However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
For reference, multinationals (almost entirely US-based) typically use the “Green Jersey” tax evasion tactic, utilising Ireland and Jersey/Cayman, etc to avoid paying taxes in the US.
These tax avoidance techniques result in effective tax rates of ~0-2.5% https://t.co/R433UuKInX
Multinationals played a crucial role in lifting Ireland out of the last recession and they will again as we rebuild our economy after Covid.\xa0What does SF want to do? Tax them.\xa0https://t.co/B7n8esbzPN
— Leo Varadkar (@LeoVaradkar) October 11, 2020
However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
In reality, largest threat is from US and EU tax reform. Take Biden’s tax reform proposals, which targets US MNC offshoring/“GILTI” profits
I would wager targeting these techniques is popular on both sides of the isle in America.
Which coincidentally, FG also views as a good thing. https://t.co/jvi5hSGEd1
Multinationals already pay 79% of all corporation tax while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why do SF want to drive them out of Ireland? https://t.co/odmHszBgK7
— Neale Richmond (@nealerichmond) October 11, 2020
80% of corporate taxes, 50% of income taxes, 1/4 of private sector employment.
Maybe, except that portion is also hugely subsidised via the tax system. Not only their expenditures, but foreign employees (SARP) too
The moment those tax advantages go away, so do those offices/jobs
Then US MNCs start to shift their IP back to the US, which eliminates the cost advantages to having Irish offices/employees. Apple/MFST have 100k employees, one office of 3k is nothing
We’ve spent 30 years developing the most sophisticated tax avoidance system on Earth, and ignored the domestic econ
More from Economy
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
On Jan 6, 2021, the always stellar Mr @deepakshenoy tweeted, this:
https://t.co/fa3GX9VnW0
Innocuous 1 sentence, but its a full economic theory at play.
Let me break it down for you. (1/n)
On September 30, 2020, I wrote an article for @CFASocietyIndia where I explained that RBI is all set to lose its ability to set interest rates if it continues to fiddle with the exchange rate (2/n)
What do I mean, "fiddle with the exchange rate"?
In essence, if RBI opts and continues to manage exchange rate, then that is "fiddling with the exchange rate"
RBI has done that in the past and has restarted it in 2020 - very explicitly. (3/n)
First in March 2020, it opened a Dollar/INR swap of $2B with far leg to be unwound in September 2020.
Implying INR will be bought from the open markets in order to prevent INR from falling vis a vis USD (4/n)
The Second aspect is now, that dollar inflow is happening, and the forex reserves swelled -> implying the rupee is appreciating, RBI again intervened from September, by selling INR in spot markets. (5/n)
https://t.co/9kpWP7ovyM
https://t.co/fa3GX9VnW0
Innocuous 1 sentence, but its a full economic theory at play.
Let me break it down for you. (1/n)
91 day TBills at 3.03%. Interest rates are even lower than RBI has them.
— Deepak Shenoy (@deepakshenoy) January 6, 2021
On September 30, 2020, I wrote an article for @CFASocietyIndia where I explained that RBI is all set to lose its ability to set interest rates if it continues to fiddle with the exchange rate (2/n)
What do I mean, "fiddle with the exchange rate"?
In essence, if RBI opts and continues to manage exchange rate, then that is "fiddling with the exchange rate"
RBI has done that in the past and has restarted it in 2020 - very explicitly. (3/n)
First in March 2020, it opened a Dollar/INR swap of $2B with far leg to be unwound in September 2020.
Implying INR will be bought from the open markets in order to prevent INR from falling vis a vis USD (4/n)
The Second aspect is now, that dollar inflow is happening, and the forex reserves swelled -> implying the rupee is appreciating, RBI again intervened from September, by selling INR in spot markets. (5/n)
https://t.co/9kpWP7ovyM
Let's discuss how little you actually understand about economics and energy.
The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.
In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:
Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.
You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?
"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"
Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?
Well that's exactly what some have done.
The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.
Let's discuss the environmental cost of bitcoin. Because despite all the push for sustainable and green investment in the tech sector, there's a giant smoldering Chernobyl sitting at the heart of Silicon Valley which a lot of investors would prefer you remain quiet about. \U0001f9f5 (1/)
— Stephen Diehl (@smdiehl) January 17, 2021
In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:
Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.
You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?
"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"
Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?
Well that's exactly what some have done.
