• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Disruptive Reforms - Section 4?



Outlander

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
593
They can use the online trading voucher to offset the cost of the Coughlan IP tax.
 

The Old Woman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,497
Small business in ireland has failed to recognise the need to "come on line" This section 4 is the governments attempt to increase the numbers of domestic Irish businesses on line.

If you look at the report you see that the vast majority of each section is being handled by one, two or three departments eg DJEI, IDA, etc. Unfortunately like a lot of things departments handle they attempt to "claim" to identify a problem and seek what they percieve as the quickest and most obvious solution to that problem - this generally involves giving away taxpayers money.

It is pointless giving money to developing irish internet businesses unless it is uniquely irish only produce - other irish businesses have to compete with purchasing product, and having competing in a "global market"

Much of the product that finds its way into our homes through the internet comes from the UK - in the UK many businesses own "the rights" to supply for both Ireland and the UK. For a long number of years some business people in ireland have been complaining that this brand ownership along with the vat grouping directive and incentatives that the State grants these out-side multi nationals have been destablizing core taxation here. Unfortunatelly our civil service is not for looking at this. as a consequence on branded product ireland is simply unable to compete. Much of this money goes out of the country.

Well done the Revenue and its vat grouping directive on this appalling lost to the Irish exchequer.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Small business in ireland has failed to recognise the need to "come on line" This section 4 is the governments attempt to increase the numbers of domestic Irish businesses on line.
But it hasn't. The claim is based, from what I remember, on bad and untrustworthy data from CSO. From what I remember, it just asked some companies if they had a website.

If you look at the report you see that the vast majority of each section is being handled by one, two or three departments eg DJEI, IDA, etc. Unfortunately like a lot of things departments handle they attempt to "claim" to identify a problem and seek what they percieve as the quickest and most obvious solution to that problem - this generally involves giving away taxpayers money.
What is worrying is the complete lack of expertise in defining that problem, if any exists.

It is pointless giving money to developing irish internet businesses unless it is uniquely irish only produce - other irish businesses have to compete with purchasing product, and having competing in a "global market"
Again many businesses are not really suited to internet/web trading. That is often why they have no web presence.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
But it hasn't. The claim is based, from what I remember, on bad and untrustworthy data from CSO. From what I remember, it just asked some companies if they had a website.

What is worrying is the complete lack of expertise in defining that problem, if any exists.

Again many businesses are not really suited to internet/web trading. That is often why they have no web presence.
Hopefully, the process will actually involve someone who can make that judgement...
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Hopefully, the process will actually involve someone who can make that judgement...
What are the chances of that? It may have some spoofers who think that they know what they are talking about but the history of these government backed ventures is not good. I don't see any recognisable expertise listed in that document other than the nebulous "stakeholders".
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
What are the chances of that? It may have some spoofers who think that they know what they are talking about but the history of these government backed ventures is not good. I don't see any recognisable expertise listed in that document other than the nebulous "stakeholders".
Given the sums involved, I'd presume this is very similar to the existing grant to have a website (also up to €2.5k with matching funding from the company), in which case it will presumably be handled by the same people at the CoCo enterprise boards. The difference, to me, is that while it's worth almost any business' time to have a website (visibility is visibility), selling online is a whole different ball game. I wonder if they'll be given adequate legal and fraud advice...?
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Given the sums involved, I'd presume this is very similar to the existing grant to have a website (also up to €2.5k with matching funding from the company), in which case it will presumably be handled by the same people at the CoCo enterprise boards. The difference, to me, is that while it's worth almost any business' time to have a website (visibility is visibility), selling online is a whole different ball game. I wonder if they'll be given adequate legal and fraud advice...?
I'm not sure. The problem is that it seems very much like a jobs for the cronies scheme. Most websites tend to be brochureware rather than e-commerce enabled and only a few webdevs seem to concentrate on the e-commerce/shopping cart side of things. And apparently some kind of "analysis" is involved with the 2K5 voucher.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,522
Excuse my ignorance... would someone please explain the term "Disruptive Reforms"?

I am after all mentally very backward.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Excuse my ignorance... would someone please explain the term "Disruptive Reforms"?

I am after all mentally very backward.
Basically some FGer must have overheard a discussion about creative transformation and disruptive innovation and technologies which can take out an entire industry and replace it with another one that is more efficient (cars taking out horse drawn buggies; e-mail almost replacing fax) and decided that the terms "disruptive reforms" was a buzzword style phrase that they could use to market their plan.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,522
Basically some FGer must have overheard a discussion about creative transformation and disruptive innovation and technologies which can take out an entire industry and replace it with another one that is more efficient (cars taking out horse drawn buggies; e-mail almost replacing fax) and decided that the terms "disruptive reforms" was a buzzword style phrase that they could use to market their plan.
So More Bullsh1t in other words?.;)
 

southwestkerry

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
4,142
... and their is poor ol me thinking t'was a shy way by making sure you were signed up to pay all your taxes. :)
swk
 

The Old Woman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,497
But it hasn't. The claim is based, from what I remember, on bad and untrustworthy data from CSO. From what I remember, it just asked some companies if they had a website.

What is worrying is the complete lack of expertise in defining that problem, if any exists.

Again many businesses are not really suited to internet/web trading. That is often why they have no web presence.

I agree with much of wht you say - like all things in the civil service they tend to look at the end problem rather than follow the problem back to source. There is no doubt the domestic economy needs more return from web based business - that would be businesses suited for that purpose.

EU legislation and crazy crazy special terms given to "FDI" companies (I am not against FDI just our failure to ensure direct sales outwards were always greater than FDI.) This inequitable situation rests soley at the feet of the civil service and our EU burocrats.

We have a nonesensal situation were many Uk companies own the rights to brands or the rights to brand distribution in the UK and Ireland
in such cases they are determining the euro price in ireland and the UK sterling price. In most cases the sterling price bears no resemblance to the euro price even if one were to allow a generous exchange rate. Immediately direct high street sales in ireland are uncompetitive. The additional knock on effect is that direct sales inwards ( internet sales ) from the UK are better priced. We ahve a situation because of this that the following kicks in:

irish high street retail can not compete.

UK companies are effectively making more money in Ireland compared to what they are charging their UK customer
These Uk companies are ensuring that their customer Uk companies that also trade in ireland are making more money in ireland and that they will buy through the Uk supply chain rather than from irish supply.

Ireland allows multi national companies operate through the vat grouping directive they defend this directive as merely a vat neutral process -refusing to look at the broader market and how the action of directive is being used to secure increased profits for multi nationals.

Ownership of brands, exchange rates and the vat grouping directive have to be attended to before ireland will have any hope of achieving a return on web business.
 
Last edited:

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
...ayup, it's the VAT grouping directive what done it. Again.
 

The Old Woman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,497
...ayup, it's the VAT grouping directive what done it. Again.
Instead of thinking and acting an ...... Detail to me how it hasn't.?


A uk supply sells goods to an Uk multi national HO - the supplier ships the goods into ireland and invoices the UK HO exempt of vat.

The UK HO re - invoices the goods to its irish operation exempt of vat, charging exchange rate costs greater than the central bank rate and adds costs.

In this arrangement the UK multi national has in the first place been given a cash flow advantage beacuse he has made profit and not had to pay vat. Significantly this process keeps pricing in domestic ireland artificailly high
and the state is happy with this because they are geeting more vat at end user. This narrow thinking is short term civil service thinking because stupidly it has given rise to increased loss of revenue from distance selling inwards, which gives rise to losses at high street retail, which increases pressure on the exchequer. etc. etc etc

Factor in how many of these Uk companies actually own the brand and the brand rights to ireland - and start looking at the exchange rate these companies applied and are applying - (though now not as big a difference) in many cases insisting irish companies buy in euro.
Factor in that our revenue allows financial regulatrion 8 on top of all of this.

Now want to talk to me about competition and how this directive "gives us" competition

you who seem to know everything explain to me why the Competition Authority was tasked with looking at the pricing differences that arose yet the Competition authority have no remit to look at vat. why would it be that a directive under which a substantial portion of product comes into ireland is not part of the remit of the CA who were tasked to review all factors in the pricing differences.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Instead of thinking and acting an ...... Detail to me how it hasn't.?
This thread is about Section 4 - the incentives and aids to get Irish businesses (SMEs) trading online rather than VAT.
 

The Old Woman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,497
This thread is about Section 4 - the incentives and aids to get Irish businesses (SMEs) trading online rather than VAT.

The issue I raised is not about vat it is about the damage the directive process gives rise to in the domestic economy in which SME's are struggling to compete.

Is your position that we talk about incentives to get SME's trading online and not look at what these SME's are having to compete against?

I am at a loss to see what good it is to put these businesses on line when in truth many will not be able to compete. Putting sme's on line doesnt mean that they are immediately capable of being able to compete. Surely in all that has come to pass we have learnt that simple business principal.

Would have throught that we have lost enough money in this country by throwing money at a problem and not first indentifying the root cause.

With absolutely no disrespect intended your thread serves only to encourage throwing good money away at a problem if it fails to permit an understand that this is not a matter of getting SME's on line but rather it must also enable these SME's understanding directives and market factors that effect their ability to generate a return online.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,272
Is your position that we talk about incentives to get SME's trading online and not look at what these SME's are having to compete against?
That's the subject of Section 4 of the document.

I am at a loss to see what good it is to put these businesses on line when in truth many will not be able to compete. Putting sme's on line doesnt mean that they are immediately capable of being able to compete. Surely in all that has come to pass we have learnt that simple business principal.
Some businesses will be able to compete and will suceed. Others will not. The problem from the way I see it, is that this is very much a cargo-cult effort at online trading using dodgy figures and bogus assumptions.

Would have throught that we have lost enough money in this country by throwing money at a problem and not first indentifying the root cause.
That seems to be the typical approach in Ireland.

With absolutely no disrespect intended your thread serves only to encourage throwing good money away at a problem if it fails to permit an understand that this is not a matter of getting SME's on line but rather it must also enable these SME's understanding directives and market factors that effect their ability to generate a return online.
It is actually far simpler - the key is identifying what can be sold/traded effectively online and then getting the SMEs into position to do that unless they are already trading online. Unfortunately for the politicians, their "advisors" and the civil servants it is not the 1990s anymore and it is not simply a case of 'build it and they will come'. Of course no FGer seems to have commented on this. There's times you'd miss TommyO'Brien's willingness to expound on every subject under the Sun. :)
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top