G7 taxation proposals vs zero-10

[SleepyJoe]

Safety is one that research has I think found important

Accessibility is another

Ditto access to 'world class shopping in Liverpool 1' & several large cities within 25 minutes flying time?

The great outdoors for perhaps back office people growing a little older & starting families

Specialist professional advice services for tech businesses immediately on hand

If MU could generate renewable energy at highly affordable prices might be another if it were achievable

[finlo]

7 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

If MU could generate renewable energy at highly affordable prices might be another if it were achievable

LOL😅

[code99]

It seems to me that people are confusing three different things:

1. Compliance with global financial reporting requirements such as FATCA, BEPS;

2. National/ local company tax rates;

3. The proposed OECD/ Biden initiative, which will probably set corporate tax rates at 15%.

The Biden proposal (3) has a broad support from the OECD and will likely be concluded at the G7 June 4 - 5 meeting in London. There is still ongoing discussion on subjects such as how to tax America’s tech giants. One of the primary objectives behind this proposal is to dis-incentivise large multinational corporations from shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Unsurprisingly, countries like Ireland are not keen to raise corporate tax rate from their current rate of 12.5% to the proposed 15% rate, as this change would reduce their current ‘competitive advantage’ over other jurisdictions, which are also trying to attract multinationals to their shores.

As far as the IOM is concerned, it looks like a change to a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% would mainly impact CSPs. It is unclear how much damage would be done, mainly becasue it is unclear how many subsidiaries of large multinationals are actually registered here as their clients.

From an IOM perspective, what is much more concerning, is the question of what a move to higher global tax rates might do to the EU’s criteria for classifying ‘blacklist’ countries. Later this year the EU will finalise the Isle of Man’s white/grey/black list status. Given the near universal endorsement of the Biden/OECD corporate proposal, it is entirely possible that when they make this decision they will use only one simple criteria – whether or not the country has 0% company tax rate (2).

Should the EU ignore our compliance with all of the other international reporting criteria e.g. FATCA, BEPS etc.(1) and decide on the basis of our 0%/10%/20% company tax policy (2) to blacklist us, then we will have problems. E.g., we could be left with dodgy establishments and companies who prize ‘tax effectiveness’ above everything else.  

Let’s not forget that in the recent past the UK was part of the EU and was therefore in a position to protect its dependencies. As the UK’s protection has now gone, we are more exposed than we were before.

Thank you, Brexit - not 

[doc.fixit]

Just greed, it continues to perplex me what the point is of making more and more money. I believe that any individual who has over a million pounds sterling in cash or assets is just plain greedy. Plain old happiness can be achieved on far less IMO.

Throw your brickbats greedy folk, I'm content and happy with what I've got and achieved in the last 70 + years and I'm not financially worth anywhere near a million pounds.............so there!

[GD4ELI]

1 minute ago, doc.fixit said:

Just greed, it continues to perplex me what the point is of making more and more money. I believe that any individual who has over a million pounds sterling in cash or assets is just plain greedy. Plain old happiness can be achieved on far less IMO.

Throw your brickbats greedy folk, I'm content and happy with what I've got and achieved in the last 70 + years and I'm not financially worth anywhere near a million pounds.............so there!

A million quid doesn't buy much down round here.

I have neighbours who own(ed) their own company or are major rock stars - for different reasons both are very wealthy and are both generous supporters of charities.

[doc.fixit]

Good for them but why do they deserve or need such large amounts of boodle? It's easy to fund charities if you have millions 'cos you still have vast amounts of reserves even after. I believe the Widow's Mite parable is apposite. Just the same as the decision makers in govts. make decisions that will hurt the already  struggling whilst the decision makers will still have a roof and food and more than likely will make even more loot. Ref. the amount of new millionaires during the pandemic and the amount of luxury car makers who have sold more cars than ever before.

[GD4ELI]

18 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

Good for them but why do they deserve or need such large amounts of boodle? It's easy to fund charities if you have millions 'cos you still have vast amounts of reserves even after. I believe the Widow's Mite parable is apposite. Just the same as the decision makers in govts. make decisions that will hurt the already  struggling whilst the decision makers will still have a roof and food and more than likely will make even more loot. Ref. the amount of new millionaires during the pandemic and the amount of luxury car makers who have sold more cars than ever before.

Well,

One guy became a multi-millionaire after selling and retiring here, the other has sold in excess of 90 million studio albums with his band and has spent a *lot* of money locally.

Both have nice, very nice houses. One has a gorgeous boat. Both have worked their tails off.

[doc.fixit]

There you go, so have many, many others including me. My life has enabled thousands of special needs folk to lead satisfying lives and I'm happy with my lot so please explain how the folk you talk about are worth so much more than a frontline nurse or a dustbin man or a paramedic or a dinner lady or a bus driver or all those billions of folk who keep the real world running and enable the elite, the greedy and the  establishment to live their rapacious lives with fresh water, electricity, rubbish disposal, sewage, street lighting, and on and on. The hidden heroes of society who on the whole are taken for granted or actively despised by the triumverate I have described.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, doc.fixit said:

Good for them but why do they deserve or need such large amounts of boodle? It's easy to fund charities if you have millions 'cos you still have vast amounts of reserves even after. I believe the Widow's Mite parable is apposite. Just the same as the decision makers in govts. make decisions that will hurt the already  struggling whilst the decision makers will still have a roof and food and more than likely will make even more loot. Ref. the amount of new millionaires during the pandemic and the amount of luxury car makers who have sold more cars than ever before.

Who decides what people "deserve "?

[doc.fixit]

Dunno.

[Banker]

Jersey concerned over proposals as well, probably impact them more 

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/06/04/blacklist-threat-as-nations-consider-minimum-corporation-tax/

 

[Flyingfemme]

The problem with expecting a coherent global approach to taxing companies is that there are two basically different approaches and each has their adherents...The US likes the "tax companies where they belong" approach - hence they get to tax the really big tech giants because they "belong" in the USA. Many other places favour the "tax companies where they make the profits" approach - the EU is heavily on this side because their populations contribute to the profits of said tech giants but they get little, or no. tax from them. Both sets of rules suffer in the 21st century because people, and businesses, are now more mobile than ever before and many of the less tangible "products" can be delivered remotely - thus allowing corporations to play jurisdictions off against each other and not pay taxes unless, and until, they release these profits (often not then either). There are also so many allowances, loopholes and caveats that the richer taxpayers can afford to exploit schemes to save tax where the man in the street cannot.

The sensible option is to scrap corporate taxes and concentrate on spending taxes - these are much more difficult to evade. The Isle of Man had a great idea with the attribution regime and it would not be at all difficult for all governments to get together and say, no more corporation tax - as long as you distribute X% of your audited profits every year. These would then be taxed in the hands of the owners (shareholders) at normal income rates. If you want a company to pay tax where you live, just buy their shares.....

[pongo]

41 minutes ago, Flyingfemme said:

The sensible option is to scrap corporate taxes and concentrate on spending taxes - these are much more difficult to evade. The Isle of Man had a great idea with the attribution regime and it would not be at all difficult for all governments to get together and say, no more corporation tax - as long as you distribute X% of your audited profits every year. These would then be taxed in the hands of the owners (shareholders) at normal income rates. If you want a company to pay tax where you live, just buy their shares.....

This makes less and less sense in an era when companies employ ever fewer people. And it concentrates wealth only in the hands of shareholders.

[pongo]

Also where do you tax spend when a company in one jurisdiction is the customer of a company in another jurisdiction?

[Flyingfemme]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

Also where do you tax spend when a company in one jurisdiction is the customer of a company in another jurisdiction?

As we do now - the seller charges VAT (or equivalent). But companies are not the subject of spending taxation; only the end consumer pays (as is always the case). All this smoke and mirrors, trying to persuade the man in the street that "somebody else" is paying the tax is just pointless!