71–80 of 80 posts
When the people complain about the European union taking too much autonomy, this seems like a pretty good example. It seems crazy to me that Ireland is "not allowed" to set taxes as low as it would like to attract foreign investment. Even states in the US can freely do that!
Higher taxes are always passed on to the consumer, businesses are greedy.
The Irish Supreme Court has previously held that ex post facto civil laws are illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Is this not ex post facto taxation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life is political Tim Cook knows all about “optics” It’s rather ignorant and selfish for him to pretend laws shouldn’t change or should only favor him It’s the social equivalent of building on a Google svc and having them shut down that service QQ for Tim Cook but it’s well within the authority of the government in question Poor billionaire snowflake Maybe he can do like Thiel and invest in undermining public institu…
There is a difference between the laws changing and affecting future behavior and a change being applied retroactively. An earlier message indicated that the money was being put in escrow because apparently there is still a dispute about how the law should have been applied in the past. I think it is reasonable to be upset about after-the-fact changes to the application of a law/regulation.
Still legal
Nations built on laws, right?
Just because a particular entities economics position, which has no legal protections enshrined in any national constitutions or political or social theories I know of (economics are economics, not political science), are impacted by that. Welp; nations of laws and legal processes
Downvote with all your ad hominem might all you want. Facts are facts.
The Government is putting the money in an escrow account until they figure out what to do[0]. The money would cover Ireland’s social welfare bill for a year which is a major cost to the Irish tax payer. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance/ire...
Seems like they are taking a long term perspective rather than a short term boost to their tax-base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that this is true, because (at the state level, not federal) this is table stakes to lure large corporations to locate in one state over another. Just look at some of the pitches cities/states have been making to Amazon for their HQ2, or the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/05/foxc...
This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. Its good the EU has rules in place to prevent this destructive behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. Its good the EU has rules in place to prevent this destructive behaviour.
I don't see the negative outcome. Cities know the economic activity of 50,000 highly paid workers makes up for the loss of some property tax revenue. The alternative is no highly paid jobs and no property tax revenue (as the land is undeveloped).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between the laws changing and affecting future behavior and a change being applied retroactively. An earlier message indicated that the money was being put in escrow because apparently there is still a dispute about how the law should have been applied in the past. I think it is reasonable to be upset about after-the-fact changes to the application of a law/regulation.
There is Still legal Nations built on laws, right? Just because a particular entities economics position, which has no legal protections enshrined in any national constitutions or political or social theories I know of (economics are economics, not political science), are impacted by that. Welp; nations of laws and legal processes Downvote with all your ad hominem might all you want. Facts are facts.
For example:
• laws shouldn't be drafted to apply to a single person (bill of attainder)
• laws shouldn't be applied retroactively (ex post facto)
• laws shouldn't infringe on individual rights