(There's lots of stuff that's not taxed. Eg not a lot of people complain about not taxing capital gains of home owner/occupiers.)
(There's lots of stuff that's not taxed. Eg not a lot of people complain about not taxing capital gains of home owner/occupiers.)
If you want to completely reform our taxation system, sure, whatever. But that doesn't impact Apple's liability under the current one.
Also, because this is a valid and consenting agreement between Apple and Ireland, two consenting adults.
People making profit isn't something we need to discourage.
How about taxing CO2 emissions and eg alcohol consumption instead? (Something we can live with less off.)
And the old classic: put most of the tax burden on unimproved land value. Land's supply is fixed, so there's no economic impact at all.
> People making profit isn't something we need to discourage.
Who is discouraging it?
But fair point. And because the bigger players who can hire expensive accountants can always mask their profits, we shouldn't tax profits. It's too malleable. Hey, even VAT is a better tax.
Income taxes or even refunds or a basic income can fix that up.
VAT is mostly flat.
(I am in favour of taxing land by value for most or even all government expenditure. That's highly progressive, impossible to evade, and does not distort the economy at all: land's supply is fixed.)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
It's pretty intriguing, and doesn't align very well with our intuition. As far as I can tell, your hypothesis about the impact of VAT is not really supported by that.
Put another way, why should Irish businesses and consumers pay increased VAT and a new land tax so that Apple's profits can be tax free?