Slashdot Mirror


Google Warns Irish Government Against Tax Increase

theodp writes "The Irish government has been given a stark warning from some of the biggest American companies in Ireland on the risk of a mass exodus if the country's controversial low corporate tax rate is raised in return for an IMF/EU bailout to shore up the country's beleaguered banking system. According to The Telegraph, a statement signed by senior execs at Microsoft, HP, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Intel points out that although Ireland's tax rate may be low in European terms, it is not when compared with locations such as Singapore, India and China. Separately, the head of Google's 2,000-strong European HQ in Dublin told the Belfast Telegraph, 'anything that impinges on Ireland's competitiveness is going to be a big thing for Google,' adding, 'anything that increases the cost-base of a business is negative for competitiveness.'"

56 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Of course... by Serenissima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    God forbid any company would actually contribute taxes to the infrastructure of the countries in which they operate. I mean, that would just make too much sense.

    --
    Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Of course... by Lumbre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, Microsoft isn't avoiding taxes in Washington by "selling" from Nevada. Oh, right, they are.

      Are interstate commerce excise taxes somewhat proportional to international tariffs? I'd like corporations to feel a pinch of pain when they export, just like what I feel with my small business. Then again, corporations have less personal liability.

    2. Re:Of course... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lovely theory, however, right now Ireland is going tits up, so this sort of trickle down economics won't get them back up soon enough. It's Ireland's fault, and probably in part because of very low corporate tax rates to attract companies like Google.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Of course... by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine if corporations actually paid taxes based on where their clients reside, not where they choose to set up a tax chop-shop.

      Google is an American company, founded by Americans, with the majority of its operational offices in America, listed on the American stock markets, with board members and officers who are American citizens living and working in America, offering services to Americans. So what if they expanded globally? Good for them, but they are clearly still an American company - pay the American taxes or go get EU citizenship and move your corporate arses!

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    4. Re:Of course... by williamhb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except they do contribute - indirectly. By exporting goods to other countries, those companies bring money into their host country, where they pay it out as wages, spend it on locally-purchased supplies, etc. The host country then has ample opportunity to obtain tax revenue via personal income, payroll, or consumption taxes.

      Not in the Irish case. Companies "in Ireland for tax reasons" don't necessarily employ many people there. They just have to allocate certain revenues to an Irish subsidiary for tax purposes, and then re-"export" these same on-paper revenues to tax havens like Bermuda. The so called "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" (they use another holding company in Holland too) that meant Google paid only 2.4% tax rather less than Ireland's 12.5% to 25% rates. It doesn't depend on how many people you employ. Nor on actually making much in Ireland. Just on sharp practice to ensure that even the toilet cleaners at these countries pay higher rates of tax than the company does.

    5. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't be naive, companies don't pay taxes. It's an indirect tax on people. People are the only source of tax revenue.

      If you raise corporate tax, they simply raise their prices and lower their operating costs in other ways. If they are unable to maintain their margin, they move the business somewhere else. Companies can move faster than labor can follow. The barrier to labor mobility is maintained by companies through their subtle manipulation of nationalism. Companies being able to move and labor not being able to follow, allows companies to keep playing the "we'll relocate your job right from under your ass" game.

      Silly people (ie: most people, aka: "joe average", "john q. public", "unwashed masses", "chumps") buy the illusion that corporations actually pay tax. It allows politicians to pretend they're screwing someone other than the people. Corporations are only logical entities, not real ones.

      Bottom line: the people *always* pay.

    6. Re:Of course... by VanGarrett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After the Irish raise their corporate tax rates, and all of those large, international businesses pull their facilities out, how many jobs will be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How many businesses besides Google, Microsoft, HP, Bank of America, Merril Lynch and Intel will leave? How many businesses will close their doors, because much of their income was based on the spending and consumption of those businesses, and their employees?

      A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue. Higher taxes cause a decrease in in the rate of taxable transactions. At a certain point, the ratio of tax rate to taxable transactions produces a maximum possible tax revenue. Any attempt to increase tax revenues beyond that limit, is futile.

    7. Re:Of course... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Kind'a...

      If you do not contribute to the economy of your host country one of the results is that it will have a low living standard, housing in disarray, unemployment through the roof. This will automatically put a number of limitations on what kind of people you can hire. To be more specific - you can hire only wageslaves with non-working dependants.

      While that may be OK if your aim is to import labour from Talebanic countries where the wife is a houseslave, it does not work well in the civilised world. If it did, Google would not have had to post 200+ positions on a weekly basis for Dublin and consistently _FAIL_ to fill them. The situation with a lot of other emloyers in Ireland is not much different. They all continue to have a long list of positions for qualified labour open.

      That is to expected, because foreign labour does not want to move into the middle of a dump (and Ireland in the economic sense is a dump) and the Irish educational system does not have enough money (taxes are actually used for something ya know) to produce an equivalent.

      So overall, Google should stop wingeing here and realise that by moving a high skilled labour activity into a low tax rate country it has shot itself in the foot in the long term. High skilled labour, Low Taxes and Growth - you have to pick two. All three together are mutually exclusive.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Of course... by Christian+Marks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's refreshing to see arguments informed by empirical fact instead of ideologically motivated anti-tax dogma. We need to see the world's spreadsheet. It is counterproductive to rely on qualitative generalities about quantitative specifics.

    9. Re:Of course... by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

      ITYM the US should slap Google with a huge tax bill for running a bunch of business through Ireland's 12.5% tax rate rather than the Us 35% corporate tax rate in the first place. They are based in the US, after all. Google shelters itself from US taxes using Ireland and shelters itself from Irish taxes in Bermuda. It's not speculation on my part. It's all very well documented. The sad part is that right now it's all perfectly legal to move money around internationally for the express purpose of lowering the taxes paid.

      These arrangements allow Google, a US company, to put its sales of ads for everywhere outside the US into a wholly owned Irish subsidiary and lower the tax rate on all of those non-domestic sales to 2.4% when their domestic tax rate on profits is 35% and their Irish tax rate would normally be 12.5%. They screw the US with Ireland and then screw Ireland with Bermuda. Lots of other companies do the same, sometimes with the Caymans replacing or supplementing Bermuda. Sometimes they move money through The Netherlands or somewhere else for even more benefits.

    10. Re:Of course... by pesho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm, nice theory. Let's see how the facts support it. On one hand we have Ireland, that has low tax rate, which has given the incetive for the people to produce. You would expect it to be rich and prosperous society, but somehow it is on the verge of bankrupcy and the only way out that they have is a bailout that is going to be paid for mostly by Germany and France. Now, Germany and France are as you so eloquently put it "...societies with gigantic tax rates and so called 'social obligations...'" that "have produced entirely unsustainable parasitic governments of enormous size that are strangling the host economy.", yet somehow they are the "productive societies" and Ireland is the "third world country" in the example that we are discussing. Do you see why I am tempted to call your argument " bulshit, bulshit".

    11. Re:Of course... by kaffiene · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The income and payroll taxes, as well as all the rules and regulations are turning the once productive societies into the third world countries, by creating huge disincentives for people to produce, by moving capital out because societies with gigantic tax rates and so called 'social obligations' have produced entirely unsustainable parasitic governments of enormous size that are strangling the host economy."

      The Scandinavian economies are the strongest in the world yet all are highly taxed and highly involved with 'social obligations'

      The actual facts do not meet with your dogma, I'm afraid.

    12. Re:Of course... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps you're not looking at the question properly. Please, change your perspective. slightly, then take another look. Let's ask the question, like this: "If having all those corporations in the country tax-free is so good, then WHY is Ireland going bankrupt?" I'll be honest - I am no economist. I don't understand all the tax schedules, or who gets tax breaks, or why, or how. What I DO KNOW for certain is, the corporations are parasitic entities, with only their own welfare in mind. If the corporations were symbiotic, instead of parasitic, they would be examining how taxes benefit the host nation, and negotiating over those taxes. You know, give and take, compromise, stuff like that. Instead, we see here that the parasites are ready to find a new host if this one goes belly up.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Of course... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not in the Irish case. Companies "in Ireland for tax reasons" don't necessarily employ many people there. They just have to allocate certain revenues to an Irish subsidiary for tax purposes, and then re-"export" these same on-paper revenues to tax havens like Bermuda.

      What I don't understand is why this is legal outside of Ireland (i.e. in those countries which are losing money because of it).

      Don't get me wrong - if countries want to compete on income tax to attract businesses, I'm all for it. It's up to the citizens of a democratic state to decide how they want to run things in it, and that includes tax rates. And Google, Intel, Microsoft etc are quite welcome to enjoy the benefits of those low taxes - by moving their actual production facilities to those places.

      But why the hell do they get to pay low taxes in Ireland off products that are actually made - and often sold! - on US soil? Their businesses enjoy all benefits of that society, but then skirt their obligation. Why is this legal?

    14. Re:Of course... by Splod · · Score: 5, Informative

      If having all those corporations in the country tax-free is so good, then WHY is Ireland going bankrupt?

      Because they are not related. The country is going bankrupt because the government gave guarantees to a large commercial bank and a number of commercial/consumer banks that had lended heavily to support a ridiculous property bubble. They didn't do proper due dilligence on the guarantees, were lied to by the bankers about the size of the hole they were in and now the tax payer is now faced with a debt so large that the 'real' economy can't possibly generate enough revenue to repay.

      There's a decent explanation here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-the-Irish-Crisis-is-Going-usnews-4028366968.html?x=0

    15. Re:Of course... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Corporations don't decide that they want a margin of % percent. They always increase their margin to the highest possible amount. So don't think that keeping taxes low will do anything to lower prices or increase the wages they pay.

    16. Re:Of course... by Znork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the problem with Ireland getting hit so hard isn't because of tax breaks

      Actually, the problem with Ireland getting hit so hard is because they have an external debt of over 1300% of GDP. See, contrary to what some believe there's no actual difference between private debt and government debt these days, when government steps in to guarantee any private debt.

      If your private sector is running with a huge deficit, borrowing to finance itself, your government is going to be on hock for that. For the purpose of economic prediction you might as well count that deficit as part of the actual deficit. And in the case of Ireland, it's been running on such a very high deficit.

      The last couple of decades, the systematic privatization of many government functions appears to have included the accumulation of unpayable debt and fiscal irresponsibility, cheered on, if not enforced, by the central banks.

      What will solve it is getting inflation under control and making sure the banks in Ireland are solvent

      Banks aren't going to get solvent (on a real mark-to-market basis) until fractional reserves are forbidden. The only actual fix to these problems would be to have market set rates and full reserves, in which case you'd get automatic rate adjustment as demand for loans increases/availability of capital decreases, preventing and/or rapidly liquidating gross malinvestments.

      Of course, such an adjustment into a sustainable economy would be painful for the profligate, which means we'll get taxed instead by inflated fiat currencies to erode the debt of the irresponsible and the savings of the thrifty.

    17. Re:Of course... by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Those countries may be cheap but they come with a laundry list of disadvantages, e.g. the Chinese totalitarian government."

      Which is a problem for a big corporation exactly how?

    18. Re:Of course... by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The bank itself wouldn't lend money; the banks customers would explicitly need to deposit money into bond funds (if they wanted any returns). It's not that far from what's done today, the difference in function is mainly in what guarantees are made, what time frames on withdrawals you have, and who gets to eat the losses.

      The systemic difference would be more significant however. As money supply would no longer expand to accommodate asset bubbles, the interest rate a saver would get would rise as demand rose for money (for example, for investment in the bubble) and the bubbles would get cooled off/liquidated much faster and in a far earlier phase.

      There are potential drawbacks, of course, like the higher interest rates in general (that reflect the actual value of risk and liquidity preference) and the requirement that the economy as a whole carry balanced loans and savings, but compared to the drawbacks of bubble/implosion economics, it's a whole lot fairer as someone has to pay either way. There'd also be the issue of deflation, as prices would fall as production improves, but that's already true across vast segments of the economy, indicating that the theory that inflation (as measured in wage-related prices) is necessary or even desirable may be deeply flawed.

    19. Re:Of course... by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ireland did everything that conservatives wanted regarding their finance policies. Why is Ireland cratering if they are suppose to be sooooo good? And Ireland already has high unemployment as a result of these policies and it will get worse either way. They should recognize they don't work and start moving to polices that do as there will be no getting out of a painful correction or if they don't change a full depression.

    20. Re:Of course... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue

      You are refering to the Laffer Curve. What most people who do refer to it often ignore, is that the curve is described as a parabole, so you can lose taxation either by overtaxing or by undertaxing.

      Giving that Ireland is going bankrupt and the rates are low... are you suggesting that they lower them yet more?

      Note also that some of the examples of maximum revenue are in the 30% bracket...

      Now, if you have data (any kind of data) showing that the trouble with Ireland is that they are taxing too much, please tell me. It will be more interesting than repeating the mantra of "if the government does not tax then it will suddenly have a lot of money".

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    21. Re:Of course... by KyBoiler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      locations such as Singapore, India and China

      Are Google, Microsoft, etc. telling Ireland they should tax the way India and China do so that the citizens of Ireland can have the same wonderful living conditions?

    22. Re:Of course... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like it is high time for a global tax treaty. No tax havens, not B$ tax rates where only the profits and none of the production is shifted, multi-national corporations need to be forced to 'PAY THEIR TAXES' at the location where the profits were made, not some bullshit offshore location. Don't want to pay the taxes at the location where the money was earned the bugger off and work else where.

      Basically Ireland pretty much deserved the hole they are now in, they had special low taxes for licensed content distribution (copyright), so they could effectively cheat other countries out of the taxable income generated at the point sale.

      So the real question is let them go and pay the full price or help them, meh, let em burn in their debt they don't deserve any better.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Of course... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do realize that Bush was probably the most notable proponent of spontaneous wealth generation that the country has ever known, right? The lock box was Gore's thing, and I don't recall the specifics, but it was kind of moot as he wasn't allowed to take office.

      Bush OTOH ran this country into the ground by cutting taxes on the wealthiest on the basis that they would do more investing, even as he blew up the DoD budget to gigantic proportions and ran the debt up to somewhere around $10tn.

      At least with Gore and the lockbox we don't really know precisely what he meant. And with good reason, the conservatives get away with that crap all the time, and the Democrats haven't been doing themselves any favors allowing the conservatives to do it. Not sure stooping to that level is wise, but the voters seem dumb enough to fall for it.

    24. Re:Of course... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a reason for that. The anti-tax folks don't want to name the cuts they'd make in order for it to work out to a balanced budget. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting low taxes, but there is something inherently wrong with Bush/Regan style tax cuts which not only aren't backed by spending cuts, but are really backed by spending increases of a substantial amount. At some point somebody has to find the money and it seems to usually end up in the lap of the Democratic party. The alternative being at some point defaulting on the loans.

      Most of the folks complaining about the tax burden are unwilling to allow the spending which is focused on benefiting them to be cut. It's easy to call for cuts when the cuts don't affect you but quite a bit harder to actually be the one to make the sacrifice. Likewise it's easier to cut programs that you don't expect to need than ones that you do expect to need. And easier to cut things you hope to never need than the ones you hope to someday need.

    25. Re:Of course... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably because there is no logic to it. There's been a considerable amount of conservative anger about proposals in the US to require that companies book their profits in the US before they're allowed to book their losses here. The reason being that they'd been able to get deductions without having to pay taxes here, in effect subsidizing the investments they were making in other countries without providing the US tax payers doing the subsidizing with any benefits.

      And really of the proposed ways of handling the problem, it's probably the most moderate as corporations would still be allowed to not book profits from overseas operations in the US, they just wouldn't be allowed to offset domestic profits with overseas losses.

    26. Re:Of course... by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah yes, the "reverse *this* is the year of Linux on the desktop" argument. If the data doesn't fit, just make a wild, unsupported accusation and call it fact, then rely on it as the crux of your argument.

      If the Scandinavian countries are on borrowed time, they are certainly riding their luck - they show no signs of turning into Greece and have been stable and prosperous for a long time without having to cook any books to make it appear so. I think you are grasping at straws to attempt to discredit any data points that don't fit with your narrow, anti-welfare-program, anti-big government tea party talking points.

    27. Re:Of course... by camg188 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations don't decide that they want a margin of % percent.

      That's what competition does.

    28. Re:Of course... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo! Give that man a ceeegar! I watched with horror as we in the south "fought" for all those Detroit jobs and basically the states that "won" actually lost. Look at all the "incentives" the companies got and you would have probably had a more efficient return if you would have simply employed the people in a WPA style work program. This is what Ireland is finding out the hard way, and if they listen to the megacorps then they are fools. We have been letting the megacorps run our country for a couple of decades now. Are we better off?

      Allow me to quote the great man Thomas Jefferson: "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." and no truer words have been spoken on the subject. If Ireland does what the corps say they got tits up and turn into another third world country. They don't and the corps will just go to a...wait for it...third world country! This is why unregulated capitalism always fails. It concentrates too much power in the hands of too few and leads to destruction. Every. Single. Time.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. ireland = end of right wing economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't begin to count how many times over the past few years I heard that we needed to emulate the "Celtic Tiger."

    1. Re:ireland = end of right wing economics by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meh hardly. Ireland is for a lack of a better term fucked, because it taxes businesses little to not at all, but relies heavily on income and sales tax to fill it's coffers. While this makes it a wonderful tax haven, it's economic death for any country as heavily socialized as they are.

      It's not anywhere close to 'right-wing' economics. If you've been paying attention to the news, they're on the brink of defaulting now because of their taxation policies.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:ireland = end of right wing economics by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ireland is discovering the dark side of a bribe based economy.

      Many states are also stuck in this same "incentive" sinkhole right now. The businesses that are there came thanks to bribes and now are threatening to leave for someone offering a better bribe.

    3. Re:ireland = end of right wing economics by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meh hardly. Ireland is for a lack of a better term fucked, because it taxes businesses little to not at all, but relies heavily on income and sales tax to fill it's coffers.

      Incorrect. Its in trouble because the government guaranteed huge amounts of speculator debt.

  3. Call their bluff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're actually that big and that well entrenched in Ireland, they won't just pick up their ball and go home that easily
    And if they're not, then who gives a fuck if they leave?

    1. Re:Call their bluff by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 3, Informative

      The people who work there?

      What about the other 6.2 million people who are actually being hurt by their lack of corporate taxes? They might be helping the citizens overall by letting the corporations leave.

  4. Fantastic opportunity for Ireland by Christian+Marks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only raising taxes in the United States were enough to get rid of J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. Ireland should jump at the chance to jettison these systemically dangerous financial institutions and replace them with sound banks of their own.

    1. Re:Fantastic opportunity for Ireland by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reasoning for the money-from-nothing argument is this:

      Bank opens. Alice deposits $1000. Bank loans Bob $250 of Alice's money. Alice still has $1000, Bob now has $250. As long as Alice never withdraws more than $750, the $250 the bank just created on paper still exists. When she tries to withdraw $751, the universe explodes. Luckily it's not just Alice, it's 10,000 Alices, and it's unlikely that they will all withdraw $751 at the same time, so the universe is safe. Sort of.

    2. Re:Fantastic opportunity for Ireland by Christian+Marks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's called systemic risk--something that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch didn't manage very well in the events leading to the crash of 2008. Ireland should raise its taxes closer to the EU average and say good riddance to BoA.

    3. Re:Fantastic opportunity for Ireland by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Informative

      yup, it's called fractional reserve banking. For X units of currency on the books under 'loans', bank has to hold only n% of X to be considered legit.
      That means that, assuming 10% of mandatory reserve, having 1 dollar in deposits allows for 10 dollars in loans. Nowadays the level of reserves around the world is much less than 10%, i'd even risk saying that it's less than 5%.

    4. Re:Fantastic opportunity for Ireland by Aldenissin · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that is just what they want you to think BadAnalogyGuy. Banks are FDIC insured with the main requirement being they keep 10% of deposits on hand. Example, if a postal worder deposits $1,000, then the bank can make me a loan of $900, correct? Not so fast...

          What they do is take $100 of that money, and loan someone $1000. And then take another $100 and loan someone else $1,000, etc. They can loan out $10,000 on your $1,000 deposit. Now this too is a simplification, but you get the idea.

          Now where did they money come from they loaned out? Why, "out of thin air" when they electronically deposited funds to the borrower's account. They need more cash on hand.. they call their "local" Federal Reserve bank and get their nice new crisp bills. Why, the Federal Reserve isn't even a government entity.. no more federal than say, Federal Express. Yet, we pay $0.60 on the dollar to them, for our government to print (borrow) money from them to pay the depositing postal worker.

        Interested in more info, please see these links:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528#
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450#

        On a side note (watch the first video), I live near Jekyll Island.

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  5. Zakaria: Something feels different this time. by theodp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fareed Zakaria: "While businesses have a way to navigate this new world of technological change and globalization, the ordinary American worker does not. Capital and technology are mobile; labor isn't...That makes it more difficult for the American middle-class worker to benefit from technology and global growth in the same way that companies do. At this point, economists will protest. Historically, free trade has been beneficial to rich and poor. By forcing you out of industries in which you are inefficient, trade makes you strengthen those industries in which you are world-class. That's right in theory, and it has been right in practice...And yet something feels different this time."

    1. Re:Zakaria: Something feels different this time. by Count+Fenring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is, largely, that corporations can have their cake, and eat it too. International law is set up so as to, for example, allow primarily U.S. companies like Google and Microsoft to incorporate in countries with much looser strictures on corporations, while still operating freely in the U.S.

    2. Re:Zakaria: Something feels different this time. by Flambergius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tend to agree that it's different this time, but not necessarily for the same reasons Zakaria is pointing to. (Didn't read the Time article, just what the parent was quoting.)

      Labour is less mobile than capital and technology, but that's not the problem. Labour's basic problem is that it's value is decreasing globally. You can't found a business on labour any more, because you can't produce stuff that people want for long. Our economy has become so productive and skill-based that labour can't keep up. Any skill that labour has will become redundant in a decade or so. This is a big problem, and as society and economy we really don't have any tools to cope with this.

      Another development that disadvantages labour is that people, especially young people, tend to value things that are post-scarcity. They don't want big house that they can fill with designer furniture, they want an address with a broadband connection that they can fill with music, comedy and games.

      Developing world labour has a competitive advantage right now, but that won't last for more than decade or two. They will caught in the same bind.

      I think we need seriously start to think how to bring about sustainable labour.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
  6. Business as usual by HW_Hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A corporation serves only its self interest - it cares not about the local area(s) it operates in as long as it can get some sort of special tax treatment etc. They want full use of roadways - airports - water -etc by paying nothing or as little as possible. Yes they hire locals who have to make up the "sweetened tax deals" out of their own earnings.

    I say let them move all their crap to crappy nations and see how that works out for them.

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
    1. Re:Business as usual by t2t10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google does care about the local area it operates in, the area that nurtured it and that it relied on for much of its talent: the Bay Area.

      Ireland, on the other hand, is just a place that offered itself cheaply a few years ago. If it's not cheap anymore, it's time to pack up and leave. It's unreasonable for Ireland to expect loyalty given how Google ended up there in the first place.

  7. Standard reporting income at lowest taxed country by Keruo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is using the standard "report income where tax is lowest" strategy in EU. Google has subsidiaries in multiple countries, and they can avoid paying more taxes by moving their income around as internal expenses.
    Subsidiaries appear to be barely breaking even, and mothercompany reports higher profit.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  8. Go ahead, move there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Enjoy state ownership/competition in China and gross incompetence in India that will cost you more in sales and long-term brand recognition than you'd ever pay in actualized taxes.

    Now Singapore is a relatively new and untested place for offshoring, which is a risk in itself.

    It's also worth noting, of course, that none of these places are in Europe, which was the whole point of opening offices in Ireland to begin with. All these companies already have a presence in Asia, so basically they are threatening to do something that they already did, and they want people to believe that they'll give up their regional presence in Europe in order to effectively gain nothing.

    It's a poor bluff.

  9. Google wants their cake ... by postmortem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. and to eat it at same time. It does not mind all governments to be near broke, as long as they have the money. Well it does not work that way, as it seems that all countries that give them safe tax haven will either fail or be unstable to do business in long term.

    Corporations should not be above people and government - as we can see they can abuse both to get what they want ($). It is okay to make money, don't get me wrong, but it appears in this process there's only one winner - Big Co, and Joe Smith ends up with the (tax) bill.

    How come we have situations where companies make insane amount of money and governments that allow them to be in market are near broke? Well answer is obvious - they abuse system, or lack of it.

    So if google wants to help - well it can pay their debt bill. Because they are partially responsible for it.

  10. Re:Watch out Delaware by Count+Fenring · · Score: 3, Informative

    I haven't specifically found what I'm talking about, but some of the various problems can be found outlined, with citations, here: http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

  11. Re:Watch out Delaware by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can find a good few of the studies that have been done catalogued here. The tl;dr version is that Wal-Mart does not pay well or offer benefits, so its workers generally require public assistance to make up the shortfall. Very little of the money it makes stays local (most of it, of course, is being shipped right off to China), and it's often structured or "incentivized" by the city to pay very little tax. This results in a group of people who are long-term dependent on public assistance (both those who work at Wal-Mart and those who do not, since Wal-Marts tend to drastically reduce the number of decent jobs in an area), so it's a massive drain but only a small boost to the local economy.

    I recall a story some time ago of how Wal-Marts actually had materials in some of their break rooms of how to apply for food stamps and the like. Admittedly, I can't find the cite for that, but it certainly illustrates the problem. People with a steady, full-time job shouldn't need food and medical aid.

    Granted, it's not only Wal-Mart. A lot of these "minimum wage" type places are similar leeches. They're basically taking the money states and cities are putting into food and medical aid and pocketing it, since they're not paying a wage anyone could realistically live on.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  12. Wrong by happyhamster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When a private corporation attempts to dictate to a sovereign state which policies the state should adopt, there is something terribly wrong with the world.

    1. Re:Wrong by Aquitaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish I had an 'overrated' mod point.

      'If you raise taxes, I will move' is hardly 'attempting to dictate.' It is the prerogative of any private person or entity to move for whatever reason they like, whether or not it is a good idea. This happens all the time -- look at the number of businesses moving out of California and to places like Texas.

      I'm astounded at the number of posts claiming that all of Ireland's problems are due primarily to its low corporate tax rate, as if those were the only two things that foreigners know about Ireland and so therefore one must have caused the other.

  13. Ireland just needs to boil the frog by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone knows why they are in Ireland to begin with. If they raise the rate just a little at a time, they will not feel the need to leave. Companies like that almost never follow through on threats like that just because they said they would. All they have to do is raise the rates just enough that they won't leave and also get enough of an increase to make a difference for Ireland.

  14. doubtful by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are actually two separate issues here.

    Issue 1.

    We're talking about American companies based in the U.S. that base their European headquarters in Ireland for the Tax breaks. All this occurs only because higher level executive can order some European executive to live in Ireland. Alcatel, Airbus, Nokia, etc. are not based in Ireland because Ireland is a shit hole.

    If Ireland raises their tax rates, but still keeps their taxes slightly lower than France, German, England, etc., all these American companies will keep their existing European corporate headquarters in Ireland. Ireland would need to raise their tax rates slight above some other European country before any corporate headquarters moves.

    Issue 2.

    All these American companies maintain European work forces in Ireland because the corporate tax rates are lower. If Ireland raised it's tax rates, they might consider moving some facilities to European countries with cheaper labor, like Spain, Poland, etc.

    We're not talking about a terribly fast process however for various reasons such as : The company benefiting from specific work forces being near their European corporate headquarters, which we've established won't move. Inability to simple move the people coupled with a lack of suitable workers in the new country. etc.

    So what is the real cost of raising taxes?

    Easy, Ireland will cease growth due to new foreign investment. American companies will not establish new divisions in an expensive shit hole like Ireland once the corporate taxes rise to European standards. Instead, they'll either look for lower wage locations in Eastern or Southern Europe, or preferably India and Singapore. Or they'll invest in more expensive but better educated workers in probably Germany, but maybe Scandinavia or France.

    In fact, almost any jobs that could be exported to India and Singapore will most likely be exported eventually anyways. So honestly all the other countries of Europe will benefit enormously from forcing Ireland to raise it's corporate tax rates. I'd argue this holds true even if this means the ECB must bail them out eventually.

    Ireland fucked up. Germany & co. now own their ass. Time to pay the piper guys. And one payment will be more American investment in Germany instead of Ireland.

    p.s. Don't forget that China isn't exactly an option. Google is currently only discussing their moral qualms with China. All the industrial espionage is however a major problem for *all* companies. You realize even being married to a chinese national precludes you from any kind of U.S. security clearance? It's entirely realistic that the U.S. could start banning software developed in China from any sort of sensitive industrial processes. etc. China isn't a good option, plus the Indians do software better.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  15. Enough already! by j_col · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in Ireland, and like many Irish people I'm sick about hearing about the economy. Things on the ground in Ireland are actually pretty good: people are still spending so VAT income is good, and our exports are doing well throughout this recession. It is widely predicted that we will have a medium-term export led recovery. The problem we have is that the financial markets are not prepared to lend to us at less that an exorbitant interest rate of ~8% due to the perception that our deficient is massive, which is an anomaly due to the EU forcing us to include our own internal bank bailout (NAMA) on the countries balance sheet. Basically our problems are at the macro level not at the micro level: lots of Irish companies including the one I work for are still doing very well in this tough global economy thank you. The only reason we have to go to EU & IMF for funding at 5% interest is because the markets are screwing us at 8%. It is the markets that are hurting us, not corporations like Google etc. which are creating a lot of wealth in the country with the high salaries they pay.

  16. Google's tax-avoidance scheme needs Ireland by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a huge issue for Google. But not because of Google's operations in Ireland. Google's whole tax-avoidance strategy, which gets Google's tax rate down to 2.4% (!), is based on a tax strategy which exploits Irish law:

    Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

    Google's income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.

    "It's remarkable that Google's effective rate is that low," said Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. "We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent."

    The Bloomberg article describes how this works. Google "licenses its advertising technology" to "Google Ireland Holdings", which owns "Google Ireland Limited". That unit sells 88% of Google's $12.5 billion in non-US advertising. Google Ireland Limited then pays royalties to Google Netherlands Holdings B.V. in Amsterdam (which, according to Bloomberg, is a dummy company with no employees), to get the benefit of a tax break for royalties paid between European Union countries. Then Google Netherlands Holdings B.V. pays royalties to Google Ireland Holdings (headquartered in Bermuda) $5.4 billion in "royalties". "You accumulate profits within Ireland, but then you get them out of the country relatively easily. And you do it by using Bermuda." After all that, the tax liability has been laundered out of existence.

    That's why Google is concerned about changes in Ireland's tax laws.