Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump this evening claimed that Ireland is set to drop its corporation tax rate.
Trump is campaigning for a drop in America’s own rate of 35% to 20%, and has been arguing that the US must do so in order to remain commercially competitive.
In an (unscheduled) speech in the White House’s Rose Garden, alongside Senate Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell, Trump embarked on a tangent of justification for such a move, including namechecking Ireland’s rate, and seemingly contradicting Paschal Donohoe’s Budget from last Tuesday.
“You look at other countries and what they’ve done, and we’re competing with other countries,” he said. “When China is at 15% and I hear that Ireland is going to be reducing their corporate rates down to 8% from 12%.”
You have other countries also reducing. We can’t be at 35% and think we’re going to remain competitive in terms of companies and jobs.
The president also took the time to say that his relationship with McConnell (the most senior republican in the Senate, and reportedly a man whom Trump hasn’t spoken to in months) is “outstanding”.
Regarding Ireland’s tax rate (which is 12.5%, not 12%), it seems entirely unlikely that a change to such a key government figure would be made with no fanfare, not least because Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe last Tuesday insisted in his Budget speech that the figure would remain unchanged:
“Our position is clear,” Donohoe said last week.
The 12.5% tax rate is, and will remain, a core part of our offering.
So the president may have been misinformed, to put it charitably. Not for the first time.
TheJournal.ie was unable to gain clarity from the Department of Finance regarding this matter this evening.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
having read this article and in particular the final paragraph i think the heading is misleading and should be changed.
The use of statistical language here is also sensationalising the subject. While the probability may be 8 times larger, if the probability of a young man passing mutations is 1/10,000 and the probability of elderly man passing them on is 8/10,000 it is still a rare event.
Need more info to realise the true meaning of these “stats”
Heard another one yesterday saying older mothers made better…whatever actually can’t remember…there’s much crap ‘surveys’ our there, parents please ignore, make you afraid to have kids!!!
older mothers were more likely to have kids with better speech and less accident’s because the kids are more precious 2 them. wat bullshit like who’s kids aren’t precious 2them? I’m 21 and my 2 halfyear old son has brilliant speech and can hold a conversation. a 45year old I know has a child the same age and he’s had stitches in his head a dislocated wrist and I can never understand a word he’s saying… js sayin.
Eire if your child’s speech is on a par with your text speak rant you may have to reconsider his intellectual prowess
Charlie Murphy. seriously? fool
Mutations are the reason the human race has survived. Harmful mutations generally disappear in a population. The rest imbed the ability to adapt to changing environmental stress. Look at sickle-cell syndrome in Africans which helps resist malaria.
The potential for autism and bipolar is being hugely exaggerated by this research.
have your say