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

741–750 of 761 posts

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

#741

Post by bgnn »

rambambram wrote: post #682
bgnn wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah our case was strange because we develop chips and design software related to it. Belastingdienst categorized us wrongly as metalelektro, and we got this guys (Cometec) within two weeks of that. In the meantime we have applied this sector assignment to be corrected, which eventually happened while we were getting threatened into bankruptcy by these guys. What I don't understand is, we got a lot of help from RVO,…

Yeah, that stuff can be scary, I understand. It might almost feel extortionate. You had labor lawyers look at the applicable CAO and pension rules? I quickly checked their website and it's a little unclear (so don't consider this legal advise), but their legal basis is probably the CAO. If that particular CAO has been made mandatory by law (which happens for certain industries that need tighter control from governmen…

> The Netherlands does not want entrepreneurs, they want everybody cozy at their jobs at some big company.

Totally agreed. Those big companies in return get a lot of benefits from the government. Most investment in semiconductors for example are going into the already big, and let's be honest, not do competitive companies to keep the alive.

We're in the Randstad. Nijmegen is nice but together with old Philips its semiconductor ecosystem has declined quite a bit.

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

#742

Post by rsynnott »

nottorp wrote: post #64
rsynnott wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one, I'm worried about what simple means. Likely something that will not make it as cheap to operate in every EU country, but make it as expensive to do that. I mean, if that's the case, no-one will use that structure. In general, having a single set of rules makes things cheaper. That is the whole basis of standardisation. > Also 9 of the 27 will take years to finish the process. You're thinking of directives.…

> quick guide to the differences here They're trying so hard to not call themselves a government that they renamed everything so it doesn't sound like what a government does. Maybe they should start with fixing that... For the record i am in the EU and I think the EU is generally a good thing. Doesn't mean the "commisioners/ministers/whatever" couldn't use a few kicks to bring them more down to earth.

Remember the attempted EU constitution? They discovered at that point that looking too much like a government made the nationalists _very_ upset, so it was recast as the Lisbon treaty (not a constitution, we promise!). A lot of the can't-believe-it's-not-a-government stuff stems from that debacle.

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

#743

Post by mmooss »

joe_mamba wrote: post #700
mmooss wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people in the US have a huge problem with affordability, and can't afford healthcare and medication, education, housing, and sometimes food.

That's what government social programs like Medicaid and SNAP/EBT are for, accounting for about 800 billion in gov spending in 2025, and a total of 1,2 Trillion the US gov spend on welfare in 2025. That's exactly the opposite of being poor. If you want to see real poverty, go to countries that don't have any government welfare programs. In EU many workers also wouldn't be able to afford to live without taxpayer-funde…

> That's what government social programs like Medicaid and SNAP/EBT are for

Many people intend those programs to work that way, but they don't: People still can't afford food, healthcare, housing, and education. The programs are also being cut back on a large scale.

> The lower class is always subsidised

Many would say it's actually the wealthy who are subsidized. For example, most policy, laws, regulations, and both political parties are oriented toward serving and facilitating the wealthy, or at worst, not displeasing them. The military is sometimes used to serve large corporations, such as oil companies. Weathy people often pay a lower rate of taxes: The tax on their primary form of income, capital gains, is lower than the tax on other people's primary form of income, wages; the numbers get worse when you account for welfare taxes, which are regressive. People literally die of poverty - they are unable to afford the care they need.

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

#744

Post by mmooss »

roenxi wrote: post #697
mmooss wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That sounds like a significant problem ... for either the Germans or the French to resolve. If you do the math on the number of pairs of EU countries that need to find bilateral solutions ... it becomes clear why the EU government exists. It's just not efficient otherwise. (Answer: 351) > When people talk about larger regulatory frameworks they see the problem as the more permissive side is giving people options an…

> If you do the math on the number of pairs of EU countries that need to find bilateral solutions ... it becomes clear why the EU government exists. It's just not efficient otherwise. (Answer: 351) That logic doesn't hold. If it made sense supermarkets wouldn't work because they have to hold bilateral negotiations with hundreds of thousands of customers. In practice, they just offer a take-it-or-leave-it deal and peo…

> I'd estimate maybe 20-30% of the stock offers I see have a lot of front matter materials saying something to the effect of "if you come from the US you aren't even allowed to read this, go away".

That is interesting. I wonder why. It seems like they could offer a combined prospectus that addresses all major sets of requirements. I do know that the US an (much of?) the EU use different accounting standards; maybe the numbers are for one region or the other.

> That logic doesn't hold. If it made sense supermarkets wouldn't work because they have to hold bilateral negotiations with hundreds of thousands of customers. In practice, they just offer a take-it-or-leave-it deal and people either accept it or they don't.

This isn't buying a can of soup at retail.

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

#745

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sbacic wrote: post #714
wolvoleo wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can defend ourselves, it's just that the US didn't want a too-powerful Europe until trump. In particular nuclear. They heavily pushed against that. We'll have to scale this up now but it is not a big problem. Population collapse is a good thing. We already have too many people in this world, causing environmental and housing issues. We can't keep ever growing as humanity, stabilisation or even a reduction is very…

> Population collapse is a good thing. Unless your welfare state depends on a growing population. Which is the case in many EU states. I'd also argue that overpopulation is not a problem in Europe.

We should definitely go all in on a perpetually growing population, what could possibly go wrong.

It's going to hurt, but that's what happens when people don't look to the future and do everything out of greed. The sooner we stop population growth the better.

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

#746

Post by baby »

zdragnar wrote: post #406
baby wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a startup in the US is a huge mess due to all the states and taxes, if Europe can make everything digital AND easier, it's a no brainer for us to move our company there.

Why would moving to the EU mean you don't have to deal with states and taxes? Would you abandon the US market completely?

We have clients all over the world

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

#747

Post by sbacic »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #745
sbacic wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Population collapse is a good thing. Unless your welfare state depends on a growing population. Which is the case in many EU states. I'd also argue that overpopulation is not a problem in Europe.

We should definitely go all in on a perpetually growing population, what could possibly go wrong. It's going to hurt, but that's what happens when people don't look to the future and do everything out of greed. The sooner we stop population growth the better.

This "greed" and lack of foresight underpins a lot of the welfare states of Europe. Many member states are doing nothing at all to account for this population shrinkage, much less plan for a world with less people.

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

#748

Post by joe_mamba »

mmooss wrote: post #743
joe_mamba wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what government social programs like Medicaid and SNAP/EBT are for, accounting for about 800 billion in gov spending in 2025, and a total of 1,2 Trillion the US gov spend on welfare in 2025. That's exactly the opposite of being poor. If you want to see real poverty, go to countries that don't have any government welfare programs. In EU many workers also wouldn't be able to afford to live without taxpayer-funde…

> That's what government social programs like Medicaid and SNAP/EBT are for Many people intend those programs to work that way, but they don't: People still can't afford food, healthcare, housing, and education. The programs are also being cut back on a large scale. > The lower class is always subsidised Many would say it's actually the wealthy who are subsidized. For example, most policy, laws, regulations, and both…

>Many people intend those programs to work that way, but they don't

It's not as binary. It fails for some people, but it definitely works for most. There's always people slipping through the cracks of the net, even in the most generous welfare states, but that's a long stretch to claim americans are "dying of poverty" when they have an abundance of resources at their disposal to not die.

For example, if you're homeless american in a large city, you can go dumpster diving and get fresh food that's been thrown out just because it "looks ugly". If your tummy hurts, you can go to the ER and receive mandated sci-fi healthcare to not die, even if you're homeless. This is a far cry from the definition of "dying of poverty". I suggest you visit places like Russian republics, Myanmar or Nigeria if you want to see what actual dying of poverty looks like where you don't have access to free food and scifi healthcare.

The biggest problem killing americans is drug addiction and mental illnesses. Since if your brain is fried you won't be able to make much use of available free food and healthcare.

>Many would say it's actually the wealthy who are subsidized

That's always been the case since post-WW2 at least and gotten worse since Reagan. What's your suggestion to fix it? The super wealthy have too much power and influence over finance and politics, no matter who you vote for. Elected officials, on either side, will never touch them since they're in this together, so the system is working as intended, there's nothing you can fix here.

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

#749

Post by wolvoleo »

WarmWash wrote: post #651
wolvoleo wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can defend ourselves, it's just that the US didn't want a too-powerful Europe until trump. In particular nuclear. They heavily pushed against that. We'll have to scale this up now but it is not a big problem. Population collapse is a good thing. We already have too many people in this world, causing environmental and housing issues. We can't keep ever growing as humanity, stabilisation or even a reduction is very…

Europe didn't want a too powerful Europe until Trump. Are you going to look me in the eyes and say that you, and your general Euro brethren, have been pushing for a greater defense budget at the expense of greater social program spending for the last 30 years. Please, please make that statement. C'mon... This is the same Europe that thought it would be a good idea to buy gas from Russia, the same Europe that thought…

No, but back then the US was a trusted partner. They wanted to provide military protection in return for geopolitical influence. Both are gone now of course.

However I don't think we need a huge military in terms of boots on the ground. We just need a nuclear umbrella to avoid the likes of Putin to roll into europe. Most of our foreign military adventures were requested by the US and only about oil, not safety related. Even the nato article 5 afghanistan trip was completely useless (bin laden wasn't even there, afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks and since everyone pulled out things are 100% back the way they were).

And yeah we bought too much American tech and chinese manufacturing (but so does America obviously). Cars aren't that important to single out, a lot of us don't even have one.

And Europe was a lot more socialist > 30 years ago. It's the last decades that the neoliberalists (including the EU itself which has strong neoliberal underpinnings) have been hollowing out social protections in favour of business.

This is what I mean when I say the US model isn't necessarily the best. Americans are often completely convinced of that, that there is no other way than ultracapitalism and heartless social policies. I absolutely don't agree there. The US is best at making some people insane amounts of money but it's not great for social cohesion and a decent life for everyone.

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

#750

Post by Nemo_bis »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #720
Nemo_bis wrote: post #514

The first point already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea The second point is dubious. A central registry may be better or worse than the best national registry. The third and fourth are what is usually called the Capital Markets Union in eurobubble speak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Markets_Union The Draghi report had some specific proposals which are rather realistic: > Reduce capita…

>The first point already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea SEs are public companies, and must have at least €120k in capital during formation. The proposed EU Inc. will be for private companies with no capital requirements.

SE companies can be unlisted, if that's what you mean.

The capital requirements can be changed.

Post reply on HN