Categories Economy
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Don't pay R2000 to register your small business. It is only R175 to do it yourself.
Easy as ABC. How to do it.
[THREAD]⚠️
#LockdownLevel3
#Bushiri
#RamaphosaChallenge
Go online to the website of CIPC and register a new company for R175, registration is R125 and the name is R50.
Go to https://t.co/RJcCHvdgCl which is the easiest website vision for CIPC.
Easy as ABC. How to do it.
[THREAD]⚠️
#LockdownLevel3
#Bushiri
#RamaphosaChallenge
Go online to the website of CIPC and register a new company for R175, registration is R125 and the name is R50.
Go to https://t.co/RJcCHvdgCl which is the easiest website vision for CIPC.
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
MNCs have been a bright spot in a faltering domestic economy during Covid lockdowns. They’ve provided a much-needed, reliable source of inflows as other streams have dried up.
However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
Leo and his ilk will try to lightswitch-brain you into thinking that raising taxes on MNCs will drive them away. You should be grateful!
In reality, largest threat is from US and EU tax reform. Take Biden’s tax reform proposals, which targets US MNC offshoring/“GILTI” profits
GILTI, or Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income utilities “Base Erosion” or “BEPS” to lower the taxable profit in the United States by shifting ownership of US IP into Irish tax jurisdictions.
I would wager targeting these techniques is popular on both sides of the isle in America.
This represents a significant geo-political and economic risk for Ireland. At any moment, any change, whether intentional or accidental can change the incentive structures for US MNCs, resulting in these companies pulling billions of IP from Ireland over night.
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
MNCs have been a bright spot in a faltering domestic economy during Covid lockdowns. They’ve provided a much-needed, reliable source of inflows as other streams have dried up.
However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
Leo and his ilk will try to lightswitch-brain you into thinking that raising taxes on MNCs will drive them away. You should be grateful!
In reality, largest threat is from US and EU tax reform. Take Biden’s tax reform proposals, which targets US MNC offshoring/“GILTI” profits
GILTI, or Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income utilities “Base Erosion” or “BEPS” to lower the taxable profit in the United States by shifting ownership of US IP into Irish tax jurisdictions.
I would wager targeting these techniques is popular on both sides of the isle in America.
This represents a significant geo-political and economic risk for Ireland. At any moment, any change, whether intentional or accidental can change the incentive structures for US MNCs, resulting in these companies pulling billions of IP from Ireland over night.
Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
V good points but overall I stick with the conclusion that this is a v risky deal.
— Alan Beattie (@alanbeattie) January 5, 2021
1. It\u2019s overstating it to say that COM now has final say over investment. FDI screening remains a MS competency. COM has had to take a v secondary supporting role over Huawei and 5G.
1/n https://t.co/RVg2jnoFgK
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
Community Capitalism
I wanted to wrap up the year by writing about something I have been thinking about for the last few months:
Who owns the best businesses in the world?
I am trying to draw a line from inherited wealth of feudal lords to community-owned services with tokens.
The last 1,000 years can be roughly split into two 500-year chunks: feudalism & capitalism. Feudal lords controlled all of the land, farms, buildings and capital. This was passed down inside families and never distributed to the workers.
Capitalism totally changed that.
Risk, reward and ruin were separated when joint-stock companies became more common. The prerequisite for successful entrepreneurship shifted from inheritance to initiative.
People without wealth could access it and start new ventures.
Founders started founding new companies.
Equity compensation kicked off in the 1950s but it really went into overdrive when it was mixed with high-growth technology companies backed with high-risk equity bets. Silicon Valley perfected the art. Employees at many of the most successful technology companies became owners.
The SEC did two huge things this year. They raised the crowdfunding limit to $5m and introduced a proposal to allow gig workers to receive stock.
I predict that we will see competitors to Airbnb, Uber and DoorDash all take advantage of this
I wanted to wrap up the year by writing about something I have been thinking about for the last few months:
Who owns the best businesses in the world?
I am trying to draw a line from inherited wealth of feudal lords to community-owned services with tokens.
The last 1,000 years can be roughly split into two 500-year chunks: feudalism & capitalism. Feudal lords controlled all of the land, farms, buildings and capital. This was passed down inside families and never distributed to the workers.
Capitalism totally changed that.
Risk, reward and ruin were separated when joint-stock companies became more common. The prerequisite for successful entrepreneurship shifted from inheritance to initiative.
People without wealth could access it and start new ventures.
Founders started founding new companies.
Equity compensation kicked off in the 1950s but it really went into overdrive when it was mixed with high-growth technology companies backed with high-risk equity bets. Silicon Valley perfected the art. Employees at many of the most successful technology companies became owners.
The SEC did two huge things this year. They raised the crowdfunding limit to $5m and introduced a proposal to allow gig workers to receive stock.
I predict that we will see competitors to Airbnb, Uber and DoorDash all take advantage of this
SEC: proposed pilot program to allow tech companies to pay gig workers up to 15% of their annual compensation in equity rather than cash https://t.co/EJjLWQatcr
— Jesse Walden (@jessewldn) November 24, 2020
One of Germany’s most prominent economists, Hans-Werner Sinn, warns of hyperinflation; he links it directly to Hitler's rise to power. A distortion of history: the rise of the Nazis was preceded by deflation, exacerbated by fiscal austerity. Thread /1
https://t.co/hmAz0tsyuv
Sinn says hyperinflation after WW1 impoverished the German middle class in the Weimar Republic: "Ten years later they elected Adolf Hitler as Reich Chancellor." Policy recommendation today against hyperinflation: "tighter budget constraints" /2
https://t.co/ydfxgiCpkD
Sinn thus feeds a widespread misinterpretation. Mass poverty when the Nazis came to power in 1933 was not the result of hyperinflation, which at that time was ten years in the past; it was primarily a consequence of mass unemployment due to the recession in the early 1930s. /3
The Nazis had come to power after years of deflation - i.e. falling prices. From 1930 onwards, Reich Chancellor Brüning used emergency decrees to bring about tax increases and drastic state spending cuts that pierced the social safety net. /4
Austerity policies increased unemployment, led to social suffering and unrest. Hitler realised by the end of 1931 at the latest that Brüning's austerity policy would "help his party to victory and thus end the illusions of the present system." /5
https://t.co/yRN6hseciX
https://t.co/hmAz0tsyuv
Sinn says hyperinflation after WW1 impoverished the German middle class in the Weimar Republic: "Ten years later they elected Adolf Hitler as Reich Chancellor." Policy recommendation today against hyperinflation: "tighter budget constraints" /2
https://t.co/ydfxgiCpkD
Sinn thus feeds a widespread misinterpretation. Mass poverty when the Nazis came to power in 1933 was not the result of hyperinflation, which at that time was ten years in the past; it was primarily a consequence of mass unemployment due to the recession in the early 1930s. /3
The Nazis had come to power after years of deflation - i.e. falling prices. From 1930 onwards, Reich Chancellor Brüning used emergency decrees to bring about tax increases and drastic state spending cuts that pierced the social safety net. /4
Austerity policies increased unemployment, led to social suffering and unrest. Hitler realised by the end of 1931 at the latest that Brüning's austerity policy would "help his party to victory and thus end the illusions of the present system." /5
https://t.co/yRN6hseciX
