|
waitwhatno posted:CSU(hillbilly party; the party that has been ruling the state of Bavaria for all of its history) demands for Turkey to be declared a secure state, before any visa-free travel agreement can take place. They don't want any Turkish/Kurdish tourist to come here and apply for asylum from the Erdogan regime. Why would a Turkish tourist need to request asylum in Germany while the Ankara agreement already gives him extensive freedom of movement with regards to the EU? 
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:At this point the most important question is probably which bubble is Mario fueling and how can you profit from its burst. For Germany at least, it's probably real estate. LemonDrizzle posted:Coverage of Draghi's expanded QE program in the German press: Double-digits "inflation" for assets to put your savings in really screw over the younger generation and will probably hasten the decline of the social security systems because it makes them unable to provision for retirement effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 17:45
|
|
!!!!Our savings!!!!
|
Riso posted:One could argue the Dutch are already the western moat so there's no need to build one there. Never liked Niederkassel anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Germany didn't have a housing bubble. Only because the bubble is still bubbling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's specifically that tampons are more expensive because they're legally classed as a 'luxury' item, which anyone who's ever spoken to someone on their period would know is patronising bullshit. Cameron got a lot of grief over this considering our economy's in the shitter and the price of something needed regularly matters. Is this a classification as a luxury by the EU or by the UK?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:EU, apparently. I'd always assumed it was a UK thing until this now years-long complaint. And where I might find this EU classification? Because there is no distinction regarding luxury items in directive 2006/112/EC and from what I gathered during my last cup of coffee, zero-rates for indirect taxes predate UK entry into the EU. The latter being grandfathered into the VAT regime post-EU membership. Looks more likely that it is an UK classification that Cameron blames on the EU in order to rally up support back on Chav Island. Oh, and just in case, even your state-controlled broadcasting accidentally reveals that it is in fact a classification amde by the UK in the full knowledge that later revisions were generally not possible. 
Randler fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Generally, you can't deduct input VAT as far as they relate to VAT exempt outputs. Maybe that's where they're coming from?  Edit: For clarification, it makes a different whether a transaction is taxable and but tax-exempt, or whether it is taxable and not tax-exempt but taxed at the historical zero-rate. Randler fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
A manufacturer (M) makes tampons. For one shipment of tampons he requires supplies, which he purchases from his supplier (S) for 500 CU before tax. M then takes these supplies and fashions them into one shipment of tampons. He then this one shipment of tampons to his buyer (B). To determine the sales price before tax M looks at the costs for the materials he used an adds a 10 percent charge for labour costs and his profit margin. The applicable general VAT rate is 20 percent unless stated otherwise. Variant A: Tampon are VAT taxable, non-exempt and taxed at a zero-rate M has an order for another shipment of tampons. He calls S and orders the necessary supplies. S invoices M for a total of 600 CU (500 CU net price supplies, 100 CU VAT). M pays S 600 CU in cash. M's accountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 CU cash + 500 CU goods + 100 CU Input VAT reimbursement claims As the changes in assets equal out to 0, M does not run a profit or loss from this transaction. M now does his manufacturing magic and delivers one tampon shipment to B. M invocies B for a total of 550 CU (550 CU for the tampon shipment (goods + 10 %), 0 CU for VAT, due to zero-rate) M's acountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 500 CU goods (the goods originally recognized are now gone) + 550 CU Accounts Receivable As the changes in assets equal out to +50, M has now run a profit of 50 CU from his sale of the tampon shipment. Variant B: Tampon are VAT taxable but tax-exempt M has an order for another shipment of tampons. He calls S and orders the necessary supplies. S invoices M for 600 CU (500 CU net price supplies, 100 CU VAT) M pays S 600 CU in cash. M's accountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 CU cash + 0 CU input VAT reimbursement claim (no deduction of input VAT used for tax-exempt outputs) + 600 goods (Purchased goods to be recognized at purchase price, where VAT has to be included if it's non-deductible) As the changes in assets equal out to 0, M has not run a profit or loss from this transaction. M does his manufacturing magic. M now does his manufacturing magic and delivers one tampon shipment to B. M invoices B for a total of 550 CU, because he wants to keep his prices steady and Cameron promised him to watch out for him. M's accountant opens his liquor cabinet and recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 goods ((the goods originally recognized are now gone) + 550 CU accounts receivable As the changes in assets come out at ./. 50, M has now incurred a loss of 50 CU from the sale of this tampon shipments. His wife will leave him and he will become a destitute beggar on the streets of London. Edit: Or I guess he might raise his price to 650, which leaves him with a 50 CU profit but lowers his relative margin. Randler fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I always thought that you must count your VAT claims against your own VAT debts, I didn't know that you can just get your claims directly from the government, in a laundry bag with a euro sign on it. I took some liberties to make the post shorter and easier to understand. You're correct in that you will have to balance out your input VAT with your output VAT and only the remaining balance is a claim or a liability that will actually result in cash transfers. You can, however, get money back from the tax administration if your input VAT is higher than your output VAT. Which is part of the reason why you have to recognize input VAT separately from output VAT instead of just adjusting one position.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
There also have been two recent ECHR decisions, which are relevant to immigration and freedom of movement talk about Europe. [url="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161061#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-161061%22]}"]PAJIĆ v. CROATIA[/url] Basically: If you allow foreign spouses easier immigration, this benefit has to be extended to same sex spouses. [url="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161054#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-161054%22]}"]GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS[/url] Basically: Dutch law restricting certain kinds of people (e.g. poors) from moving into certain neighbourhoods is reconcilable with freedom of movement (Convention Variant).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Haha, of course it bloody was. There's no level of depravity our leaders won't sink to. Don't forget that changing tampon VAT rate from 5% to zero-rate increases from producer to retailer while keeping end prices at the same level. How are the chances Osborne has been visited by some nice industry lobbyists as well?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Wait, 140 years?! That's fricking insane. Does that mean that you pay almost nothing to equity and payments are mostly interest (which you can deduce from your taxes)? Private interest expenses lower the tax base in Sweden? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Yes, there are a few countries where you can deduce interest rate payments for your first home from your taxes, e.g. Sweden, the US, the Netherlands. I really hope somebody in Brussels tries to get that poo poo abolished as a state aid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
You can be a despotic dictator while still being way below the treshold for behaviour that would make your citizens eglible for asylum in the EU, so it's not that surprising of an opinion. Remember that most EU countries traditionally have a very high tolerance of what is bad-but-not-asylum-causing behaviour of governments.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:12
|
|
"Welp, guess we have to send them back to a despotic dictator. Sorry guys"
|
Tesseraction posted:Britain has similar - five weeks paid vacation, 9 months maternity leave, free school meals for poorer children. This is pretty standard around western/northern Europe as far as I'm aware. It is. In fact, most of the labour-related stuff like hours per day, annual leave and maternity leave are also harmonized by EU directives that set minimum standards.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:lol if you think the majority of the immigrant labor force that sustains the economy of north an central europe has 50% of those labor protections So those EU directives for, e.g. the organisation of working time or annual leave only apply to the citizens of those countries and not immigrants?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:His point is that the French should lay down and take the boots because the union isn't a majority of the country. They are only 1%, so they should kiss the arse of the important 1%. Everything not passed by a 100 percent vote is undemocratic. Got it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Something passed with 0% of the vote is, actually, undemocratic. I do not consider the French vote of confidence mechanics to result in 0 percent votes. But that is probably minority position in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:I'm thinking more of the Dutch model monarchy, where the king/queen annually reminds us all that we're all Dutch, regardless of skin colour or parentage, and that we should treat each other with respect. Particularly because it really pisses off Wilders (the politican, not the poster), since he can't pick a fight with the monarch and expect to win. Also, because the monarchy's a great excuse for a yearly party. People who think the heritage should make them rule over others are not really convincing saying we are all the same, though. There needs to be a Dutch Cromwell.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:But applicable human rights are a council of Europe product not eu 😱 Technically EU membership amplifies the effect of the ECHR since the Lisbon treaty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Article 6 para 3 TEU
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:hm true, but udner the same technical reasoning, do you believe this adds anything seeing as how britain is signatory to the echr alreayd EU primary law beats national law. ECHR only trumps national law if the country in question says their implementation trumps other national law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That's not exactly true. Both are international law according to British legal tradition and thus both are only applicable (according to the UK) insofar as national law implements it. Both were (via the European Communities Act or Human Rights Act) and both can be cancelled. It's just that the European Court of Justice is a bit more cavalier in reasserting the primacy of EU law, but it's not like its status is any different from the ECHR's. I was basing my post on the view of the European Union not how England considers those respective treaties to translate in domestica practise. Also, just to so we're on the same page, my comment about European Law trumping national law was in regards to the primary EU law (i.e. the treaties themselves) and not secondary EU law like directives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Shazback posted:My understanding was that the double irish and dutch sandwich tax avoidance schemes were only possible due to the EU's free movement of capital rules and the interest & royalties directive that explicitly stops double taxation of royalties in favour of taxation only of the final right-holders of the IP. Actually, tax avoidance models like the Irish and Dutch sandwich rely less on double taxation treaties or EU directives and more on the governments in the respective countries (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands) deliberately enabling such models in order to lure businesses to them and get revenue as a result of the employees of those businesses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The one about Schauble is semi-true - he petulantly said we'd be blocked from the Euro Economic Area if we displeased him by leaving. Considering England is constantly threatening the EU with leaving or blocking if they don't get special privileges, I think it is appropriate to use pressure against the English in this context.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Anybody who owns pounds or gets paid in pounds has been materially hurt by this vote. Not yet. Most people with own pounds or get paid in pounds will only be materially hurt by the exchange rate drop from the Brexit if the drop persists and only at that level.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:French has historical precedent as an international diplomatic language, and it still is to some extent. It's also the working language at the ECJ.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Oh thank god the 2008 financial crisis didn't actually happen. 2008 the losses in valuation were actually realized (almost entirely and almost all at once) while the changes in the pound's exchange rate mostly haven't yet, so there is room for them to bounce back up and mitigate the damage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Riso posted:But then the nameless unaccountable bureaucrats lose power. And you get into the whole problem of unequal representation of people by each MEP Ah yes, those nameless unaccountable bureaucrats in the Council.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:As I understand it, fiscal transfers wouldn't actually help here - the Italian government could swing a bailout with its own resources if it needed to. The problem is that the rules of the European banking union dictate that failing banks cannot be propped up with taxpayers' money unless investors and depositors are bailed in first, which means that the banks' bondholders and retail investors (read: Joe Schmo and his current account) would be the first to lose out. That doesn't sound too bad considering that Joe Schmo's current account is covered by FITD while bondholders should always be at the end of the creditor line.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
If you have 50k in bank bonds, you're not really the kind of guy that I think of when talking about "Small time investments that need to be protected".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
cool and good posted:Wait the US is against the inquiry into Ireland? That's bizarre as hell, it's in their interest for these arrangements to be shut down. The United States basically do not tax profits that are generated outside of America. That was a deliberate decision in order to make the expansion of US business to foreign markets cheaper. (Just like the TP tax rulings and Dutch-Irish sandvich constructs were deliberate design decisions by the countries involved in order to lure companies there.) The United States do not want American companies to have to pay those taxes retroactively, because that means more expenses for the American companies. If any taxes have to be paid back, America would prefer to get that money itself either upon repatriation or now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The US secretary of the treasury openly accused the EC of disproportionately targeting American firms in a letter to Juncker in February While that is true, but is still comically missing the point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What is the point then? That the various different tax avoidance approaches the EU is taking a closer look at are designed for American companies, so it's not surprising that American companies are disproportionaly targetted during the investigations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Shazback posted:TBF I find it amusing that it's the company that's fined, not the country, when there are cases of state aid. The company isn't getting fined. Ireland is required to take back the state aid it gives and thereby remove the market alteration they have committed. Apple is not getting punished, they're merely put in the situation they'd be in if Ireland had applied the law correctly. If Apple were to get punished, they'd have to pay those 13 B€ backtaxes (incl. interest) and then something extra.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
I still get incredibly salty that these structures are referred to as tax loopholes. Loopholes are usually something that is used in an unexpected or ambivalent way. These tax rules, however, were delibarately designed by the law makers in the respective countries in order to look more attractive to multi national corporates.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The EU did not fine Apple nor Ireland, though. So it's mere political strongmanship and not a retribution.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Looking at nominal tax rates without taking into account how tax base is determined is not really a useful metric. Effective tax rate would be more interesting, as would a closer look at the interplay between corporations and corporate dividend taxation. Pulling a Sanders and just stating "But we had a 91% tax rate!" is about as useful as saying, e.g. that Germany only has a 15% corporate income tax rate, when discussing fairness in taxation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Huh? Our employees wanted to maintain their weekly income so wanted to get their normal weekly hours by working Saturday to make up for the national holiday. So your employees are paid hourly and are usually scheduled to work on Mondays except when Mondays are holidays? Because otherwise I don't see why your employees would make less in a week with a holiday.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Correct. Are they also required to work a certain amount of hours per week or can they decide how many hours they work per week on their own?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 13:06
|
|