Do You Pay Taxes on Forex Trading Gains?

Trading from Ireland for tax efficiency

Hi, I am a UK resident (England) and i have been trading forex for a while. As part of my longterm plans I now need to form a registered company to trade from. I will be seeking formal tax advise but thought it would be good to start here as i've seen a lot of good ideas and advise on this site for a while.
I am now down to the following 2 options.
Option 1:
Open an IBC (with an offshore bank account)
Form a UK Limited company, I will use this to trade on behalf of the IBC as a consultant.
Withdraw funds to UK personal account (dividend etc.)
Option 2:
Form a Limited company in Ireland to trade from
Withdraw funds to England personal account (dividend etc.)
From the 2 options above I am Favouring Option 2, however I wanted to know what other peoples thoughts/experience were on this matter?
submitted by MSTNTX to u/MSTNTX [link] [comments]

Are there any Irish forex traders here?

What do I need to know about paying taxes when trading ForEx in Ireland? Any info appreciated . Thanks
submitted by deus_ex_coffee to Forex [link] [comments]

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant.
However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.

SUMMARY

When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy

ARTICLE

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

INTRODUCTION

My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed.
International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter.
The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US.
The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000).
The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914.
Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels.
Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm.
The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism.
As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms
NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
  1. Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
  2. Provisions to protect IP
  3. Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
  4. Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
This grouping of conditions is similar to the points filled under the 301 investigation which serve the basis for initiating the tariffs. I have been reading some sources that say this discussion on this second group of broader issues could only be finalized later
The official justifications for placing the tariffs on Chinese goods is found under the March 2018 investigation submitted by the office of the President to Congress titled FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974. From this investigation the United States Trade Representative (USTR) place US Tariffs on Chinese goods as per Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is a press release by the USTR listing the reasons for placing tariffs, and the key section from the press release. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations.
I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO.
WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT.
The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule.
In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak.
Here is the commitment paragraph for China
"The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. "
This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics.
NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
  1. The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
  2. You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
  3. China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
  4. Dealing with China, its a no win situation whether you use a tough multilateral / unilateral approach. If the US endorse a tough unilateral approach gives the impression that the US is acting like the British during the Opium War. If you take a concerted Western approach you are accused of acting like the 8 Powers Alliance in 1900.
  5. Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
  6. China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
To his credit, Trump has said his aim was not to overthrow authoritarian governments, and that even applies to the likes of Iran. The Arab spring scared Russia and China, because the US for a brief moment placed the spread of democracy over its security interest.

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

At this moment, China or the trade war isn't an area of great concern for the American public, among international issues it ranks lower than international terrorism, North Korea and Iran's nuclear program.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access.
Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress.
THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA
I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes.
Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English.
Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic,
IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT
From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
This is supported by remarks by Henry Paulson and Charlene Barshefsky. As Paulson remarked
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box.
So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure:
In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.

CONTINUED

submitted by weilim to IntlScholars [link] [comments]

My trading theory leading up to launch

We are all pumped for this thing to get its legs, myself included. Buying ATH stung and seeing the price not return makes me antsy when there are alot of projects making good gains. Fuck em. The bottom of GVT is being bought as we speak and i guarentee the day before the launch we have a glorius green dildo. The dump will happen but it might not be as much as you think. Because while the first wave of gvt is swapped for manager tokens more people will be checking in as the week into launch progresses and if gvt is cheap fomo will continue. I do not think gvt will go under 15$ if it dumps but how high it goes on launch is anyones guess. Whales are retiring on this one do you really think they will let all us small fish dump the price? GVT has all the connections and forex market implementation! Thats ground breaking for GVT and crypto as a whole allowing a way for big money to slowly enter into crypto! ICO was a dollar and holders are up 1400%. At the US announcement sell off it went to 11$ implying that there is no fear looking ahead for large holders and this is just hyeneas fighting for scraps as long they can. I did double my stack during all this but im getting nervous binance is gonna pull a sneaky on us all and it will skyrocket! ALSO volume is almost 2/3 down with knock on wood stability at 14$ ALSO reading the comments from another thread one user mentioned managers might not even market sell GVT but use its value as leverage to be decided at the end of the trading period. This makes a lot more sense to me if you consider how other platforms like bitmex opperate on a large scale. If the manager trades for a loss his stack is then liquidated (market sold) to reimburse investors and hes done. The market sell of that bad trader would then be bought back due to investors gaining more gvt from profit investors while the prices crashed from a market sell. MY FINACIAL ADVICE IS THIS: Have a drink, smoke some weed if its legal and rest easy knowing in a month youre back in the green before bitcoin even starts to take off again! The team is smart, not only are they set up in Ireland the cheapest tax country in the world, they themselves worked their asses off with 2million because they believe in themselves; so should you. Last thing is that OKEX will probably list GVT once its live its the 2nd largest exchange and all our price movement is whales on binance. A listing without a product hurts reputation.
submitted by AlGoreFoPres to genesisvision [link] [comments]

ETF domicile, dividend leaks, and forex expenses

Recently in the /dutchfire subreddit someone was asking for recommendations of ETFs to invest in: https://www.reddit.com/DutchFIRE/comments/5zygx4/je_krijgt_100000_euro_welke_vier_etfs_kies_je/df4lmjo/
I noticed that most people are investing in USD products domiciled in the US (for example in VTI). However, I have been investing exclusively in EUR products domiciled in Ireland through DeGiro (VWRL). Most of the fee-free products that DeGiro offers are distributing, which means I am incurring in dividend leaks since you cannot recover dividend witholdings from Ireland (~12%). I also understand that in the case of products domiciled in the US, you can deduct all dividend witholdings in your tax report (at least in the Netherlands). If this were the whole story, it would make perfect sense for me to invest in US domiciled ETFs.
However, by investing in a different currency through DeGiro (and I guess all other brokers), one is also subject to a 0.1% forex spread in every EUUSD transaction. As such, whenever you buy or sell more ETFs, receive dividends and reinvest those dividends. For dividends the winner is clear: it is better to pay 0.2% in forex spread when investing through the US (0.1% when receiving dividends and 0.1% when reinvesting them) than losing 12% when investing through Ireland. But through Ireland you don't have forex costs when putting more money in your investments, whereas through the US you do pay an extra 0.1% over the total amount you invest.
So I made a crude simulation of the costs for two all-world stock ETFs with similar portfolios, VWRL and VT. The first is domiciled in Ireland, the second in the US. I supposed a 2.5% dividend yield for both.
Product Fund Expenses Forex Expenses Dividend Expenses Total Expenses VWRL 0.25% 0 12% * 2.5% = 0.3% 0.55% VT 0.11% 0.2% 0.1% * 2.5% ~ 0 0.31% 
So to me it seems that looking at the total costs it makes more sense to invest in US domiciled products like VT. My question is: are my calculations are too simplified? Did I forget something? I thought I had made these calculations in the past and that I reached the conclusion that Ireland domiciled ETFs were a better choice. However, looking back, it seems I miscalculated and that I should start thinking about changing my VWRL portfolio into VT as soon as possible!
Updates:
submitted by operte to eupersonalfinance [link] [comments]

Bookmarks - 3

Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao Fanyi.YouDao
submitted by EvenRecognition to u/EvenRecognition [link] [comments]

Bookmarks - 3

youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube youtube
submitted by EvenRecognition to u/EvenRecognition [link] [comments]

DAY TRADING LIVE! I'M AN IDIOT... Brexit and the Irish border  How will it affect businesses? Where should to invest your money in 2018: Forex See This Report about Barbados's Forex Tax Delayed ... The Irish Drill Scene Won't Be Stopped  Gangsta Rap ... How to use the Fáilte Ireland P&L and Breakeven Calculator Income Tax in Ireland - Indian Student

In Ireland, the currency used is Euro (EUR). But, since Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain, the pound is used there. Read more about payments, currency and prices in Ireland. I am not a certified tax advisor, and the aim of this post is not to explain the details of paying taxes on Forex profits. The post is just a combination of a short overview of some tax modes existing in the industry and a poll for traders to share info on their situation. Some countries, such as the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom do not offer an option of tax withholding by Forex brokers Since 1965, FOREX Bank is the market leader in the Nordics for travel exchange. We also offer money transfers globally with Western Union. We also offer money transfers globally with Western Union. FOREX Bank, Filial af FOREX Bank AB Sverige, Nørre Voldgade 90, 1358 København K, CVR. 27748562 Forex Options and Futures Traders . For tax purposes, forex options and futures contracts are considered IRC Section 1256 contracts, which are subject to a 60/40 tax consideration.In other words Forex Tax Free Countries. by Fxigor. Share Tweet. Tax is an important compulsory financial charge in any business, as well in trading. So, let us see what countries are tax free for trading. Tax-free countries around the world – the best for forex traders There are certain countries that are considered “tax-free countries.” This means that residents are not deducted for income tax Income tax, USC and PRSI . In most cases, only CGT will apply to your eToro income. However, if you also earn a dividend from an eToro investment, you'll be subject to Income Tax on that dividend. This income will be taxable under normal Income Tax rules. Income Tax rates are currently 20% and 40%. Income Tax File and Pay Date: For Accounts ending 01/01/2017 – 31/12/2017, tax return and payment is due for submission to Revenue Commissioners on or before 31/10/2018 (extended if by up to 2 weeks if filed online) NOTE: Late Filing surcharge of up to 10% of the liability is automatically applied for returns filed late. Interest may also be payable from the date the liability was due to be

[index] [25074] [29378] [4768] [5668] [24506] [14464] [7534] [27020] [8193] [1518]

DAY TRADING LIVE! I'M AN IDIOT...

The video demonstrates how to use the Fáilte Ireland P&L and Breakeven Calculator which provides a platform for business owners to scenario plan and project revenues and costs out to March 2022 ... Drill is exploding all over the UK, but until recently, nobody knew about the burgeoning scene over in Ireland. The so-called Godfather of the scene, INK, is... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO: https://rebrand.ly/forex33 And start earning in the Forex Market Now! In our expanding international business setting, there are bu... We provide fast and flexible access to over 15,000 financial markets – including indices, shares, forex and commodities – through our award-winning range of platforms and apps. Established in ... In this video, you will get information about taxes that you need to pay if you will start your part-time job. Camera: https://amzn.to/2I7W5xz Mobile: https:... What can I say! My life is a comedy show at best sometimes. Day Trading live this morning and do everything wrong.... Theres really just no way to explain it other than EMOTIONS got the best of me ... Where should you invest your money in 2018? That’s the question we’ve been asking over the past week. Today we look at the Forex market and the predictions that George Batrouni, Head of Middle ...

http://binaryoptiontrade.loggausasardena.tk