Speaks volumes why Obama wants the UK to remain in the EU. His corporate handlers know that it is inevitable that taxes will increase if there is a Brexit.
I would have thought remaining in the EU would result in (eventual) greater regulation, and Brexit would make the situation worse (for non-corporations).
That makes no sense. The EU countries with higher tax levels are constantly pushing to reign in the EU "tax havens", whereas outside the EU, the UK will be free to use even lower tax rates and more tax breaks as a means of retaining and attracting international business, and may need to, in order to prevent an exodus from the City etc.
To be fair, exiting EU would put the UK at disadvantage as EU tax heaven / headquarters beachhead. Common customs and VAT space goes out of the window, as well as hundreds other compliance regulations tying the EU together. Luxembourg and Cyprus will certainly get a lot of new business.
But I really doubt Obama rationales have anything to do with that.
Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.
2. Exports & investment
The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services).
Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets.
American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.
3. Trade
The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.
4. Consumer clout
British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.
13. Research funding
The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies.
A Brexit could mean that there will be increased taxes on all of this to compensate from these lost advantages, which will surely translate to increased corporate taxes.
The UK is completely free to set its taxes inside the EU as it sees fit. Just look at Ireland with its 12.5% corporation tax and its position at the center of numerous tax evasion schemes.
You say other countries are constantly pushing, but Ireland was only recently bailed out by exactly those other Eurozone countries, and even in that precarious situation, Ireland was not forced to change its tax rates.
Tangentially - if there's no tax rate competition which seems to be the desired goal of many, there's nothing to stop politicians continuing to bribe their electorate with bread and circuses paid for by that electorate's money. The gigantic debt mountains in the US and the EU demonstrate the degree to which they do that. And when it's all over, out of office, out of responsibility! Companies have of course to keep prudent accounts or go out of business.
Considering that currently "tax rate competition" exists, and as you point out the US and EU have "gigantic debt mountains" anyway, the argument that such competition is important to keep states from accumulating too much debt seems to be defeated by your own claims.
It's the other way around - if all tax rates were uniform around the world, borrowing (or variously disguised forms of tax rebate) would be the only way for governments to control their own budgets.
> Companies have of course to keep prudent accounts or go out of business.
Wrong comparison. A politician is to government what a CEO is to a company. Loads of CEOs make terrible decisions to appease the stock market short-term, then leave the company before shit hits the fan. Replace "CEOs" with "prime ministers" and "stock market" with "electorate". Human nature is what it is.
The point is, these executives are not living in Ireland or Panama but in the valley or some highly developed country in Europe. So while the enjoy the benefits of those countries, the want to avoid paying taxes.
No one has anything against people who want to enjoy Irish tax laws who move to Ireland. Or people who want to have a company in Panama to move to Panama.
That's a novel position. So US companies, whose executives presumably live in the US, shouldn't open an EU subsidiary, and vice-versa? Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US?
Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies, shareholders do.
Yes, if the executives at Apple decide that they want to pay corporate taxes in Ireland instead of the US to reduce their taxes and increase their income, they should move Apple to Ireland from the valley.
You can twist my words to "Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US?" as you like, it doesn't change the point.
Some people bring arguments, some play word games "Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies"
The "city" as a social group has a lot of indirect influence. The City of London Corporation is an unusually-shaped local authority with a long history. It's not the banking regulator, that falls between the BoE and the FSA. The City does however have control of the anti-fraud police.
Agreed, but it seems all those small countries occupied by the British ended up becoming low-tax jurisdictions attracting foreign investments. Cyprus & malta are popular destinations in europe for online businesses and royalties collection.
It is quite hard to think of a tax haven that is not part of the Commonwealth or former British Empire, Panama being one of the few. A true tax haven is a different thing to mechanisms like the 'Double Irish', seems UK PLC is getting even with that.
The Square Mile - 'City of London' - is like a country within a country too, so lots of strange finance things go on with London being one big black hole that money orbits, mysteriously.
This is how Britain punches above its weight to make London a 'world city' as far as global capitalism is concerned. This has been going on for centuries.
But they all share the same similarity - culturally and historically connected to their larger counterparts, enabling well-connected citizens to hide their money.
Australia also has very lax money laundering laws, it is said that Mossack Fonseca would have faced less regulation being based in Australia vs Panama.
Tories are all about extracting wealth through property and money management (tax avoidance and money laundering are forms of asset management really).
Australia has reasonably strong money laundering laws. Australia also has quite strong financial tracking via AUSTRAC and the big four banks. Do you have any sources?
Inflation wouldn't work since its used by governments as a tool to adjust import and export rates.
A alternative system to taxes would be to demand payment whenever someone uses a state resource. A shop uses roads to have goods delivered, so they should pay a percentage to the state. Customers use the road to travel to the shop, so a small price is paid by the shop to the government per customer. If someone don't want to use the roads, they are free to buy the land necessary and build their own road system.
A factory has also transported goods and employees traveling to work, but they also uses the public education that those employees has. That mean for each hired employee, the factory should pay the relative price as compensation to the state. If a factory don't want to hire state educated citizen, they are free to find a workforce elsewhere.
A internet service sends bits traveling in copper and fiber that goes through state owned land. A price per bit then is reasonable. Same goes to radio waves traveling through state owned air space. If someone don't want to pay, they are free to build their own network.
Then there is the protection racket where police and military prevents theft. Those costs has to be recovered, so a monthly price in relation to the assets being protected sounds perfectly reasonable. If someone don't want to pay, the military can always go and make a visit.
Its pretty easy to get residence in a non-EU country and then reclaim the VAT when you return 'home'. Your 'non-EU' country can even be as close as Jersey.
55 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 24.8 ms ] threadBut I really doubt Obama rationales have anything to do with that.
https://theintercept.com/2015/05/12/cant-read-tpp-heres-huge...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...
1. Jobs
Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.
2. Exports & investment
The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services). Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets. American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.
3. Trade
The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.
4. Consumer clout
British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.
13. Research funding
The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies.
A Brexit could mean that there will be increased taxes on all of this to compensate from these lost advantages, which will surely translate to increased corporate taxes.
You say other countries are constantly pushing, but Ireland was only recently bailed out by exactly those other Eurozone countries, and even in that precarious situation, Ireland was not forced to change its tax rates.
If you understand what I'm getting at.
- Born in Russia
- Speaks Russian
- Holds or used to be holding Russian passport
- Does not really consider oneself Russian or answers "I'm Russian, but"
- Does not respect Russians, not really, but knows what's better for them
- Probably has ancestors who were important Soviet officials, often in some now-independent Republics
- Liberal political outlook but ends up backing Putinism when acting
- Probably owns something in London, Miami, Nice
- Family members living in aforementioned locations
- Probably sits in government or duma or connected to such officials
- In a position for which it's hard to reason if they are competent and how their life trajectory landed them there
That's the people who run & own Russia for all its sorry state.
Wrong comparison. A politician is to government what a CEO is to a company. Loads of CEOs make terrible decisions to appease the stock market short-term, then leave the company before shit hits the fan. Replace "CEOs" with "prime ministers" and "stock market" with "electorate". Human nature is what it is.
The point is, these executives are not living in Ireland or Panama but in the valley or some highly developed country in Europe. So while the enjoy the benefits of those countries, the want to avoid paying taxes.
No one has anything against people who want to enjoy Irish tax laws who move to Ireland. Or people who want to have a company in Panama to move to Panama.
Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies, shareholders do.
You can twist my words to "Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US?" as you like, it doesn't change the point.
Some people bring arguments, some play word games "Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies"
Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Isle of Man, and Bermuda is the full list I think.
Makes statements from Cameron on the topic especially hypocritical.
Cyprus and Malta aren't even tax havens.
The Square Mile - 'City of London' - is like a country within a country too, so lots of strange finance things go on with London being one big black hole that money orbits, mysteriously.
This is how Britain punches above its weight to make London a 'world city' as far as global capitalism is concerned. This has been going on for centuries.
Tories are all about extracting wealth through property and money management (tax avoidance and money laundering are forms of asset management really).
Is there a better approach than collecting taxes?
What if inflation was used as a tax (printing money)?
Another approach is to lower taxes and create less of an incentive to circumvent them in the first place...
The government certainly doesn't need taxes to create money to pay for things.
A alternative system to taxes would be to demand payment whenever someone uses a state resource. A shop uses roads to have goods delivered, so they should pay a percentage to the state. Customers use the road to travel to the shop, so a small price is paid by the shop to the government per customer. If someone don't want to use the roads, they are free to buy the land necessary and build their own road system.
A factory has also transported goods and employees traveling to work, but they also uses the public education that those employees has. That mean for each hired employee, the factory should pay the relative price as compensation to the state. If a factory don't want to hire state educated citizen, they are free to find a workforce elsewhere.
A internet service sends bits traveling in copper and fiber that goes through state owned land. A price per bit then is reasonable. Same goes to radio waves traveling through state owned air space. If someone don't want to pay, they are free to build their own network.
Then there is the protection racket where police and military prevents theft. Those costs has to be recovered, so a monthly price in relation to the assets being protected sounds perfectly reasonable. If someone don't want to pay, the military can always go and make a visit.
Its pretty easy to get residence in a non-EU country and then reclaim the VAT when you return 'home'. Your 'non-EU' country can even be as close as Jersey.