotel style lobbies, colourful multi-plan brochures promising private rooms (if available) and flat screen HD TV's. 
You have to hand it to those marketing firms, they really do earn their buck. 
I recently had cause to see a private consultant. Even with PI it cost me €240. Ordinarily it is only €200 but as it was my first appointment with this consultant I had to pay an additional €40 (seriously, I was honored to have this privilege bestowed upon me). 
The blood tests I had were subsequently clear, and I was to hear back in a week. 
Three weeks later and EIGHT phonecalls to his office he finally found time to deliver my results. And further to boot, he has moved hospital, so I guess I will always remain a first-time patient for this guy. 



Purple said:


> With all due respect that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how mobile capital is and what the MNC's actually use Ireland for



I understand the mobility of capital only too well, and how Ireland treats their profits favourably for tax, and all within the law of the EU. 
But it would be naive to think that multinationals are doing us any favours. There are good reasons why they are here beyond the favourable tax treatment.



Purple said:


> They could still sell into Europe, have exactly the same market access, and be 10% of their current size.



Yes, I agree, but this is where long-term it gets complicated. This is where organizations like the IDA have done a great job. There is quid pro quo here - favourable tax treatment for sustainable and significant employment. 
In the main that is what occurs, save the financial industry who abused the system through gold-plates (but those leeches would sell their great grannies corpse if they could). 
Apple employ some 5,500 people in Ireland and have been here since 1980. They owe €15bn. The equivalent of paying each one of those workers €68,181pa for 40yrs! 
So the favourable tax treatment is not without a return. The return is sustainable employment in the country. 



Purple said:


> We are fast running out of road as other countries rightly do what they can to stop our unethical behaviour. We need to realise that and plan for it. The threats are both political and economic and they are very real



I agree, but it still begs the question - where will they go? 
If they all hop and jump to Costa Rica, or wherever, in the short-term that will hurt Ireland, in the long-term, access to the biggest market will become more restrictive.
Not because they are no longer present in Ireland, but because they are no longer present in EU. 



Purple said:


> Could you honestly say that alcohol sales would not increase if there was no tax on it?



No I couldn't, but I asked you a different question. Has high tax rates, in your opinion, deterred alcohol consumption in this country?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The private healthcare industry does not 'plug' or subsidize the public system. Is that €2bn figure anything to do with with 2m+ people that pay private health insurance in addition to tax?


 Yes, that's what I am saying; there is an additional €2 billion a year going into health services in this country which wouldn't be there without private healthcare. The state would otherwise have to come up with that money, ergo that money is a subsidy.


WolfeTone said:


> There are good reasons why they are here beyond the favourable tax treatment.


 Such as?  Please don't say our world class education system!


WolfeTone said:


> If they all hop and jump to Costa Rica, or wherever, in the short-term that will hurt Ireland, in the long-term, access to the biggest market will become more restrictive.


 In the long term Europe won't be the biggest market. In the long term if we have to charge the same tax rates as America they will just move home to America.


WolfeTone said:


> No I couldn't, but I asked you a different question. Has high tax rates, in your opinion, deterred alcohol consumption in this country?


 Because it makes it more expensive. Have you heard of price elasticity? It is certainly the case that alcohol, and particularly beer, is relatively price inelastic but spirits are more price elastic. Read this for an overview of the Irish situation and graphs showing the link between income growth and alcohol consumption.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Yes, that's what I am saying; there is an additional €2 billion a year going into health services in this country which wouldn't be there without private healthcare. The state would otherwise have to come up with that money, ergo that money is a subsidy.



Yes, and what im saying is that through a progressive tax system a better outcome could be achieved with everyone having equal access to the healthcare they need, and no need for shiny multi-plan brochures, unsolicited marketing etc trying to offer 'better deals'. 



Purple said:


> Such as? Please don't say our world class education system!



Access to EU markets. Its wrong to automatically assume that if US multinationals all pull back to US that they will have as favourable conditions, tax, pricing, etc as they do now while present in the EU creating employment. 




Purple said:


> Read this for an overview of the Irish situation and graphs showing the link between income growth and alcohol consumption.



There is nothing attached. 
But to elaborate my question, has high taxes on alcohol had an effect on alcohol consumption that shows noticeable in roads tacking the health and social disorders associated with alcohol? In other words, tax on alcohol hasnt stopped liver disease, domestic abuse, over-crowding a&e on weekends, etc.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, and what im saying is that through a progressive tax system a better outcome could be achieved with everyone having equal access to the healthcare they need, and no need for shiny multi-plan brochures, unsolicited marketing etc trying to offer 'better deals'.


We have the most progressive taxation system in the world and a dangerously narrow income tax base. How much worse would you like to make it? 



WolfeTone said:


> Access to EU markets. Its wrong to automatically assume that if US multinationals all pull back to US that they will have as favourable conditions, tax, pricing, etc as they do now while present in the EU creating employment.


If they have roughly the same tax treatment in the USA they will move their IP etc back there. The tax the MNC's pay here is not based on the activities they carry out here. The main reason they are here and employ people here is we collude with them to evade tax in the rest of the world.


WolfeTone said:


> There is nothing attached.
> But to elaborate my question, has high taxes on alcohol had an effect on alcohol consumption that shows noticeable in roads tacking the health and social disorders associated with alcohol? In other words, tax on alcohol hasnt stopped liver disease, domestic abuse, over-crowding a&e on weekends, etc.


Attachment there now. I think it may answer your questions.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> We have the most progressive taxation system in the world and a dangerously narrow income tax base. How much worse would you like to make it?



It is subjective how 'progressive' our tax system is. Imposing 40% on incomes as low as €36,000 and not increasing at any point higher than that is not very progressive in my opinion. Just a blunt instrument instead. 
Without wanting to spiral into never ending debate, there is plenty of scope for altering tax rates, bands, codes that would make the system more fairer in my opinion. Facilitating a universal healthcare system as well.





Purple said:


> The tax the MNC's pay here is not based on the activities they carry out here. The main reason they are here and employ people here is we collude with them to evade tax in the rest of the world.



Yes, I agree, but I think you are missing a central point. The reason we 'collude' with them is that they guarantee sustainable employment. 
The favourable tax treatment would be shut down if they decide to bail out to Costa Rica or US. Meaning, the market of EU is not as lucrative as it is now, open to European, or Asian competitors etc to fill the void. 
So it is in our interests to facilitate favourable tax treatment and EU access, and it is in their interest to employ lots of people here.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Attachment there now. I think it may answer your questions.



I haven't read it all, but I accept the point that increases in disposable income has contributed to increased consumption and negated somewhat the effects of tax increases.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It is subjective how 'progressive' our tax system is. Imposing 40% on incomes as low as €36,000 and not increasing at any point higher than that is not very progressive in my opinion. Just a blunt instrument instead.
> Without wanting to spiral into never ending debate, there is plenty of scope for altering tax rates, bands, codes that would make the system more fairer in my opinion. Facilitating a universal healthcare system as well.


The marginal tax rate is 52% (PRSI, PAYE & USC) if you earn over €70,044. Do you think it should be higher? How much more money should we spend per head of population on health services, given that we are amongst the highest in the world already?
How much more should we pay doctors and nurses, given that they are amongst the best paid in the world?
How much more should we spend with no tangible results before we accept that the problem isn't a shortage of money but a shortage on structural competence?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, I agree, but I think you are missing a central point. The reason we 'collude' with them is that they guarantee sustainable employment.
> The favourable tax treatment would be shut down if they decide to bail out to Costa Rica or US. Meaning, the market of EU is not as lucrative as it is now, open to European, or Asian competitors etc to fill the void.
> So it is in our interests to facilitate favourable tax treatment and EU access, and it is in their interest to employ lots of people here.


Are you in favour of us continuing to steal taxes from poor countries in order to fund our public services?
Are you aware of the corporation tax systems in places like Costa Rica and States like Delaware (where that complete hypocrite Paddy Cosgrave registers his companies)?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Are you in favour of us continuing to steal taxes from poor countries in order to fund our public services?
> Are you aware of the corporation tax systems in places like Costa Rica and States like Delaware (where that complete hypocrite Paddy Cosgrave registers his companies)?



This has nothing to do with the initial point you raised, that is McWilliams view of our attitudes towards multinationals given their transformative impact on our economy. A view that I understood you broadly agreed with? 
Im merely pointing out that the multinationals are not here to do us a favor, they realise they get a good deal being here for all sorts of reasons, not least taxation. 
In return, the IDA have done a good job in getting something of value in return for favourable tax treatment - sustainable employment. 
In other words, McWilliams has focused solely on half of the deal, employment for Ireland. He has missed the how valuable it is for multinationals to be here in the first place. 
As I said, the €15bn Apple could sustain those 5,500 jobs in Cork for 40yrs paying €68k each!


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> The marginal tax rate is 52% (PRSI, PAYE & USC) if you earn over €70,044. Do you think it should be higher?





WolfeTone said:


> Without wanting to spiral into never ending debate, there is plenty of scope for altering tax rates, bands, codes that would make the system more fairer in my opinion.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> This has nothing to do with the initial point you raised, that is McWilliams view of our attitudes towards multinationals given their transformative impact on our economy. A view that I understood you broadly agreed with?
> Im merely pointing out that the multinationals are not here to do us a favor, they realise they get a good deal being here for all sorts of reasons, not least taxation.
> In return, the IDA have done a good job in getting something of value in return for favourable tax treatment - sustainable employment.
> In other words, McWilliams has focused solely on half of the deal, employment for Ireland. He has missed the how valuable it is for multinationals to be here in the first place.
> As I said, the €15bn Apple could sustain those 5,500 jobs in Cork for 40yrs paying €68k each!


The point is that if they leave we lose far more than €6 billion and all it would take is EU or the USA to stop us being a tax haven and they would be gone within a few years. The corporation tax we currently steal from other countries would go first and then, over a longer period, the jobs would go.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Without wanting to spiral into never ending debate, there is plenty of scope for altering tax rates, bands, codes that would make the system more fairer in my opinion.


So if you want a fairer taxation system I take it that you are in favour of reducing taxes on high earners and increasing them on low and medium income earners. I agree that would be fairer but our populist pseudo left-wing politics wouldn't allow that to happen.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> and they would be gone within a few years.



And back to my original question - where will they go? 
It would be naive to think that US multinationals will pull out of EU because of tax regime imposed without thinking that access to sell in that market would be severely hampered.
It doesn't sound like good business sense to me to hinder access to access to the biggest (or second biggest) market in the world.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> So if you want a fairer taxation system I take it that you are in favour of reducing taxes on high earners and increasing them on low and medium income earners.



I would be in favor of increasing tax bands, reducing rates on average incomes - a third, possibly even fourth, fifth or sixth tax rate of tax, increasing as incomes increase.
I would be in favor of implementing a healthcare levy applicable as a % of all income as a source for funding universal healthcare - notwithstanding that increasing taxes on low incomes will drive wage demands, unless such tax revenues are allocated efficiently - healthcare, cheaper public transport, school books etc.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> And back to my original question - where will they go?
> It would be naive to think that US multinationals will pull out of EU because of tax regime imposed without thinking that access to sell in that market would be severely hampered.
> It doesn't sound like good business sense to me to hinder access to access to the biggest (or second biggest) market in the world.


They taxes will be paid in the countries in which they business activity takes place.
That means their main reason for being here will disappear.

The biggest market in the world will be Asia quite soon. All else being equal the production/manufacturing activity will take place in the USA or the mainland (Germany, Holland etc.) or in a lower cost country in Asia. The short answer is that they can go anywhere they like. There is nothing holding them here other than our collusion in tax evasion.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I would be in favor of increasing tax bands, reducing rates on average incomes - a third, possibly even fourth, fifth or sixth tax rate of tax, increasing as incomes increase.
> I would be in favor of implementing a healthcare levy applicable as a % of all income as a source for funding universal healthcare - notwithstanding that increasing taxes on low incomes will drive wage demands, unless such tax revenues are allocated efficiently - healthcare, cheaper public transport, school books etc.


So you would reduce taxes and then introduce a health tax. There isn't a cohort of "the rich" in this country which we can tap into to make everything okay, despite what the populist pseudo-socialist Shinners and loony-left say.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> The short answer is that they can go anywhere they like.



They can of course move wherever they like, but _not without consequence. _
So Im asking, third time, where will all the multinationals go if Ireland's favourable tax treatment ends?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> So you would reduce taxes and then introduce a health tax. There isn't a cohort of "the rich" in this country which we can tap into to make everything okay, despite what the populist pseudo-socialist Shinners and loony-left say.



There are 2.2m private policy holders that pay on average €1,200 pa. Mostly for shiny brochures and the option of Beacon or Mater (oh, the choices!), mostly for the promise of a private or semi-private ward (but only if available), mostly to jump the que, paying additional consultancy fees to make up that €300k you mentioned earlier. 
It is a con.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> And back to my original question - where will they go?
> It would be naive to think that US multinationals will pull out of EU because of tax regime imposed without thinking that access to sell in that market would be severely hampered.
> It doesn't sound like good business sense to me to hinder access to access to the biggest (or second biggest) market in the world.



Poland? Corporation tax rate of 19%, well educated workforce where the majority of people speak English and access to the EU. The last two multi-national companies I worked for both moved jobs from London to Dublin and then moved other jobs from Dublin to Poland. Eventually the jobs that came from London will be moved as well. Corporation Tax is not the main reason why multi-nationals are here but we are deluding ourselves that we are offering a superior English Speaking workforce that is well educated compared to other countries anymore. When I go to Poland, I see Ireland in the 1990's. We are falling behind in so many ways while other countries are making huge strides. And the high level of personal tax, the housing situation and public transport is now becoming an increasing issue for multinationals. Eventually the cost of hiring people will negate any benefits from the corporate tax rate, access to multi-national workforce and EU access that has driven job announcements in the past.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> There are 2.2m private policy holders that pay on average €1,200 pa. Mostly for shiny brochures and the option of Beacon or Mater (oh, the choices!), mostly for the promise of a private or semi-private ward (but only if available), mostly to jump the que, paying additional consultancy fees to make up that €300k you mentioned earlier.
> It is a con.



And these people that you deride are subsidising the public health system so what's your point? Ban health insurance then if that if that's your solution. Ask the hospitals what they think of that


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> There are 2.2m private policy holders that pay on average €1,200 pa. Mostly for shiny brochures and the option of Beacon or Mater (oh, the choices!), mostly for the promise of a private or semi-private ward (but only if available), mostly to jump the que, paying additional consultancy fees to make up that €300k you mentioned earlier.
> It is a con.



What's the capacity of Ireland's private hospitals in terms of scans and elective surgeries?
What would be the waiting lists for same in our public system if they didn't exist?
How many more doctors and consultants would fly off to Australia, Canada, US, Dubai etc if they were only being paid public rates?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> What's the capacity of Ireland's private hospitals in terms of scans and elective surgeries?
> What would be the waiting lists for same in our public system if they didn't exist?
> How many more doctors and consultants would fly off to Australia, Canada, US, Dubai etc if they were only being paid public rates?


Stop letting the facts get in the way of ideology!


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> There are 2.2m private policy holders that pay on average €1,200 pa. Mostly for shiny brochures and the option of Beacon or Mater (oh, the choices!), mostly for the promise of a private or semi-private ward (but only if available), mostly to jump the que, paying additional consultancy fees to make up that €300k you mentioned earlier.
> It is a con.


It may be a con but it is still a €2 billion subsidy of the public health system.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> They can of course move wherever they like, but _not without consequence. _
> So Im asking, third time, where will all the multinationals go if Ireland's favourable tax treatment ends?


I've already answered you. They will go to their home country or China or another cheaper Asian country or to the mainland where they have access to a much bigger and better educated workforce which speaks English (Poland, Holland etc) and have better access to suppliers and markets.

Without our favourable tax treatment (nice euphemism) the consequences of moving will mostly be positive.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It would be naive to think that US multinationals will pull out of *EU* because of tax regime imposed without thinking that access to sell in that market would be severely hampered.





WolfeTone said:


> So Im asking, third time, where will all the multinationals go if Ireland's favourable tax treatment ends?





Sunny said:


> Poland?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> They will go to their home country or China or another cheaper Asian country or to the mainland where they have access to a much bigger and better educated workforce which speaks English (Poland, Holland etc) and have better access to suppliers and markets.



If that is the case, then you are in favor of Ireland stealing taxes from other countries?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


>


Does that mean you are not concerned with us losing the billions in tax revenue as long as it stays within the EU?!


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> If that is the case, then you are in favor of Ireland stealing taxes from other countries?


You answer first.


Purple said:


> Are you in favour of us continuing to steal taxes from poor countries in order to fund our public services?



Do you now accept that they can easily leave Ireland with few if any negative consequences if we have to stop stealing taxes from poor people?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> What's the capacity of Ireland's private hospitals in terms of scans and elective surgeries?



Im not sure. 



odyssey06 said:


> What would be the waiting lists for same in our public system if they didn't exist?



I couldn't say, but arguably less people waiting.



odyssey06 said:


> How many more doctors and consultants would fly off to Australia, Canada, US, Dubai etc if they were only being paid public rates?



None, dont you know, they already earn between €200-€300k without having to work weekends, apparently.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


>



Outside the EU isn't our main competition for God's sake. Do you think setting up in Ireland is the only way to get into the EU or something. I can see this is going to end up being another of the pointless threads that you get involved in and stay involved in like the claims culture one. It's pointless and am out. Purple, all yours!


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> It's pointless and am out.



Good, because the discussions were quite reasoned until you interjected. So next time someone references "outside EU" please dont return with an answer like Poland! 

And worse, dont try rubbish your way about legal costs not being important and spouting nonsense like the staff coming under stress!


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Do you now accept that they can easily leave Ireland with few if any negative consequences if we have to stop stealing taxes from poor people?



Of course I accept they can easily leave, I have already said that. But they cannot leave without consequence. 
So if the EU implements rules that effectively end our favourable tax deals and treats all multinationals equitably across the EU, then why would say, Intel, move to any other country in the EU? From a taxation point of view, there would be no point. 
Of course they could move all their EU activities lock, stock and barrel back to US or Costa Rica, or wherever. 
But the consequences of that, in the absence of a free trade agreement, would be higher tariffs, barriers to trade etc, into the biggest (2nd) in the world - it sounds like it would be bad for business to me. 
So Intel Ire, Microsoft Ire, FB Ire, etc...etc...all have an interest in having a presence in the EU. Ireland is the preference currently because of, amongst other things, our favourable tax regime AND barrier free trade into the SM. 
If the favourable tax treatment ends, it still doesn't make an argument to move anywhere else within EU (not even Poland!) as the tax treatment will be the same across EU.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> So if the EU implements rules that effectively end our favourable tax deals and treats all multinationals equitably across the EU, then why would say, Intel, move to any other country in the EU?


Lower wages, lower income taxes, better infrastructure, better access to markets, better access to skilled labour?
Consequences? Yes. But quite probably positive ones.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I couldn't say, but arguably less people waiting.


Make the argument. Support that post with something. Anything.
How will reducing the national medical capacity by reducing funding by €2 billion reduce waiting lists?



WolfeTone said:


> Im not sure.


 But you accept that they have a capacity, that they do tests and scans, yes?
If they weren't there would there be more or fewer scans done?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> None, dont you know, they already earn between €200-€300k without having to work weekends, apparently.


Their basic salary ranges from €123,000 to €190,000. The State also pays their indemnity insurance and they can use their publicly funded rooms and staff for private consultations. They can easily make the same again through their private practice.  Therefore my figures were wrong; they earn get  paid far more than that.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Lower wages, lower income taxes, better infrastructure, better access to markets, better access to skilled labour?
> Consequences? Yes. But quite probably positive ones.



The discussion is in the context of corporation tax. Next you will be talking about their better educated workforce? 

I would be interested in hearing about the specific country in the EU that offers all of that.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> How will reducing the national medical capacity by reducing funding by €2 billion reduce waiting lists



Funding wouldn't be reduced, it would be transferred from private control into public control. 
Without private shareholders to feed, the money could be used to open wards, employ nurses, reduce waiting lists.



Purple said:


> If they weren't there would there be more or fewer scans done?



More. Funds (from €2bn transfer) could be used to carry out more scans instead of pumping marketing companies with contracts to 'sell' healthcare.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Their basic salary ranges from €123,000 to €190,000. The State also pays their indemnity insurance and they can use their publicly funded rooms and staff for private consultations. They can easily make the same again through their private practice.  Therefore my figures were wrong; they earn get  paid far more than that.



So im wondering, will they be leaving for Australia, NZ, Canada, Dubai? Because they are only paid public rates? 
Are our public consultants paid too much, or too little?


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The discussion is in the context of corporation tax. Next you will be talking about their better educated workforce?
> 
> I would be interested in hearing about the specific country in the EU that offers all of that.


You are being deliberately obtuse because the blatantly obvious doesn't  suit your ideological position. You also won't answer any questions. Further discussion on this issue is pointless.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Funding wouldn't be reduced, it would be transferred from private control into public control.
> Without private shareholders to feed, the money could be used to open wards, employ nurses, reduce waiting lists.


 Don't be silly.




WolfeTone said:


> More. Funds (from €2bn transfer) could be used to carry out more scans instead of pumping marketing companies with contracts to 'sell' healthcare.


Okay, so you would just appropriate the money currently paid by private health insurance policy holders. 
Most of those are pensioners; that'll never fly.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> So im wondering, will they be leaving for Australia, NZ, Canada, Dubai? Because they are only paid public rates?
> Are our public consultants paid too much, or too little?


No, because of the gross structural incompetence within our health service. You can thank the Unions for that. They have the blood on their hands.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> The point is that we don't just get the €6 billion a year from them, we probably get half out tax take when income tax, VAT and everything else the wages they pay generates is taken into account. So, if the €6 billion goes there will be far more than that going with it.





WolfeTone said:


> My question would be is - where are they to go?





Purple said:


> what the MNC's actually use Ireland for (what they are paying tax on).



Is that corporation tax you are referring to by any chance?



Purple said:


> it is to understand that we are a tax haven



Is that corporate tax haven? Or some other tax you are referring to?



Purple said:


> If they have roughly the same tax treatment in the USA they will move their IP etc back there. The tax the MNC's pay here is not based on the activities they carry out here. The main reason they are here and employ people here is we collude with them to evade tax in the rest of the world.


Corporate tax again, yes? No?



Purple said:


> Are you in favour of us continuing to steal taxes from poor countries in order to fund our public services?
> Are you aware of the *corporation* *tax* systems in places like Costa Rica and States like Delaware






Purple said:


> The point is that if they leave we lose far more than €6 billion and all it would take is EU or the USA to stop us being a tax haven and they would be gone within a few years. The *corporation tax *we currently steal from other countries would go first and then, over a longer period, the jobs would go.





Purple said:


> They taxes will be paid in the countries in which they business activity takes place.



What tax are you referring to here?



Purple said:


> There is nothing holding them here other than our collusion in tax evasion.



I don't evade tax, so dont lump me in with your nefarious activities. Unless of course, you are referring to 'our' as in, this States corporation tax policy?



Purple said:


> Does that mean you are not concerned with us losing the billions in tax revenue as long as it stays within the EU?!





WolfeTone said:


> The discussion is in the context of corporation tax





Purple said:


> You are being deliberately obtuse





The truth of the matter is that if the EU applies an equitable corporate tax system throughout the EU (including Poland!) then from the prospective of _corporation tax only _there would be little incentive for multinationals to move elsewhere in the EU, in my opinion. 
Other factors such as Labour costs and educated workforces would come into play but I think you dismissed that earlier for this discussion?

If multinationals bail out to US or Costa Rica or wherever, without a presence in EU, then that just sounds like bad business considering the barriers to trade they will face in trying to trade in the SM. 

But I think this is now obvious to you, but rather than accept the legitimate points I make (whether you agree or not) you revert to type and start the personal attacks.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Don't be silly.



Nothing silly about it at all, its a simple fact. 



Purple said:


> Okay, so you would just appropriate the money currently paid by private health insurance policy holders.
> Most of those are pensioners; that'll never fly.



There are 2.2m private policy insurance holders in this country. There are about 637,567 people aged over 65 according to last census. 
Its unlikely all of them hold private insurance policies. 

Your statement doesn't add up.


----------



## Sunny (11 Dec 2019)

Purple, we need to find you a hobby. If you are not fighting off English Invaders, you are fighting with Irish revolutionary figures about nonsense...


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> You are being deliberately obtuse because the blatantly obvious doesn't suit your ideological position.



Agreed, pointless continuing circling the WT drain.


----------

