Hah! Now you're in for it. Like everybody else, I am frustrated about the crisis, and this gives me an excellent opportunity to take out my frustration by lecturing Ireland over a completely unrelated subject.
As an aside, Ireland has high income taxes, and low corporate taxes. To the point:
Ireland does not have low corporate taxes. What Ireland has, is lower corporate taxes than its competitors within the same, shared market. This is crucial. Without Irish access to EU markets, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Why does Ireland have lower taxes than the big EU countries:
There is small country X, ten inhabitants. There is big country Y, one hundred inhabitants. There are one hundred companies who have to choose where to settle.
Small country X has 25% corporate taxes. Big country Y has 25% corporate taxes. Now, like you suggested we do, they are competing on costs, quality of workforce, innovention etc.
Ten corporations in X pay 25% of 100 profit = 250. Ninety corporations in Y pay 25% of 100 = 2250.
But, the small country profits from lowering corporate taxes, the big one does not! Like this:
Small country X has 10% taxes. Big country Y 25%.
Thirty corporations in X pay 10% of 100 = 300. Seventy corporations in Y pay 25% of 100 = 1750.
However, the reverse:
Two corporations in X pay 25% of 100 = 50. Ninety-eight corporations in Y pay 20% of 100 = 1960.
So even a small decrease in taxes lowers overall tax income for big country Y, while even a very big decrease in taxes still raises income for small country X.
See? Bigger countries don't have an incentive to lower taxes within a shared market. Smaller countries, however, do. This is why in europe, the smaller the country, the more lax the tax regime. At the bottom, there are tax parasites like Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg. As of yet, Ireland is the biggest tax parasite economy. This was fine back when Ireland was a developing economy. It is getting a bit much now that Ireland is both the EU's second richest country after Luxembourg, and, to top it all off, still one of the main beeneficiaries of EU funds. It is time for Ireland to move away from the likes of the Channel Islands, Bermuda and the Caymans, and move towards countries like Denmark or Finland.
Big countries do, however, have an incentive not to open their market to small countries. This is the assymetry I mentioned earlier. If the UK, France or Germany really wanted to compete with Ireland, instead of subsidising its development, we do not enter a tax race, we simply pull the plug. If Britain raises import tariffs that nullify the difference in tax rates, then companies would flee Ireland for Britain faster than you can say 'How's business today, mr. Gates?'. Small countries outwit bigger ones with lower taxes, big countries outwit small countries by using their weight.
The opposite of taxes, subsidies, reverses the mechanism between the small and the big country.
Small country X has GDP of 10. Big country Y GDP of 100.
Subsidies of X are 20% of GDP. Total subsidy is 2. Subsidies of Y are a mere 10% of GDP. Total subsidy: 10.
Where do companies seeking subsidies set up shop now?
This is even funnier with developing countries. It is remarkably easy for the US, Europe, or Japan and China, to cripple the market of small developing countries.
These two, subsidies and access to the internal market, are the instruments the EU, including Ireland!, uses against the Third World. We do not use them against each other within the EU. However, small countries somehow feel justified in using the reverse mechanism, taxes, against the big countries. And then whine about 'imperialist tendencies' when the big countries complain.
I don't mind, but taxes ought to be an instrument to support developing regions. If Hungary needs lower taxes at the moment, then fine with me. Ireland, not so much anymore. Ireland made good use of it in the eighties and nineties. Now it should move beyond it.
If only, because what an internal market is not suppossed to do, is to create a fantastic instrument for international capital to pit governments against each other and see which one will bend over the furthest.
As a fun fact, did you know that Ireland at one point had two tax regimes? One for Irish companies, and one, with lower taxes, for non-Irish companies. This was abolished after the EU kindly explained to Ireland that this was perhaps pushing it a bit much.
As for practical purposes, Ireland's lax tax regime has been very succesful in luring non-EU, especially American, companies to operate their European business from Ireland. One could say that the Americans enjoy near tax exempt status in Europe to stimulate the Irish economy. To put it differently, whenever I push the 'on' button on my computer, I pay Ireland to subsidise Bill Gates.
The main losers are however the British. American companies tend to prefer either Britain or Ireland, and Ireland simply out-taxes Britain. It is a massive transfer of wealth from Britain to Ireland.
~~~~~~
The above does not have anything directly to do with the current crisis. There may be a more indirect connection:
I think Ireland understands perfectly well that it benefits from the EU's current limbo. Stuck halfway in between. A functioning internal market without political integration and tax harmonisation. I think this mindset, this readiness to employ governmental measures to support the Irish economy at the expense of the other EU members, might have been a factor in Ireland's decision to unilaterally guarantee bank accounts.

Bookmarks