Comment

Ongoing turmoil in Europe’s largest economy will be exacerbated by Donald Trump’s pledged import tariffs, highlighting the need for EU countries to pull together to withstand transatlantic  trade disruption, writes Judy Dempsey Pity Germany’s next government. Olaf Scholz’s successor will have no time to lose when the federal elections end on 25 February 2025, bringing Scholz’s bickering coalition to a close.  Now, the economy is the priority. Germany’s outgoing government believed the old industrial model just needed a bit of tinkering to effectively counter China’s ever-increasing economic presence – but those days are over.  Massive job cuts announced by Volkswagen and ThyssenKrupp (the traditional giants of the car and steel industry, respectively) demonstrate how this government and its predecessor, led by Angela Merkel, failed to prepare for the inevitable impact of de-industrialisation. The replacement of the combustible engine with electric alternatives – which China has rapidly embraced – has been a shock for German industry, which had mistakenly earmarked China as a reliable export market.  No more.  Germany’s high energy costs and fierce competition from Beijing have combined to catalyse the failure of Germany’s old industrial model – so Berlin’s next government must hit the ground running.  This means making the transition from an old industrial base to more modern sectors driven by digital culture.  It means grappling with a demographic crisis that will only cost more unless the government introduces a robust immigration policy to address the huge labour shortages affecting most sectors.  None of this will happen unless Germany’s next leader loosens the ‘debt brake’ constitutionally limiting government spending.  Germany is in dire need of public financing if it is to invest in defence, climate adaptation, security, housing, transport health and education.   The debt brake (and overbearing bureaucracy) has starved investment. The government already has a spending gap of €64 billion for 2025. If, between 2025 and 2030, defence spending targets were to rise from two to three percent of GDP, it would cost another €300 billion.  This German malaise has serious consequences for Europe.  Last year, Germany had the highest level of intra-EU trade, contributing to 21 percent of the European Union’s exports of goods to other countries. What happens in the EU’s largest economy impacts the entire bloc. To make matters worse for Germany’s next Chancellor – and for the EU – is US President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to impose a 10 percent tariff on goods imported from Europe and 60 percent on goods from China.  Germany’s export-driven car industry, one of Trump’s targets, is particularly vulnerable and speeding up the manufacturing of electric-driven vehicles would only solve part of the problem. To escape tariffs, it is reasonable to expect the car industry to move manufacturing to the US. This is exactly what Trump wants.  However, back in Germany, the dwindling market in China for German cars could lead to further job losses.  Trump, too, will pile the pressure on Berlin and NATO allies to spend more on defence. It won’t be easy. Not only because of the costs involved but also because Germany’s far-right and far-left parties are opposed to NATO, opposed to supporting Ukraine and generally pro-Russia. All in all, Germany’s ability to deal with its finances, defence and investment issues will be complicated by the Trump administration.  Ultimately, EU countries need to pull together – even integrate – to withstand the pressures on the transatlantic relationship. Judy Dempsey is Nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

Ireland’s high beta economy makes us the EU member state most vulnerable to incoming US President Donald Trump’s planned import tariffs, writes Cormac Lucey   T he essential goal of financial management is for a firm to maximise its valuation while minimising risk as measured by volatility in that valuation. The measure of risk used by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is beta. This measures the anticipated rise or fall of an individual stock price in proportion to the movements of the stock market.  A stock with a high beta is expected to undergo large share price moves relative to market moves.  If one were to view the economy of the Republic of Ireland as the equivalent of a stock, one might describe it as a high-beta economy.  Right now, it is exposed to several factors that significantly increase its riskiness relative to its economic neighbours.  Donald Trump and his declared policy of getting US multinationals to repatriate jobs back to the US represents the single biggest economic danger currently facing the Republic.  This is because Ireland’s success in attracting such jobs has laid the foundations for its current economic success.  It has long been understood that the multinational corporation (MNC) sector pays a disproportionate share of corporation tax in Ireland and a new report from the Revenue Commissioners confirms this.  According to Corporation Tax: 2023 Payments and 2022 Returns, the foreign MNC sector paid 87 percent of all corporation tax in Ireland in 2022.  According to an IDA Ireland report published in the same year, a total of 301,475 people were working for foreign multinationals in the country at that time.  According to the Central Statistics Office, meanwhile, of the 2,121,300 people working across the entire economy in 2022 – just 14.2 percent were employed by the MNC sector. Yet, thanks to the highly progressive nature of our income tax system and the much higher wages paid by our MNC sector, this cohort paid 54.6 percent of total income tax.  The cherry on the cake is that, according to Revenue, the MNC sector also accounted for more than half of all VAT payments (53.8 percent). A Danish employers’ study based on a model devised by the Oxford Economics business group stated that Ireland would be the EU member state hardest hit by a full imposition of Trump tariffs, with the potential loss of 30,000 jobs and GDP in 2027 at four percent below what it would otherwise be. This would represent a huge hit to the economy and to the public finances.  The new government’s honeymoon might not last very long. It’s also hard to imagine that Ireland can escape the attention of the incoming Trump administration when it was the focus of so much pre-election scrutiny.  While campaigning, Trump promised blanket levies of 20 percent on all US imports, as well as tariffs of 60 percent on those from China, suggesting his second-term policies could be even more disruptive to global trade than those of his first administration. The incoming Trump administration knows for sure that it will have two years, at least, while it enjoys a congressional majority. Any politically partisan battles it plans will be best fought (and won) in that period.  The Trump factor will add enormously to uncertainty in Irish economic policy in 2025. This level of uncertainty was already high with slowing economic growth in the UK, France, Germany and China, to name some large economies.  When things are improving, you want greater exposure to beta – but not when they are disimproving. When that happens, you want to fasten your seatbelt! *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

After a frenetic three-week campaign, General Election 2024 has essentially left us where we began – with a likely Government led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael albeit this time without the Greens.  The precise makeup of the final coalition is as yet unclear. However, given that the outgoing coalition’s collective seat take will likely not leave them far off the 88 seats needed to command a Dáil majority, it is safe to say that whoever gets the nod to make up the numbers won’t have the same bargaining power to influence policy as some previous smaller coalition partners may have had.  Against this backdrop, it’s safe to assume that the next Programme for Government will largely, if not entirely, be dictated by the policy priorities set out by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in their general election manifestos. So, what might this mean for small businesses?  Addressing the cost of doing business  In their respective pre-election pledges, both parties were keen to highlight their awareness of the rising costs of doing business. In Fianna Fáil’s case, they pledged to address this by establishing a new “Cost of Business Advisory Forum” to conduct a review of all current business costs and taxes.  According to the party’s manifesto, “this forum will be consulted before introducing new legislation or policies that affect small businesses.”  Likewise, in its manifesto, Fine Gael took a similar tack by reasserting its commitment to apply what it calls the “SME test” to any new legislation coming down the track – a test that would essentially require all departments to first assess the impact on small businesses of any new measures being proposed prior to enactment.  So, with both parties essentially singing from the same hymn sheet on the issue, it is likely that we will see the announcement of some sort of new initiative designed to limit the amount of new regulations that could further add to the cost burdens of small businesses.   Employers’ PRSI   Again on the issue of reducing business costs, both parties also made specific commitments to reduce the Employers’ PRSI burden where lower earning workers are employed.  While Fine Gael favoured a temporary, three-year PRSI rebate based on the number of lower-earning workers on a company’s payroll, Fianna Fáil pledged an outright reduction to the lower rate of employers PRSI by 1.5 percent.  The logic behind the latter proposal (we know this because the Institute’s pre-election manifesto originally proposed it) is to mitigate the concurrent 1.5 percent uptick in payroll costs due to hit many employers in late 2025 through the introduction of pensions auto-enrolment.  So again, with both parties essentially aligned here, it’s fair to say that a reduction or rebate of the lower rate of Employers’ PRSI in some format will also likely feature in the next Programme for Government.   VAT on hospitality  The issue of VAT on hospitality was a notably contentious issue in the run up to Budget 2024 with the Government ultimately refusing to reinstate the reduced nine percent rate despite extensive lobbying from the sector.  However, the way in which each party subsequently approached the issue in their election manifestos is perhaps telling of a policy fissure between the two.  Fine Gael clearly favours a reduction, albeit to a midway rate of 11 percent while Fianna Fáil is notably silent on the issue in its manifesto, instead placing its focus on maintaining VAT on gas and electricity bills at nine percent for the next five years.  How this difference in approach will ultimately play out in the final Programme for Government is as yet unclear. However, Fine Gael’s pledge to implement a reduction will no doubt have created an expectation from the hospitality sector that some sort of action will be taken on reducing the rate.  Energy supports  High energy costs continue to be an issue for many small businesses and the manifestos of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have again sought to tackle this through further one-off grant schemes.  In Fianna Fáil’s case, the party has pledged to introduce a successor to the Increased Cost of Business/Power Up grant schemes to help hospitality and retail businesses deal with higher energy bills.  Likewise, Fine Gael has promised a new energy cost grant scheme, “to help businesses lower their energy costs, enabling them to operate more sustainably.” Given that the two parties appear to be broadly aligned on the issue, a new round of temporary energy support grants seems likely.  However, what is less clear is how the announcement of these relatively piecemeal measures will be received by businesses, particularly given the slow uptake of previous such schemes over the past two years. Stephen Lowry is Head of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

One of my direct reports manages a team of five. Nobody has complained about her, but there is a fairly high level of turnover on her team. She works incredibly hard to (mostly) very high standards. She sometimes spends too much time on unimportant issues and loses sight of the bigger picture. I have sat in on some of her team meetings: she is very task and deadline focused and quite tense. They are not bad meetings, but something is missing. She is very defensive around feedback and can get upset. A. It can be hard to help somebody who is well-intentioned, hard-working and, in their own eyes anyway, doing the right thing.  It sounds like she is quite anxious about her work or performance and the trick will be to find a balance between encouraging her (commitment, high standards, work rate) while ensuring that her singular focus does not hinder productivity or well-being.  While feedback may be part of the response, you may also need to broaden out her sense of what it is to be a manager, i.e. it’s not only about getting the work done, but also about motivating and developing people along the way.  It might also be useful to reflect on whether your direct report is clear on expectations, goals and priorities. It could be worth going back to first principles and discussing what else is important in their role (e.g. developing their direct reports).  You might also reflect on whether you keep them in the loop so they know what’s important for you. Weekly meetings where you (jointly) clarify priorities may be useful.  Assuming you have more than one direct report, and that you meet with this group from time to time, look at how you build connection and trust with them – creating a place where they can share challenges, reflect on learning (from failure as well as success), and discuss how they are working with their own reports, etc.  Each person’s real-life challenges can be a case study for the group to discuss. This encourages a growth-mindset and will help her, and her peers, reflect on what it means to be a leader. Share a resource on leadership (the book recommended below, maybe?) and discuss the ideas. You will probably also need to share feedback to encourage behavioural change. The success of this feedback will be dependent on three main factors:  Your relationship with the person – is there trust between you?   Their self-esteem – are they open to feedback and resilient?   Your skill in sharing feedback – ensuring feedback is balanced, using the right language, etc.  Building trust may allow you to find out what is driving her behaviour (e.g. perfectionism, anxiety, fear of failure, habit) which may open a deeper conversation. The BOFF model provides a useful framework for giving both positive and developmental feedback:  Behaviour: what have you observed? (heard, seen, experienced). This helps you describe rather than judge. Outcome: the impact of the behaviour Feelings: what you are happy about (or concerned about). Future: Next steps (for you, for them). It will be useful to approach the feedback with her, not from the point of ‘what’s not working’, but placing it in the context both of her career aspirations as well as developing her team.  Her development, her team’s development, her work-life balance, etc., should be standing items in your one-on-ones – and this will help you role model the type of behaviour you want from her. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant with Performance Matters Ltd, a leadership and  team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie

Three Chartered Accountants weigh in on how the outcome of the US presidential election might impact the future of foreign direct investment in Ireland, exploring potential economic shifts and changes to the corporate tax regime Paraic Burke Head of Tax PwC Ireland Despite international uncertainties, Ireland’s economy continues to be one of the best-performing in Europe.  Employment remains at a historic high, our fiscal position is strong and inflation is easing. Global companies here continue to see the opportunities Ireland presents as a gateway to Europe and further afield, with a highly skilled workforce in a stable business environment.  The impact of the US election on Ireland’s FDI from a tax and business perspective is two-fold:   1. The US election should determine how the US responds to the stalled element of global tax reforms led by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. While Ireland and EU member states have enshrined Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Pillar Two into their domestic law, the US has not.  Depending on a complex series of political factors, we could see increasing tensions between the US and Europe, which could have big implications for Ireland. Under a clause in the Pillar Two agreement called the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) – a way of ensuring that multinational companies pay the globally agreed 15 percent corporate tax rate on their profits – the Irish Government, like others across the EU, could find itself having to tax US profits.  This would not sit well with the US Government. If it is not dealt with, it could have serious trade implications for multinational companies exporting from Ireland. The outcome of the election will very likely have a significant impact on the US approach in this context. 2. This US election will also determine who deals with the potential expiration in 2025 of the individual tax rate cuts introduced by Donald Trump in 2017.  As part of the overall strategy in this context, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris has outlined a plan to raise the US corporation tax rate to 28 percent (currently at 21 percent), but this is likely to be politically impossible.  On the other hand, if elected as US President for a second term, Trump has mentioned a reduction in the US corporate tax rate to 15 percent – although, again, this is likely to be impossible given the overall US fiscal position.  In addition, Trump has regularly stated that he may adopt a policy of applying tariffs on all US imports, a move that could greatly disrupt global trade, including Irish exports.  Cormac Kelleher International Tax Partner Forvis Mazars The upcoming presidential election in the US, due to take place in November, is delaying US companies in making their foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions.  Uncertainty over upcoming trade policy is causing new and existing US businesses to pause decision-making. However, it has not stopped firms from exploring and readying themselves for investment decisions in 2025. If the US introduces or strengthens existing tax repatriation programs post-election, as seen in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, it could incentivise US companies to bring profits and operations back home, possibly reducing FDI in Ireland.  However, given Ireland’s low corporate tax rate (12.5%) and status as a key EU hub for the technology and pharmaceutical sectors, US firms might still find Ireland an attractive location for their European operations. It will be interesting to watch the level of US engagement with the OECD’s BEPS 2.0 tax proposals.  This year has delivered probably the most significant level of tax reform practitioners are likely to witness.  The effective 15 percent rate has caused multinational groups to grapple with a plethora of complex and challenging legislation. Despite initial positive soundings from the US Treasury, achieving sufficient political appetite for the introduction of BEPS 2.0 (Pillar Two) has proved elusive.  The rules, however, will result in US-headquartered groups being affected by the global minimum tax rules from 2026 onwards.  If Pillar Two plans continue to have momentum, commentators will watch with interest to see how the US will react and whether retaliatory measures will be introduced. While tax policy is an important feature of Ireland’s FDI offering, there are many other features that are equally attractive and important to organisations when seeking to establish an international presence.  This is particularly important for firms establishing their first presence outside the US.  Ireland will continue to be an important cog in the global international tax expansion plans of US-based multinational groups. Fundamentals – including making Ireland an attractive location for people to relocate to – will play a greater role in years to come. Catherine Drysdale Consultant Barden Ireland's job market is highly interconnected with global trends and events. There are a number of key factors impacting the employment industry in Ireland at present, including the upcoming US election and potential impact on FDI, geopolitical conflicts, climate initiatives, uncertainty regarding policy and regulatory changes and interest rates and inflationary impacts. How these directly impact talent looking for opportunities within US companies headquartered in Ireland will be sector dependent. Certain sectors, for example, will be impacted more significantly by policy and regulatory changes including technology, pharmaceutical and financial services industries.   The challenges for acquiring talent may include: Changes in visa policies and global mobility restrictions; Cautious spending that could result in longer, more complex hiring processes coupled with the risk that companies will prioritise hiring local talent in the US due to shifting labour policies or cost-saving measures; A shift to contract opportunities, a trend we have already witnessed, reflecting employers’ desire for flexibility and a cautious approach to permanent hires; and Increased competition among jobseekers for a reduced number of opportunities, potentially leading to longer lead time to secure new roles. The stance companies are taking on hybrid and remote working arrangements remains in flux. We saw the recent announcement from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy regarding a mandatory full-time return to office. Whether others follow suit remains to be seen.  Organisations could adopt permanent remote working policies. While this may open up opportunities for a broader talent pool and flexible working arrangements, professionals in the Irish market would likely face increased competition from the global talent pool, potentially leading to downward pressure on salaries as companies seek cost-effective labour. With potential changes in the US economic environment post-election, given their established presence in Ireland, US companies with operations here may need to adjust their salary structures to remain competitive in attracting top talent, particularly if remote work opportunities expand.  A focus on enhancing their existing localised talent acquisition strategies, coupled with a strong emphasis on employer branding to showcase corporate culture and values, will help to make positions more attractive in a competitive market.  

Ireland is facing fiscal challenges ranging from unaccrued liabilities to over-dependency on multinationals, yet these critical issues remain largely absent from public discourse, writes Cormac Lucey The most basic task of accountancy is to measure the results of a business over a given period. In the public sector, however, things are different. Voters may not want to know how serious everything is. Even when they are told, they may not care.   The US government’s budget deficit is expected to hit 5.6 percent of national output this year – far above the three percent limit set in law in the European Union – yet the issue has hardly featured in this year’s US presidential campaign.  Likewise, Ireland’s media has a hard time featuring the stories and facts people need to know. Here are four major issues that are generally absent from Irish public debate. Issue 1: Unaccrued public sector liabilities While formal US government debt is estimated to equal 123 percent of US national income (GDP), unaccrued public sector liabilities were reckoned (in a recent edition of The Economist) to come to around 580 percent of GDP. In America, the bulk of the national debt iceberg lies below the surface.  The same situation applies in Ireland. According to the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC), the Irish government’s debt will equal €181 billion by the end of 2024.  However, a 2017 actuarial analysis carried out by KPMG estimated that the state’s unaccrued liability to PRSI contributors equalled €335 billion in 2015. On top of this, the state’s pension liability value concerning public service employees was estimated to be €176 billion at the end of 2021.  Actual state debt vastly exceeds publicly measured debt.  Issue 2: Looming long-term fiscal problems  A 2023 report carried out by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility warned that the UK’s national debt was on track to nearly triple relative to the size of the economy, from 99 percent of GDP today to 270 percent by 2070.  The key drivers of this expected deterioration are an ageing population, and costs related to climate change and higher defence spending (because of rising geopolitical tensions). Each of these factors applies to Ireland.  In addition, by 2070, Ireland may have to face up to the fiscal costs of national reunification. Data from Britain’s Office for National Statistics shows that, for the financial year to April 2023, Northern Ireland raised £21.5 billion in revenue, mostly taxes, but spent £32.9 billion in current expenditure and £3.1 billion in capital expenditure, spending £14.5 billion (€17.5 billion) more than it raised. Issue 3: Dependence on tax revenues from multinationals Eighty-five percent of the state’s corporation tax revenues come from multinationals (MNCs), as do 55 percent of Ireland’s income tax revenues and 54 percent of VAT.  Apply this 54 percent share to the residual, smaller tax sources, and you can quickly see that more than 60 percent of the state’s total tax take is derived – directly and indirectly – from the multinational corporation (MNC) sector.  Meanwhile, the EU wants to strangle Ireland’s MNC golden goose, Donald Trump wants MNCs to repatriate their jobs to the US and Neil Morris – Amazon’s boss in Ireland – has warned that Ireland is “becoming complacent about foreign direct investment.”  Issue 4: Growing complexity and politicisation risk smothering productivity The reason we live vastly improved lifestyles compared to our antecedents 200 years ago is not that we are intrinsically superior but because of much higher productivity.  However, there is little appreciation of the central importance of productivity, or of how it can be smothered by needless complexity and politicisation of the rules we must operate under.  The common feature of these four issues is that, while they are extraordinarily important, they have barely featured in public debate.  Sadly, the media in Ireland and Britain is dominated by plausible and pleasant talkers who have little understanding of what’s really going on. As a result, amiable spoofing wins out over hard facts.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the October/November 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.