Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

eu-inc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 761 posts

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#411

Post by weslleyskah »

seec wrote: post #370
hvb2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said > In Germany And then > Yet somehow the rules pile up. Which is just German culture as much as food is Italian. If you want rules for everything I'm hard pressed to think of a more regulated country than Germany. And the populace, in general, might scoff at how long things take but absolutely want to understand what the process is... So yeah, you can't have it both ways

[flagged]

This is the same as saying that Russians are wild boars who only care about vodka, stupid wars, money and women.

Source: Dostoyevsky

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#413

Post by _petronius »

tietjens wrote: post #295
askonomm wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's crazy. Notarization in Estonia can be done entirely online using a digital signature, just like everything else here is done (including voting, getting married, getting divorced, filing taxes, opening/closing a company, etc). From all I hear Germany is still stuck in the 90s for some reason.

90s is charitable. Most important thing here is that nothing changes. Everything new is considered suspicious.

More like no one is willing to stick their neck out politically to argue for the positive public policy changes, or challenge regulatory interpretation needed to make real change. Plenty of people see the problems, and even want to fix them, and get stymied by political processes that abhor actually having to argue for change to electorate.

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#414

Post by philipallstar »

embedding-shape wrote: post #383
bluecalm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Having a startup in the US is a huge mess due to all the states and taxes, In EU you will need to deal with VAT basically from day one (10k EUR of revenue). In US you will not deal with it until you can afford it as thresholds are very generous.

If dealing with VAT is a large problem for your business today, running a business might just not be for you, it's very trivial today to get it right and there are even platforms who basically does all the "hard" work for you. But even without those 3rd party solutions, I think the complexity is vastly oversold, it's relatively easy to get right compared to other regulations. Maybe I'm just EU-damaged already though,…

Dealing with anything from day 1 is harder than doing it later when you have predictable money and growth.

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#415

Post by embedding-shape »

alibarber wrote: post #393
embedding-shape wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if you now live in Spain, then you need to pay taxes in Spain, because that's where you live. This makes sense, does it not? Or is the expectation that you shouldn't pay taxes where you live, only where your company that you work for/in is based? FWIW, I also live in Spain, and also pay "high taxes" as I'm in the highest income bracket, and it sucks to see large parts of your income and capital gains disappear…

I think they mean that the Estonian company they run now has to file tax returns and pay taxes not only to Estonia but also Spain. The company lives in Estonia. Yeah if they are taking income personally locally then that should go to the country of residence, as is normal. But then if what Estonia considers acceptable standards for tax reporting differs from what Spain considers acceptable, or what they consider 'pro…

> the Estonian company they run now has to file tax returns and pay taxes not only to Estonia but also Spain.

Yes, this again makes sense to me. You have a company in Estonia, so that pays taxes in Estonia. You work for this company from Spain, so you pay taxes in Spain. Doesn't it work the same elsewhere? What other ways could it work, assuming we want taxes somewhere?

> But then if what Estonia considers acceptable standards for tax reporting differs from what Spain considers acceptable

Yes, that also makes sense, different countries have different systems? Again, if you open a company in Estonia, the ground assumption has to be that you're up for understanding Estonian tax laws. If you're living in Spain while working for that company, the ground assumption is that you're up for understanding both Spanish and Estonian tax laws, because they should of course get their taxes.

As long as I don't get taxed on the same money in both countries (which there are a lot of bi-lateral agreements solving that), I don't see the issue here.

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#416

Post by dathinab »

pjc50 wrote: post #153
dathinab wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this isn't fully true yes you company needs to be rooted in a specific country, and sure moving company roots between countries is still not always trivial (anti capital flight laws are a thing). But that isn't really in conflict with a EU INC per-se. I mean they do point out that it will have > Local taxes & employment and this isn't in conflict with - the same business form being available in all EU members - centr…

> anti capital flight laws are a thing Hmm - any examples of this applying intra-EU? That feels like a violation of the free movement of banking services.

> violation of the free movement of banking services

Isn't the same as freely moving the jurisdiction under which a company exist.

It also mostly applies to cash/legal tender but most wealthy peoples wealth is only in small amounts in cash.

Technically relevant laws are also often not classified as "capital flight" laws per-se, but are very close to it.

E.g. in Germany there is a "Wegzugsteuer" (~moving away from Germany Tax), which only applies to "hidden/unrealized reserves". When you leave Germany (~for good, kinda, it's complicated) the tax treats them as if you sold them, i.e. you have to any tax you would have to pay if you had sold them. "Hidden reserves" include stuff like you owning more then 1% of a company, certain investment founds, crypto currency, etc.. So while it's not a capital flight law as it doesn't affect cash (weather digital or physical) it is very similar to it.

(clarifications: yes in EU crypto currency is not a legal tender, i.e. it's treated more like gold. You still can use them to buy things as you can buy things based on an exchange of goods if all involved parties agree to it. Similar for a lot of the things covered by the law it's possible to sell them for very low taxes under the right circumstances, so if you don't move very spontaneously you have a lot of ways to largely reduce this tax.)

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#417

Post by [deleted] »

egorfine wrote: post #286
hvb2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said > In Germany And then > Yet somehow the rules pile up. Which is just German culture as much as food is Italian. If you want rules for everything I'm hard pressed to think of a more regulated country than Germany. And the populace, in general, might scoff at how long things take but absolutely want to understand what the process is... So yeah, you can't have it both ways

> hard pressed to think of a more regulated country than Germany. Unfortunately the influence of Germany over other EU countries is quite strong in terms of regulations. Absolutely no one wants more regulations, yet they slowly pile up in the whole EU. I live in Poland, where regulations are incomparably more sane than those of Germany, but even here it slowly grows.

[deleted]

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#418

Post by bombcar »

kakacik wrote: post #287
egorfine wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know that EU bureaucrats do what each country want them to do right? I'n not entirely sure about that. The vast majority of entrepreneurs are complaining about unrealistic requirements and inconceivable burdens in Germany. Certainly no one wants any of this. Yet somehow the rules pile up.

Bureaucracy is a beast with its own life, it doesn't care what regular people want. In fact most folks' requirements go directly against objectives of this beast, since people want it as small and as weak as possible, while beast need to be fed and feels internally it needs to be strong. Anything not related to gaining or maintaining strength is antagonist.

And even if that's not the case, the group of "entrepreneurs" is so small compared to the voting population at large, that they won't even notice if they crush it entirely into paste.

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#419

Post by trueismywork »

miki123211 wrote: post #344
academia_hack wrote: post #168

It's inordinately difficult and expensive to start an LLC or SA in some EU countries. It's even difficult and expensive to _stop_ an LLC and dissolve it. Huge amount of risk and cost on founders and a huge distraction from running a business. I think that EU-Inc _could_ be an improvement, but it needs to avoid the committee laundry list of ideas/requirements/form fields that plagues the EU startup ecosystem. My worry…

I think what's even more important is that the costs for founding and maintaining such an LLC should scale with revenue, including scaling to 0 . In many EU countries, you still have to pay social security and/or health insurance, even if your company brings in no revenue. This isn't supposed to be a problem, as you're not really supposed to officially start a business unless you cross specific revenue thresholds. Ho…

Startups but definition have no revenue.

Its also a chicken and egg problem. Having a revenue means having a company and vice versa. Unless you're in very old fields, which explains lack of new tech companies in Germany

Re: EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

#420

Post by embedding-shape »

philipallstar wrote: post #409
embedding-shape wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the whole effort this submission, is about is moving a tiny step towards "require none" but not go all the way, compared to how it is today. You chose the wrong submission to comment that on, in any "new regulation in EU" submission that might have been appropriate, but this move is quite the opposite of what you say is happening.

This isn't an EU move, is it?

> This isn't an EU move, is it?

What, exactly, do you mean with "EU move"?

I guess technically it's a "European Commission" move, but overall it's a European and EU move, unless "move" has some specific meaning to you.

Post reply on HN