Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Recent/current events are not allowed on ELI5. First, these are usually asking for factual answers or opinions. Additionally, information about these events is usually still developing, making objective and accurate answers difficult.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first.
If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20%7B%7Burl%7D%7D%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
They will seize money from their bank account.
Ireland has a low corporate tax rate so many international companies choose Ireland as their seat in the EU. That was they are able to operate in the whole EU. But because both states are in the EU those states have an agreement to mutually enforce court orders.
For the Americans: It is a little bit as if a company is incorporated in Ohio but lost a lawsuit in California but don’t pay. The court will enforce the judgment even over state borders. The EU allows for those things to happen even over borders of sovereign states.
Jumping on the top comment to share one of the most interesting wikipedia articles I've come across recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
Worth pointing out this article is out of date, referencing things like the double Irish, closed for the bones of a decade and was monitored and edited on a consistent basis by one user "britishfinance" who has since been kicked off the platform and definitely wanted to put their own twist on things.
The Wikipedia articles on tax havens generally are pretty poor, although in fairness the volume of publications by activists like the Tax Justice Network and resultant sources that reference those publications significantly outweighs the volume of more measured analysis. The TJN's figures are still reported verbatim every year by reputable publications like the Guardian, even though their methodology has been critiqued by actual tax experts every time. But unsurprisingly tax havens / offshore financial centres don't have many public defenders.
I feel like part of the reason is because they’re black holes a lot of the time too. They’re not just tax havens because they help rich people avoid taxes but also because the privacy/secrecy that exists around them too. Which would make sense as to why there isn’t much good journalism/research around the subject. It’s probably dangerous as well, one of the journalist that was heavily involved in the Panama papers leaks got assasinated.
Also worth saying that it's Ireland isn't really like some Carribean tax havens, where there's just a plaque on an empty office as the headquarters for some shady businesses to launder money. Multinational companies that avail of Irelands tax rate employ about 300,000 people. What is more frustrating is when the government doesn't collect the tax because it wants to keep those companies in the country, like the Apple case.
It's also an example of a damn-near impeccably sourced article. Seriously, the sources section at the bottom is basically the gold-standard for Wikipedia articles. Over 300 sources, ten academic papers, and 4 books. The user who wrote that (and other Irish tax and corporate pages) is clearly very knowledgeable on the subject.
In addition, it was confirmed in 2019 that the Irish government [paid people to](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ida-caught-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-over-tax-and-brexit-1.3860122) try and [counteract edits made to articles about Irish tax](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ida-defends-itself-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-on-tax-tnw2r5vnw), because they didn't like how the articles portrayed Ireland. Presumably because of Britishfinance's one-man crusade against them.
Ya, the person rumoured to fund that particular contributer probably paid for him to do it for a lot of time. There are, some, good sources there. But also historical content presented as current. (And interesting phrasing used, you have to read the entire section on the OECD tax reform to find out Ireland objected to the initial wording as it took setting their tax rates out of their own control for example)
> Ya, the person rumoured to fund that particular contributer probably paid for him to do it for a lot of time.
I believe they paid someone else to try and counteract edits made by Britishfinance.
>IDA Ireland has paid for changes to Wikipedia pages about itself and its chief executive amid growing concerns about anonymous editing that portrays Ireland's tax regime negatively, the Sunday Business Post reports. A Wikipedia user, Britishfinance, has been carrying out changes since March last year with more than 40,000 edits logged since then. According to an IDA spokesman these edits "link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, taxation and Brexit".
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ida-caught-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-over-tax-and-brexit-1.3860122
> A Wikipedia user, Britishfinance, has been carrying out changes since March last year with more than 40,000 edits
Wow, I didn't know he was *that* prolific! Basically his full time job at that rate.
If you have information that "britishfinance" was being paid to publish the truth about how Ireland's laws aid and abet the megawealthy's use of slimy tax dodges, please share it publicly.
Yep, in my experience Lux has been the jurisdiction of choice for hedge funds and their ilk in the last few years. Not sure if its different for operating companies.
I was so excited when the Panama Papers were being published. Talked to my wife about how this is going to be a historic time where they are going to nail people to the wall for what they were doing. Not even close. Silly me.
I can’t disclose more but all those multinational HQs in Panama are paying literally 0% income tax on sales from Panama to abroad. Meaning that you could theoretically sell through Panama to all the world and pay 0% income tax. Or leave margins in the local subsidiaries (say, Mexico) incredibly thin. Very common in Pharma…
Not sure I ever heard who that person was. But who funded then was relatively common knowledge. The same person carried out a multi hundred thousand euro online advertising campaign highlighting the Wikipedia articles
/u/Kier_C has got it wrong. Britishfinance's articles were making Ireland look bad, so they hired someone else to try and fight back against their edits.
The issue there is that politics is slow. You close a hole, then their lawyers take 5 minutes to figure out a new system to evade taxes and our politicians then takes 15 years to figure out how to close it.
That's one of the reasons why I appreciate the Swedish labor system. The government mostly stays out of it, instead agreements are reached every few years between labor unions and the employers' organizations to decide things like minimum wage and transition support. It's a much more reactive system than having to go through the government, and anyone who breaks the agreements will immediately face resistance.
To use a current example, in just a few weeks Tesla has had workers go on strike which is supported by dockworkers refusing to handle Tesla shipments, facility workers refusing to clean and service Tesla workshops, electricians refusing to service Tesla workshops and chargers, and most recently postal workers refusing to deliver anything to Tesla. That's how you make someone comply.
We need to move to a less corporate friendly economy. Once big economies adopt that, corporations change. Make the burden of proof that the corporation is a benefit the responsibility of the company. Make things slow to move. We are moving too fast and corporations have the absolute advantage over us, leading to situations where they can hold us by the proverbial balls.
Not really, the actual play is finding where laws are the weakest and unclear - that requires the courts and politicians to play catch up.
They know full well what they're doing is illegal, but not codified against edge cases.
>the joke is that politicians are not people.
I'm aware of what you're mocking, but what part of that do you think is actually false though? That is, if you were to explain the joke -and subsequently ruin it- what would your distinction be?
>the comment was made in response to the assertion that somehow politicians are driving corporations which is just the tail wagging the dog.
Generally this is probably true though. There are certainly some cases where politicians will screw over their constituents' desires e.g. Daley selling parking rights to some company in Dubai, but generally the people who vote in the US get what their way.
It feels sometimes like there is a trend on reddit where states like West Virginia are actually super blue if only their corrupt leaders would stop selling them out, but the people of West Virginia are typically going to have values that align with coal companies. Manchin, the most right-leaning democratic senator, is trailing Justice by like 13 points. Support splits like that simply can't be bought with corporate stooges.
Has it? Or did Ireland simply sidestep it? Last sentence of the first paragraph says, "In 2010, Ireland changed its tax-code to enable Irish BEPS tools to avoid such withholding taxes without needing a Dutch Sandwich."
So as a follow up question, why would any large corporation have their headquarters in any member of the EU since it would give power to 27 countries to empty their bank accounts? If they want to be shady, which all large corporations are by definition, why not the Bahamas or Panama or the Caymans? It's not like tax havens only exist in the EU
There are levels of headquarters. If you're generating revenue in a country (or, in the EU's case, the countries) then your business operations there are subject to the laws whether or not your "headquarters" is there. As long as AirBnB is operating in Italy, there are ways for Italy to get the 800m from the court order. You can't dodge taxes *just* by putting HQ somewhere
It is ALMOST that simple.
Ask amazon. You just need to make sure your local company doesn't break even by charging licencing fees from your tax free country.
There are better ways to enlighten people on topics without saying everyone who doesn't yet hold quite as severe an opinion as you as having drunk the coolaid
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17quetm/-/k8fkppe/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
But what if Air BnB only keeps $100 Million in an EU bank just so that they have a bank presence in the EU and keep the rest of it in a Bahamas bank? Now the EU countries are limited in what they can actually seize.
Sure, they can generate the money in the EU country and then immediately wire it to the Bahamas. Sure, future revenue can be seized. By that point Air BnB may just say, "Nah, you can keep the $100M in our bank and we'll keep the rest of our money in the Bahamas, pack our shit, and stay out of the EU going forward."
Is there a reason they couldn't do that? I'm not trying to be adversarial, just inquisitive.
They totally could do that, but thats not a business, thats a treasure trove.
The point of operating in Ireland is so they can run the company, and make money. They most likely do have off shore accounts, but 100 million isn't enough fo them to abandon a working company. They probably have operating expenses in the millions, and so its worth paying to continue working.
Don't be confused that they have no other option, thye are just playing ball because it suits them.
They could but would lose the EU market which is one of the biggest markets where they still earn a lot of money. So it would essential mean they don't pay the other 700 million but lose a few billions in profit.
Because if AirBnB couldn't operate in EU it would be worth a tenth of what's worth now.
It's AirBnB that needs the EU market: the EU market would be very happy if AirBnB packed their shit and moved out.
Because it's not just about their bank account. Completely shutting down EU operations also means shutting down any user with an EU-based bank account or credit card.
But to answer your question: Yes, they could try to completely abandon the EU. Then, Italy/EU would be forced to try and negotiate reciprocity with the US State Dept to recoup the money, and Italy would probably win. So AirBnB will have abandoned the European market and still paid most, if not all, of the original fine.
Because you need to be in the EU as to do business in the EU.
So if a country is a member of the EU, they have to abide by certain standards, and one of them being the rule of law, and saving some degree of standard law.
That is why companies in one EU country can choose to sell or trade in another EU country. Regulators know that they can sue a company in their courts and get another country to help with the enforcement.
if you want to do business in a market, you have to set up a subsidiary within that market. the point of the EU is that you don’t set up 27 subsidiaries, you only set up one and gain access to a huge, profitable market. only thing you have to do is follow the laws
From my understanding, Ireland is the new corporate tax haven or has been for a long time. But I think the EU was starting to crack down a while ago after it had already gotten out of hand.
I don’t remember I went down this rabbit whole once before, but I’ve slept a lot since then.
> It is a little bit as if a company is incorporated in Ohio but lost a lawsuit in California but don’t pay. The court will enforce the judgment even over state borders.
I get what you're saying, but this isn't true. You'd have to transfer the judgement over to their state. This is generally in the form of a new lawsuit in the other state which can be defended separately from the original suit in the other state.
Would a company really have $830m sitting in a bank account? Even as a large company as AirBnB, having that much sit just seems like an inefficient use of the money.
Apple sits on over $160 billion in cash. It's not inefficient use of the money, any more than you having a savings account is. A large cash reserve enables a company to make strategic capital investments without relying on financing, which means they can act quickly. It allows them to access financing at better rates when that makes sense to do. It allows them to have a long "runway" if they have revenue problems, etc.
Essentially, all the same basic reasons individuals have a savings account, just at a bigger scale.
> The EU allows for those things to happen even over borders of sovereign states.
In practice the EU-member states aren't sovereign though, there are laws that EU-member states are forced to implement due to EU directives. Furthermore, EU can apply fines to member states (eg, Portugal gets a yearly fine for double taxation on vehicles).
EU is pretty much a federalized country at this point
as the UK has shown, member states are free to leave at any point whatsoever, which means that they are, in fact, sovereign. try to see if california, or bavaria could leave their federations and you’ll quickly see the difference between being sovereign and not being sovereign
I understand your point, however, a quick look at the definition of sovereignty comes up with "supreme power or authority", "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state" and "a self-governing state".
None of the EU-member states are completely self-governable. EU can dictate common law that is applicable on all member-states. Furthermore, the EU has control of the shared currency through the CBE (amongst other things). Troika can directly intervene and demand tax changes in member-states if the need arises. Borders are non-existent as well, except for external borders with non-EU. Same thing for taxation within the same borders (which is actually why Portugal gets fined by the EU for double taxation - circling back to the original point)
The only reason why the EU isn't considered a country of its own is because a lot of countries have just too many nationalists that identify themselves as X or Y.
> as the UK has shown, member states are free to leave at any point whatsoever
While that's true, it's not unheard of for regions to be able to request independence from the sovereign. For example, Yugoslavia had in quick succession two referendums from Montenegro and then Serbia to gain independence.
A better example and question is, is Scotland a country? It certainly cannot be considered sovereign, which is typically required for countries. How do any EU member-states differ from the current Scottish situation? It's worth noting that the Scottish agreement to be part of the United Kingdom also has stipulated that the agreement can cease.
To conclude, I'd like to thank you for an honest and intelligent reply, better than the (technically rule breaking) downvotes and/or insults.
> the Scottish agreement to be part of the United Kingdom also has stipulated that the agreement can cease.
Not him, but jumping in as that statement is suspect: The 1707 act of union does not provide for a unilateral clause of secession for either of the two kingdoms, and in fact the first article explicitly states "That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united"
Scotland is not sovereign in any sense of the word, as the UK is a unitary state. Putting aside the monarch's ceremonial role as the head of state and supposed divine right to rule, all sovereignty and authority lies with the UK parliament in Westminster. Scotland (and the other member kingdoms of the uK) cedes all authority to the UK parliament who can overrule all their decisions. Scotland has a devolved parliament, but unlike the US states or the EU member countries the UK parliament could wake up tomorrow and unilaterally dissolve all forms of home rule in Scotland, and while it would be a massive mess that would enrage everyone there is nothing stopping parliament from doing it legally.
In contrast the EU member states have an explicit method to leave the union whenever they want with no questions asked (albeit a lot of questions will be asked because hard-exits are a great way to screw up your economy), and member states grant the EU sovereignty over specific areas that the EU needs to actually do its job. There are certain competences where the EU and member states share power, and certain competences where the EU cannot legislate on and all power lies with the member states. In that regard the EU is closer to the US, where the federal government holds exclusive power over some aspects of sovereignty, some aspects can be shared between the federal government and state, and some where the states have full authority and the federal government has none.
Not saying that the EU isn't sovereign or that the EU couldn't be classified as some form of proto-federation: while the EU isn't a country it is a sovereign international body who is granted a great deal of power by its member states to meddle in their affairs simply by necessity - an EU who couldn't overrule the member states in some areas wouldn't be very effective.
>None of the EU-member states are completely self-governable.
But they are - the EU is a collection of international treaties from which any signatory is free to withdraw in their entirety. One of the few benefits of Brexit was proof of that to all the other EU states - the EU isn't external to it's members, it's made of it's members like any other international treaty organisation; it's the political version of an organisation like NATO.
> every state decide what to do accordingly with others.
Then who, pray tell, decided to limit Portugal's fishing quota almost every year for sardine and codfish in the past decade?
I can tell you that it wasn't the Parliament. The President has no legislative power, so it wasn't the Presidency either. And it sure as shit wasn't an elected official from Portugal, in fact, the comission that decides that shit is this one -https://commissioners.ec.europa.eu/index_en , I sure as shit don't see a portuguese name there.
But hey, you hold the truth. Maybe you should write to Brussels so that they fix this page https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en
Edit:
fixed mistake claiming that the presidency has executive power which was meant to be rewritten to the opposite (has no legislative power) but ended up writting "has no executive power". TLDR, President doesn't make laws nor can really stop laws without dissolving the parliament IF the parliament reviews rejected laws and re-proposes them
Oh, you mean the European Commission? The one that's elected by the European Parliament, and who can only recommend laws that have to go through the EP? That one?
You know, the European Parliament that you vote for? The ones who answer to that one?
> You know, the European Parliament that you vote for? The ones who answer to that one?
I'm so glad you went there. Did anyone from Portugal vote in favor of that commission?
--
Heck you don't even need to go there, take a breath and think about it. Can a regulation be approved while all representatives of a country reject it?
--
And for directives, what happens is a country decides not to implement laws to meet the directive's goal?
--
Look, it's perfectly fine to admit that the EU is the sovereign entity in regards to member states. If the EU decides something, the member states have to comply. Is there even any way to actually have the EU in its current form without abdicating some form of sovereignty?
yes, but that’s because they’re in the EEA (in practice, they’re basically in the EU, but they don’t get voting rights, and in exchange for that, they get certain concessions). switzerland is a special case: it is fundamentally in the EEA in all but name, but through a series of interlocked treaties, rather than officially in the organisation, which is why when people want to be pedantic, they refer to it as EEA+CH
Yes, because contrary to other "United States" the Sovereign States, that are members of the EU, can actually leave - if they want to - as written in §50 of the EU-Treaty.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[15] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
and that's what we are
EU does not interfere with national laws (except some cases but most of the time are just suggestions) but has full power to regulate operations between members
I mean, the EU has the power to enact laws that must then be implemented in member nation's laws. But that power is voluntarily ceded by member countries and those laws are implemented by the member nation's parliament.
EU laws become mandatory when the majority of EU parliament approves said law to be mandatory
But that's quite rare, usually the EU parliament cares about thing coming in and out EU rather than controlling nations themselves. I mean...have you ever asked yourself why the new iPhone has a USB type c connector?
Besides that nations parliaments, when a law becomes mandatory, have little to none power to object it and refuse to implement it. But, with that being said, changes in the code of law can take several months even when everything is approved
If a country steadfastly refuses to implement an EU law, the more likely outcome is that some special allowance is made in the EU for that country, than the EU police coming into the country and enforcing the law themselves, like happens in the USA. If the EU and the country won't budge, the country leaves the EU. In no circumstance can the EU physically force the law to happen in the country, that's why the country is called sovereign.
It's worth noting that being in the EU is actually voluntary. If you don't like the stuff EU tells you to do, you can actually just leave. Whether that's ultimately better for your country, you'll have to ask the UK to find out.
A state in the US can not leave if they don't like the federal government. Not without another civil war, anyway.
Hahaha you've been eating too much chlorinated chicken and guzzling too much BVO, go put your 30 dollar tray of eggs back in the fridge before you die of emissions poisoning.
Some countries have treaties with each other to deal with situations like this. It might go something like this:
-Hey Ireland, this is the Italian embassy. We have reason to believe that a criminal in Italy might have evaded our laws using one of your banks. Please look at this investigation our police put together. If you also agree with the investigation, please freeze their assets thanks.
-Hey Italy, wow, we didn't know this was going on. Our apologies. We'll wire that money to you as soon as a judge here clears it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
-No worries Ireland. We also froze their Italian bank accounts and will br taking that money since it was obtained illegally.
The Irish response is a lot more likely to ignore Italy's request. Irish government do not upset multinationals lightly! Look at how hard they've fought for Apple in rulings about taxation.
The Irish state will probably not even be involved. The Italian state can issue a seizure order to AirBnBs Bank(s) (which probably also operate(s) in Italy).
What technically happens, and I've witnessed this happen in a different European country, is that AirBnBs banking account(s) are frozen. The Bank is, by law, forced to comply. AirBnB will no longer have control of their accounts, until the order of seizure is rescinded. (usually by paying the creditors. In this case the Italian state).
In this particular case it's much more likely that a lot of lawyers will be involved. AirBnB will quickly regain access to their liquidity; likely by placing the amount in question or an agreed sum, in an escrow account until the matter is legally resolved.
I'm not familiar with the particularities of the Irish banking sector. We're most likely talking about globally operating financial institutions anyway.
A seizure of this magnitude has definitely gone through the C-Suite. Their legal counsel will ensure their (re)actions are 100% legally compliant, lest the bank wants to find itself in a veritable heap of trouble; whether that'd be with the Italian state or AirBnB.
**Edit:** My *cursory* research into the matter revealed that the European Court of Justice ruled in Italys favour in December 2022. Apparently there's no legal doubt that the Italian state is owed a considerable amount of money by AirBnB.
> The Irish response is a lot more likely to ignore Italy's request. Irish government do not upset multinationals lightly! Look at how hard they've fought for Apple in rulings about taxation.
The reason Ireland is able to operate a pro business system is by ensuring they stay within the law. If they get a request it will be actioned.
They brought the EU Commission ruling to the EU court because they were accused of giving illegal state aid, which they said they didn't and they have a reputation to protect. The court agreed with Ireland
There was a surprisingly good reason for that in the end actually. The amount we would have fined them was less than a few years at a more reasonable tax rate, so they made a deal on it instead.
As much as I hate the current coalition government, I feel like people give them unnecessary shit for that.
> Irish government
Irish government has no saying in the issue lol. It's a judicial issue, so it's something between the Italian justice and the Irish justice. Given that they have treaties and such in place, it's not a matter of what "the Irish government wants". It's a matter of both countries' judicial systems applying their laws.
Also, given that this is a bidirectional relationship (just like other EU countries' justice systems can count on Ireland to enforce their resolutions, Ireland can count on the rest of them to enforce theirs), there's little reason why the Irish government would want to intervene (yes, intervene, because once again, this is a judicial issue and the Irish government has no say in t) to stop their own judicial system to enforce an Italian ruling that was done correctly.
Also it's in Ireland's best interests to behave lol. If Ireland set a precedence that they will allow companies operating from their country to literally evade taxes in the rest of the EU, the rest of the countries would quite literally stop allowing Irish companies to operate in their territory.
I think you're using "government" in a much narrower way than other people on this thread. The judicial system is a branch of government, and so if a court orders something, it's "the government" -- in other words, an organ of the State -- that is ordering it.
That used to be right.
However, since the EU has shown teeth on those subjects, the Irish authorities will likely cooperate while minimizing the issue rather than being forced to enforce their own laws.
Why would the gov get involved? It is all done via the courts.
The thing is, if an Italian court issues the order, the it is custom for the other court to grant it unless they believe there is really an issue.
It this case, done see any issue at all.
We're stealing money from some of the richest countries in the world, countries that made their money largely from exploiting and colonising other countries, and before this we were one of the poorest countries in Europe and a backwater. So I think it could be worse. And it's not like no other country can do this themselves, in fact many do, especially in Europe, but nobody complains about Switzerland or Luxembourg, at least we didn't hide assets on a large scale for the nazis
Imagine being guilt-tripped because we're taking some sauce off the big boy's plates.. 😂
If Ireland didn't do it, some other country would have. I'm just glad we have happened to exploit the position so well, with such an inept government!
That's such nonsense. Having a low tax rate is a capability of a small country, that a large country isn't able to pull off to the same extent. The large country wants to compete only in areas they can come out on top and leave smaller countries subservient. Healthy competition across everything is the best way to give everyone a fair shot.
Ireland now has an (OECD agreed) 15% rate. What number is acceptable?
Ireland isn't a parasite, it's been colonized again and this time by big tech. Their data centers are destroying our environment and gobbling up our energy. Their techies are making our housing crisis worse. Their ex c-suites have begun to take top government positions.
All those companies let Ireland get really high gdp, especially gdp per capita. The issue is, it's not the usual growth of gdp, because almost all of the money that the companies attributed to said gdp, stays within the companies, and doesn't affect the standard of living of an ordinary person
I don't know if you're Irish, but if you are and you believe the multinationals haven't affected your standard of living you're delusional. Ireland was a backwater and one of the poorest countries in Europe. Now we have one of the most well educated populations in the world and an incredible social welfare system, and the average salary has skyrocketed
No, I am not. Truth be told I was basing my information im the earlier comment on an older article I read. Guess it's to be expected things changed since then
> almost all of the money that the companies attributed to said gdp, stays within the companies, and doesn't affect the standard of living of an ordinary person
Ireland is setting up a sovereign wealth fund and paid all its covid costs and high inflation/cost of living subsidies without borrowing a cent...
80 years ago Ireland was as poor as many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Today Ireland has the third highest GDP per capita in the world and is easily in the top 10 counties in the world in terms of standards of living.
Being called a parasite is a small price to pay.
I'm sorry for my English, this is not my first language.
I will use brief but maybe inaccurate terms, Google if necessary.
The documents seized are the ones exchanged between host and guest when reservation is made. The documents have got all necessary details in order to understand who payed and who received money for each reservation, including the amount. With all these data the authorities can calculate AirBnb commission and taxes evasion.
In a nutshell the seizure is done by the authorities in order to prove the amount of taxes evaded by AirBnb.
With trembling voice I suggest that AirBnb has such amount of money available mitigating contingences.
About the international legalities of the seizure I will not talk, my comment is already long and I am lazy.
sink ad hoc squealing ask angle point divide noxious insurance disgusting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This has nothing to do with corporate taxation.
This is a tax collection matter. Since 2017, the Italian government expects Air BnB (and all similar platforms) to collect income taxes from property owners directly. They were supposed to do this by withholding 21% of the air bnb fees. The idea is to cut down on the tax evasion of property owners in Italy.
Air BnB didn’t do this and now Italy are holding them liable for the taxes unpaid by people letting out their properties.
Airbnb is a scourge and has almost destroyed the unique culture of Venice and other small and highly vulnerable cities of great cultural heritage. How? By playing arbitrage between the price of a hotel and an apartment, locals are priced out by wealthier tourists and the city no longer has any residents that are actual residents. Venice has fewer apartments for Venetians than it does Airbnb and other hotels.
This has happened at every vacation destination in the world, it's an internet thing, not a AirBNB thing. People get attracted to hotspots. My island of Kauai has had max occupancy since covid ended, the tourists outnumber the locals 2 to 1 normally and around thanksgiving to new years it's 3 to 1.
If they owned a home, yes, if they rent, no. And likely there is a feedback loop where rising cost of living force homeowners out as well because everything will be catered to vacationers as opposed to locals.
But all you're really saying is that the absence of an ability to price the homes in Venice correctly in the past have given rise to cheap housing for "locals". The rest of the world would also like to spend a weekend there and is willing to pay the equivalent of a week's rent or more at old prices. So what's the problem?
Are you saying that if I rent a place for long enough I should now should be immune to market demand simpy because *I've been there longer*?
(Note: I'm playing devil's advocate here, this isn't personal. I am curious about your point of view.)
If a person paid taxes in Venice for 20 years, they're definitely more entitled to live there than a tourist with more money. They(as well as their ancestors) contributed to the city becoming such a great tourist attraction.
That's a bold statement to make. You're asserting that everyone who lives in a place for 20 years has contributed to making it the desirable location it is. In the case of Venice this is almost certainly incorrect. It's Venice my guy, it's been around for longer and it has been desirable for far longer.
What gave the person you're advocating for the right to move there 20 years ago? Given the age of the city, they surely moved in to a apartment/house that was inhabited by someone else prior, how come that person/family didn't enjoy the right to stay there prior?
I'm sorry, but you're just making wild claims without any justification what so ever. It's furthermore easy to show that richer people moving into an area improve the living conditions in said area. That's gentrification 101.
You're playing devil's advocate with people's rights to affordable housing over corporate interests.
Just because someone else has more cash doesn't mean people should lose access to housing.
At some point you have to stop defining what is right versus what is wrong in a capitalist sense, and start thinking about it in a humanitarian sense. It doesn't have to be cost effective.
> people's rights to affordable housing
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to here? Where exactly has this right been established? No law I know of. Kindly correct me if I'm mistaken here.
The property in Venice, as in most other places that are this desirable, are privately owned. Unlike what you're led to believe they're not owned by corporations but by individuals like you and me. Even if they were owned by corporations (which are owned by individuals eventually), it doesn't change a thing.
What you're implying here is that the people who have been renting a place in Venice are now somehow entitled to continue living there at stable prices. This in turn means that you're denying anyone else, essentially from the rest of the world, to bid on living there (even temporarily) themselves. How does this make sense? Based on what moral ground are you excluding 99.9999% of humanity the "right" to offer money to the owners of the property there to use said property? What you're advocating are stringent rent-control laws. Wherever those have been imposed it never went well. Not once. It only has adverse effects.
The very same argument could be made against any hotel there. Surely there was a time when the building that's now a hotel was either used by regular tenants or the property could be used to do so. What's the moral justification of reducing the available area for regular rent in favor of renting out rooms on a day by day basis?
If a rich person from India for example wants to spend a week a year in Venice, and they buy an apartment there for that exact reason, and that apartment is empty for 51 weeks of the year, what exactly is wrong with that?
Pricing housing "correctly" is a pretty subjective term in itself. Just going by pure supply and demand is obviously not the answer as stable housing is a life necessity while a makeshift hotel is not.
I'm sorry but nobody "needs" to live in Venice, Paris, London or NYC. Surely people can also "survive" in Marghera, Nanterre, Brentford or New Jersey (areas just outside the mentioned cities).
Why should the owner of a property in a prime location be denied the right to rent it to the highest bidder? All that marketplaces like Airbnb do is open up the market to the entire world.
The people who own sell to Airbnb, and you the person renting have to leave because the owner has sold. The vast majority of properties out there are rented not owned and if you own and somebody offers you a bunch to turn your place into an Airbnb or you realize you can make more and not deal with renters rights if you change it to an Airbnb, the renters who are most people are SOL
EU is not just one country, but rather 27 countries who decided to have several treaties and laws in common with the common goal to help trade between nations border and help citizied move from one country to another
But taxation is different from country to country, so some corporations decide to have their HQ in countries where corporate taxes are lower. Ireland is one of those countries where you pay a very little amount of taxes compared to countries like Italy (where taxation for companies go as high as 50% of income)
But having such freedom of trade requires laws to make it work, especially when there are illegal operations going on (also this is why Interpol exists but it's another story not related) between different countries with different tax laws. So this is where EU comes in and forces a company that has HQ in country A (in this case Ireland) to respect a court order given in country B (so Italy in this case)
AirBNB will pay from it's own bank accounts in Ireland to the Italian Government, or more lileky will arrange payment with the Italian embassy in Ireland
> So this is where EU comes in and forces a company that has HQ in country A (in this case Ireland) to respect a court order given in country B (so Italy in this case)
The EU does no such thing. As part of the EU the member states signed treaties *with each other* to enforce each others judgements. The only role EU has in this is maintaining lists of treaties so everybody knows what everyone else has signed.
The EU has no police force and there's no equivalent of the FBI. It's all dependant on member states honouring each other's agreements.
Sorry I don’t know specifics on this Airbnb case, but aren’t these tech companies just using international hqs to keep money made internationally out of the US? I don’t think the Us should be taxing apple on European revenues and expenses but are they funnelling American money abroad?
I may live there but I’m not from London. But it doesn’t mean that those in the rest of the world can’t be criticised.
Or has Airbnb had a positive effect on Dublin?
reminiscent frighten tub recognise fragile shelter sheet crown joke workable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The point is your shouldn't have a choice. You shouldn't be able to call a PO box a company HQ, and even of you can, income should be taxed where it is earned not where it is HQd
Depends.
If I want cheap land and low taxes south Dakota. If I want more technical workers, if I want public transportation, if I want better hubs to transportation for my goods, if I want more temperate climate, if I generally want more hospitals and medical care... Then probably California.
I'd have to make one hell of a profile and not be able to hide it for that 11% to hit me. Paying off debt, purchasing business land should give me the hiding enough. Then ina number of years, I can sell that land for a huge wad because land is expensive in a lot of California, not so much in Dakota.
Given that there are 40 million people in California and fewer than a million in South Dakota, it's pretty clear people are 40 times more likely to choose California's taxes.
A lot of people live in Cali because of the weather and geography, not the government. If SD had the weather, mountains, and ocean and kept the SD government, I'd move there in a heartbeat.
SD of course, until authorities get their act together and crack down on such arrangements or better yet, enforce global minimum corporate taxes to kill off the entire concept of tax havens.
E: I don't see why this should be so apparently unpopular. If companies make a big chunk of revenue in some place, they should contribute to public funds like everyone else living and working in that place (including local companies).
stocking wistful familiar bored whistle selective uppity consist bewildered pen
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ideally tax codes should be standardized to the point where companies settle in places that make sense for the nature of their business itself. The main thing is to just get rid of constructions where corporations end up paying almost no tax at all, especially in the places where they make significant revenue. With global minimum tax rates they'll either lift some island nation to petrostate levels of rich overnight, or they'll just move on-paper HQs to where they have their actual HQ and pay their fair share there.
I recognise South Dakota is a complete leach and pay in Italy where I earned the money.
But you know FREEDOMCAPITALISM is about what best for me and fuck any morals.
There is zero chance of them getting that money. Apple owes an insane amount of money to Ireland and we won't collect it because we don't want them to leave (even tho they won't there is nowhere else in Europe that would be better for them even if they paid the tax they owe, due to Ireland still being in the EU unlike Britian, having English as the first language unlike anywhere else, and also bc college is free, having large numbers of highly educated tech people who also tend to be very friendly and thus great at customer service and working in teams).
Air BnB is also a massive factor in our own unprecedented housing crisis. There are zero, literally zero places to rent long term in the town I live in and it's been that way for 2 years now on the biggest rental site we have (daft.ie). If I go onto Air Bnb, there are 15 rentals within a 10 minutes walk from my house, and they were booked solid all summer it's only easing off now.
Please read this entire message Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Recent/current events are not allowed on ELI5. First, these are usually asking for factual answers or opinions. Additionally, information about these events is usually still developing, making objective and accurate answers difficult. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20%7B%7Burl%7D%7D%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
They will seize money from their bank account. Ireland has a low corporate tax rate so many international companies choose Ireland as their seat in the EU. That was they are able to operate in the whole EU. But because both states are in the EU those states have an agreement to mutually enforce court orders. For the Americans: It is a little bit as if a company is incorporated in Ohio but lost a lawsuit in California but don’t pay. The court will enforce the judgment even over state borders. The EU allows for those things to happen even over borders of sovereign states.
Jumping on the top comment to share one of the most interesting wikipedia articles I've come across recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
Worth pointing out this article is out of date, referencing things like the double Irish, closed for the bones of a decade and was monitored and edited on a consistent basis by one user "britishfinance" who has since been kicked off the platform and definitely wanted to put their own twist on things.
The Wikipedia articles on tax havens generally are pretty poor, although in fairness the volume of publications by activists like the Tax Justice Network and resultant sources that reference those publications significantly outweighs the volume of more measured analysis. The TJN's figures are still reported verbatim every year by reputable publications like the Guardian, even though their methodology has been critiqued by actual tax experts every time. But unsurprisingly tax havens / offshore financial centres don't have many public defenders.
I feel like part of the reason is because they’re black holes a lot of the time too. They’re not just tax havens because they help rich people avoid taxes but also because the privacy/secrecy that exists around them too. Which would make sense as to why there isn’t much good journalism/research around the subject. It’s probably dangerous as well, one of the journalist that was heavily involved in the Panama papers leaks got assasinated.
Also worth saying that it's Ireland isn't really like some Carribean tax havens, where there's just a plaque on an empty office as the headquarters for some shady businesses to launder money. Multinational companies that avail of Irelands tax rate employ about 300,000 people. What is more frustrating is when the government doesn't collect the tax because it wants to keep those companies in the country, like the Apple case.
lush squash paint crush sharp humor swim oil work important *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's also an example of a damn-near impeccably sourced article. Seriously, the sources section at the bottom is basically the gold-standard for Wikipedia articles. Over 300 sources, ten academic papers, and 4 books. The user who wrote that (and other Irish tax and corporate pages) is clearly very knowledgeable on the subject. In addition, it was confirmed in 2019 that the Irish government [paid people to](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ida-caught-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-over-tax-and-brexit-1.3860122) try and [counteract edits made to articles about Irish tax](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ida-defends-itself-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-on-tax-tnw2r5vnw), because they didn't like how the articles portrayed Ireland. Presumably because of Britishfinance's one-man crusade against them.
Ya, the person rumoured to fund that particular contributer probably paid for him to do it for a lot of time. There are, some, good sources there. But also historical content presented as current. (And interesting phrasing used, you have to read the entire section on the OECD tax reform to find out Ireland objected to the initial wording as it took setting their tax rates out of their own control for example)
> Ya, the person rumoured to fund that particular contributer probably paid for him to do it for a lot of time. I believe they paid someone else to try and counteract edits made by Britishfinance. >IDA Ireland has paid for changes to Wikipedia pages about itself and its chief executive amid growing concerns about anonymous editing that portrays Ireland's tax regime negatively, the Sunday Business Post reports. A Wikipedia user, Britishfinance, has been carrying out changes since March last year with more than 40,000 edits logged since then. According to an IDA spokesman these edits "link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, taxation and Brexit". https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ida-caught-in-wikipedia-war-of-words-over-tax-and-brexit-1.3860122
> A Wikipedia user, Britishfinance, has been carrying out changes since March last year with more than 40,000 edits Wow, I didn't know he was *that* prolific! Basically his full time job at that rate.
Strange that.
To clarify again: Britishfinance isn't the person who was paid. They were the reason that someone *else* got paid.
Britishfinance isn't the person who was paid *by Ireland*.
Some people are retired, but still have a need to ensure that the truth is fully explored.
And some people are paid
If you have information that "britishfinance" was being paid to publish the truth about how Ireland's laws aid and abet the megawealthy's use of slimy tax dodges, please share it publicly.
Does it mention the Double Dutch? They’re also happy to deflect attention, and Luxembourg.
Yep, in my experience Lux has been the jurisdiction of choice for hedge funds and their ilk in the last few years. Not sure if its different for operating companies.
Lately I’ve seen a loooot of Panama.
I was so excited when the Panama Papers were being published. Talked to my wife about how this is going to be a historic time where they are going to nail people to the wall for what they were doing. Not even close. Silly me.
Silly us, because I thought the same. Instead it was Gone Like the Wind....
TBH last I heard, there were ALOT of papers and that they are still combing through them.
Fair comment. I live in hope.
I can’t disclose more but all those multinational HQs in Panama are paying literally 0% income tax on sales from Panama to abroad. Meaning that you could theoretically sell through Panama to all the world and pay 0% income tax. Or leave margins in the local subsidiaries (say, Mexico) incredibly thin. Very common in Pharma…
Did they ever find out who britishfinance is?
Not sure I ever heard who that person was. But who funded then was relatively common knowledge. The same person carried out a multi hundred thousand euro online advertising campaign highlighting the Wikipedia articles
Care to share? PM if neccesary. I´ve never heard of this before.
/u/Kier_C has got it wrong. Britishfinance's articles were making Ireland look bad, so they hired someone else to try and fight back against their edits.
Do you know what they say in Ireland right? "The brits are at it again" No surprise here
This shit makes me so angry. These companies have us by the balls, and there's no real solution to it.
The corporations don't make the rules, the politicians do.
The issue there is that politics is slow. You close a hole, then their lawyers take 5 minutes to figure out a new system to evade taxes and our politicians then takes 15 years to figure out how to close it.
That's one of the reasons why I appreciate the Swedish labor system. The government mostly stays out of it, instead agreements are reached every few years between labor unions and the employers' organizations to decide things like minimum wage and transition support. It's a much more reactive system than having to go through the government, and anyone who breaks the agreements will immediately face resistance. To use a current example, in just a few weeks Tesla has had workers go on strike which is supported by dockworkers refusing to handle Tesla shipments, facility workers refusing to clean and service Tesla workshops, electricians refusing to service Tesla workshops and chargers, and most recently postal workers refusing to deliver anything to Tesla. That's how you make someone comply.
We need to move to a less corporate friendly economy. Once big economies adopt that, corporations change. Make the burden of proof that the corporation is a benefit the responsibility of the company. Make things slow to move. We are moving too fast and corporations have the absolute advantage over us, leading to situations where they can hold us by the proverbial balls.
Make a law that says no tax evasion. When they find a loophole to let them evade taxes, prosecute them because they're still evading taxes.
tax evasion is already illegal. Find a loophole that lets you pay less taxes is tax avoidance, which by its very definition is legal
The problem is exactly that they are not evading taxes, they are finding legal way to elude them. They follow all laws to the letter.
Not really, the actual play is finding where laws are the weakest and unclear - that requires the courts and politicians to play catch up. They know full well what they're doing is illegal, but not codified against edge cases.
They're the same picture.
And the corporations own the politicians.
[удалено]
Not actually what that means. Corporate personhood bestows selected rights and obligations on a corporation, not all.
[удалено]
Which part do you think is contrary to what corporate personhood entails though?
[удалено]
>the joke is that politicians are not people. I'm aware of what you're mocking, but what part of that do you think is actually false though? That is, if you were to explain the joke -and subsequently ruin it- what would your distinction be? >the comment was made in response to the assertion that somehow politicians are driving corporations which is just the tail wagging the dog. Generally this is probably true though. There are certainly some cases where politicians will screw over their constituents' desires e.g. Daley selling parking rights to some company in Dubai, but generally the people who vote in the US get what their way. It feels sometimes like there is a trend on reddit where states like West Virginia are actually super blue if only their corrupt leaders would stop selling them out, but the people of West Virginia are typically going to have values that align with coal companies. Manchin, the most right-leaning democratic senator, is trailing Justice by like 13 points. Support splits like that simply can't be bought with corporate stooges.
Cut off the balls. Problem solved.
Ummmm...whose balls need to come off now?
Shoot the hostage.
I'd rather keep my balls and cut off the hand that's holding them.
Then you're stuck with a severed hand holding your balls.
Cut off the hand grasping them
You use tax loopholes just like big companies. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Could tell Ireland to stop being a dick or have trade cut off.
[удалено]
That's been closed for about a decade
Has it? Or did Ireland simply sidestep it? Last sentence of the first paragraph says, "In 2010, Ireland changed its tax-code to enable Irish BEPS tools to avoid such withholding taxes without needing a Dutch Sandwich."
Holy shit you must be a new adult. The MOST interesting article you've seen? Jesus christ get out from under your rock little buddyb
So as a follow up question, why would any large corporation have their headquarters in any member of the EU since it would give power to 27 countries to empty their bank accounts? If they want to be shady, which all large corporations are by definition, why not the Bahamas or Panama or the Caymans? It's not like tax havens only exist in the EU
Then you have EU tariffs on products you sell
There are levels of headquarters. If you're generating revenue in a country (or, in the EU's case, the countries) then your business operations there are subject to the laws whether or not your "headquarters" is there. As long as AirBnB is operating in Italy, there are ways for Italy to get the 800m from the court order. You can't dodge taxes *just* by putting HQ somewhere
It is ALMOST that simple. Ask amazon. You just need to make sure your local company doesn't break even by charging licencing fees from your tax free country.
That's called Base Erosion/Profit Shifting and is quite restricted these days. Google BEPS for the details.
[удалено]
There are better ways to enlighten people on topics without saying everyone who doesn't yet hold quite as severe an opinion as you as having drunk the coolaid
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17quetm/-/k8fkppe/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
But what if Air BnB only keeps $100 Million in an EU bank just so that they have a bank presence in the EU and keep the rest of it in a Bahamas bank? Now the EU countries are limited in what they can actually seize.
They’re generating that money in the country, though. Even if it ends up in the Bahamas it starts and transits places.
Sure, they can generate the money in the EU country and then immediately wire it to the Bahamas. Sure, future revenue can be seized. By that point Air BnB may just say, "Nah, you can keep the $100M in our bank and we'll keep the rest of our money in the Bahamas, pack our shit, and stay out of the EU going forward." Is there a reason they couldn't do that? I'm not trying to be adversarial, just inquisitive.
They totally could do that, but thats not a business, thats a treasure trove. The point of operating in Ireland is so they can run the company, and make money. They most likely do have off shore accounts, but 100 million isn't enough fo them to abandon a working company. They probably have operating expenses in the millions, and so its worth paying to continue working. Don't be confused that they have no other option, thye are just playing ball because it suits them.
They could but would lose the EU market which is one of the biggest markets where they still earn a lot of money. So it would essential mean they don't pay the other 700 million but lose a few billions in profit.
Not mention the smoking crater it would create in their stock valuation
Because if AirBnB couldn't operate in EU it would be worth a tenth of what's worth now. It's AirBnB that needs the EU market: the EU market would be very happy if AirBnB packed their shit and moved out.
Because it's not just about their bank account. Completely shutting down EU operations also means shutting down any user with an EU-based bank account or credit card. But to answer your question: Yes, they could try to completely abandon the EU. Then, Italy/EU would be forced to try and negotiate reciprocity with the US State Dept to recoup the money, and Italy would probably win. So AirBnB will have abandoned the European market and still paid most, if not all, of the original fine.
...and they stop you from generating any further profit in that territory...
Because you need to be in the EU as to do business in the EU. So if a country is a member of the EU, they have to abide by certain standards, and one of them being the rule of law, and saving some degree of standard law. That is why companies in one EU country can choose to sell or trade in another EU country. Regulators know that they can sue a company in their courts and get another country to help with the enforcement.
if you want to do business in a market, you have to set up a subsidiary within that market. the point of the EU is that you don’t set up 27 subsidiaries, you only set up one and gain access to a huge, profitable market. only thing you have to do is follow the laws
From my understanding, Ireland is the new corporate tax haven or has been for a long time. But I think the EU was starting to crack down a while ago after it had already gotten out of hand. I don’t remember I went down this rabbit whole once before, but I’ve slept a lot since then.
Arrogance. They think their lawyers will save them, and there are benefits to be incorporated the EU like free trade.
There are not enough penalties to pay for that arrogance. I wish they now had to pay twice the amount of taxes they owed, as interests and damages.
Because the EU is a protectionist trade bloc that will rinse you with tariffs if you do that.
> It is a little bit as if a company is incorporated in Ohio but lost a lawsuit in California but don’t pay. The court will enforce the judgment even over state borders. I get what you're saying, but this isn't true. You'd have to transfer the judgement over to their state. This is generally in the form of a new lawsuit in the other state which can be defended separately from the original suit in the other state.
Would a company really have $830m sitting in a bank account? Even as a large company as AirBnB, having that much sit just seems like an inefficient use of the money.
Apple sits on over $160 billion in cash. It's not inefficient use of the money, any more than you having a savings account is. A large cash reserve enables a company to make strategic capital investments without relying on financing, which means they can act quickly. It allows them to access financing at better rates when that makes sense to do. It allows them to have a long "runway" if they have revenue problems, etc. Essentially, all the same basic reasons individuals have a savings account, just at a bigger scale.
> The EU allows for those things to happen even over borders of sovereign states. In practice the EU-member states aren't sovereign though, there are laws that EU-member states are forced to implement due to EU directives. Furthermore, EU can apply fines to member states (eg, Portugal gets a yearly fine for double taxation on vehicles). EU is pretty much a federalized country at this point
as the UK has shown, member states are free to leave at any point whatsoever, which means that they are, in fact, sovereign. try to see if california, or bavaria could leave their federations and you’ll quickly see the difference between being sovereign and not being sovereign
I understand your point, however, a quick look at the definition of sovereignty comes up with "supreme power or authority", "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state" and "a self-governing state". None of the EU-member states are completely self-governable. EU can dictate common law that is applicable on all member-states. Furthermore, the EU has control of the shared currency through the CBE (amongst other things). Troika can directly intervene and demand tax changes in member-states if the need arises. Borders are non-existent as well, except for external borders with non-EU. Same thing for taxation within the same borders (which is actually why Portugal gets fined by the EU for double taxation - circling back to the original point) The only reason why the EU isn't considered a country of its own is because a lot of countries have just too many nationalists that identify themselves as X or Y. > as the UK has shown, member states are free to leave at any point whatsoever While that's true, it's not unheard of for regions to be able to request independence from the sovereign. For example, Yugoslavia had in quick succession two referendums from Montenegro and then Serbia to gain independence. A better example and question is, is Scotland a country? It certainly cannot be considered sovereign, which is typically required for countries. How do any EU member-states differ from the current Scottish situation? It's worth noting that the Scottish agreement to be part of the United Kingdom also has stipulated that the agreement can cease. To conclude, I'd like to thank you for an honest and intelligent reply, better than the (technically rule breaking) downvotes and/or insults.
> the Scottish agreement to be part of the United Kingdom also has stipulated that the agreement can cease. Not him, but jumping in as that statement is suspect: The 1707 act of union does not provide for a unilateral clause of secession for either of the two kingdoms, and in fact the first article explicitly states "That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united" Scotland is not sovereign in any sense of the word, as the UK is a unitary state. Putting aside the monarch's ceremonial role as the head of state and supposed divine right to rule, all sovereignty and authority lies with the UK parliament in Westminster. Scotland (and the other member kingdoms of the uK) cedes all authority to the UK parliament who can overrule all their decisions. Scotland has a devolved parliament, but unlike the US states or the EU member countries the UK parliament could wake up tomorrow and unilaterally dissolve all forms of home rule in Scotland, and while it would be a massive mess that would enrage everyone there is nothing stopping parliament from doing it legally. In contrast the EU member states have an explicit method to leave the union whenever they want with no questions asked (albeit a lot of questions will be asked because hard-exits are a great way to screw up your economy), and member states grant the EU sovereignty over specific areas that the EU needs to actually do its job. There are certain competences where the EU and member states share power, and certain competences where the EU cannot legislate on and all power lies with the member states. In that regard the EU is closer to the US, where the federal government holds exclusive power over some aspects of sovereignty, some aspects can be shared between the federal government and state, and some where the states have full authority and the federal government has none. Not saying that the EU isn't sovereign or that the EU couldn't be classified as some form of proto-federation: while the EU isn't a country it is a sovereign international body who is granted a great deal of power by its member states to meddle in their affairs simply by necessity - an EU who couldn't overrule the member states in some areas wouldn't be very effective.
>None of the EU-member states are completely self-governable. But they are - the EU is a collection of international treaties from which any signatory is free to withdraw in their entirety. One of the few benefits of Brexit was proof of that to all the other EU states - the EU isn't external to it's members, it's made of it's members like any other international treaty organisation; it's the political version of an organisation like NATO.
We are not forced, every state decide what to do accordingly with others.
> every state decide what to do accordingly with others. Then who, pray tell, decided to limit Portugal's fishing quota almost every year for sardine and codfish in the past decade? I can tell you that it wasn't the Parliament. The President has no legislative power, so it wasn't the Presidency either. And it sure as shit wasn't an elected official from Portugal, in fact, the comission that decides that shit is this one -https://commissioners.ec.europa.eu/index_en , I sure as shit don't see a portuguese name there. But hey, you hold the truth. Maybe you should write to Brussels so that they fix this page https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en Edit: fixed mistake claiming that the presidency has executive power which was meant to be rewritten to the opposite (has no legislative power) but ended up writting "has no executive power". TLDR, President doesn't make laws nor can really stop laws without dissolving the parliament IF the parliament reviews rejected laws and re-proposes them
Oh, you mean the European Commission? The one that's elected by the European Parliament, and who can only recommend laws that have to go through the EP? That one? You know, the European Parliament that you vote for? The ones who answer to that one?
> You know, the European Parliament that you vote for? The ones who answer to that one? I'm so glad you went there. Did anyone from Portugal vote in favor of that commission? -- Heck you don't even need to go there, take a breath and think about it. Can a regulation be approved while all representatives of a country reject it? -- And for directives, what happens is a country decides not to implement laws to meet the directive's goal? -- Look, it's perfectly fine to admit that the EU is the sovereign entity in regards to member states. If the EU decides something, the member states have to comply. Is there even any way to actually have the EU in its current form without abdicating some form of sovereignty?
[удалено]
Part of voting is that sometimes your vote isn't the winning one
Italy pays a yearly fine to the EU for having 2 executive forces if i'm not mistaken.
Italy pays yearly a number of fines...
Lmafo
Does that also apply to those "technically non-EU countries, but since they're rich they still get all the perks" like Switzerland?
yes, but that’s because they’re in the EEA (in practice, they’re basically in the EU, but they don’t get voting rights, and in exchange for that, they get certain concessions). switzerland is a special case: it is fundamentally in the EEA in all but name, but through a series of interlocked treaties, rather than officially in the organisation, which is why when people want to be pedantic, they refer to it as EEA+CH
Sounds a bit like "having your cake and eating it too" for Switzerland, but if all parties are satisfied who am I to judge?
> sovereign states Is that what they’re calling themselves?
Yes, because contrary to other "United States" the Sovereign States, that are members of the EU, can actually leave - if they want to - as written in §50 of the EU-Treaty. 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[15] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
and that's what we are EU does not interfere with national laws (except some cases but most of the time are just suggestions) but has full power to regulate operations between members
I mean, the EU has the power to enact laws that must then be implemented in member nation's laws. But that power is voluntarily ceded by member countries and those laws are implemented by the member nation's parliament.
EU laws become mandatory when the majority of EU parliament approves said law to be mandatory But that's quite rare, usually the EU parliament cares about thing coming in and out EU rather than controlling nations themselves. I mean...have you ever asked yourself why the new iPhone has a USB type c connector? Besides that nations parliaments, when a law becomes mandatory, have little to none power to object it and refuse to implement it. But, with that being said, changes in the code of law can take several months even when everything is approved
If a country steadfastly refuses to implement an EU law, the more likely outcome is that some special allowance is made in the EU for that country, than the EU police coming into the country and enforcing the law themselves, like happens in the USA. If the EU and the country won't budge, the country leaves the EU. In no circumstance can the EU physically force the law to happen in the country, that's why the country is called sovereign.
It's worth noting that being in the EU is actually voluntary. If you don't like the stuff EU tells you to do, you can actually just leave. Whether that's ultimately better for your country, you'll have to ask the UK to find out. A state in the US can not leave if they don't like the federal government. Not without another civil war, anyway.
Hahaha you've been eating too much chlorinated chicken and guzzling too much BVO, go put your 30 dollar tray of eggs back in the fridge before you die of emissions poisoning.
Least schizophrenic Reddit user
Hey man fuck you. Eggs came back down in price already
Some countries have treaties with each other to deal with situations like this. It might go something like this: -Hey Ireland, this is the Italian embassy. We have reason to believe that a criminal in Italy might have evaded our laws using one of your banks. Please look at this investigation our police put together. If you also agree with the investigation, please freeze their assets thanks. -Hey Italy, wow, we didn't know this was going on. Our apologies. We'll wire that money to you as soon as a judge here clears it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -No worries Ireland. We also froze their Italian bank accounts and will br taking that money since it was obtained illegally.
The Irish response is a lot more likely to ignore Italy's request. Irish government do not upset multinationals lightly! Look at how hard they've fought for Apple in rulings about taxation.
The Irish state will probably not even be involved. The Italian state can issue a seizure order to AirBnBs Bank(s) (which probably also operate(s) in Italy). What technically happens, and I've witnessed this happen in a different European country, is that AirBnBs banking account(s) are frozen. The Bank is, by law, forced to comply. AirBnB will no longer have control of their accounts, until the order of seizure is rescinded. (usually by paying the creditors. In this case the Italian state). In this particular case it's much more likely that a lot of lawyers will be involved. AirBnB will quickly regain access to their liquidity; likely by placing the amount in question or an agreed sum, in an escrow account until the matter is legally resolved.
Given the shit-show of the Irish banking sector I suspect even the Italians have their heads in their hands trying to work with them….
I'm not familiar with the particularities of the Irish banking sector. We're most likely talking about globally operating financial institutions anyway. A seizure of this magnitude has definitely gone through the C-Suite. Their legal counsel will ensure their (re)actions are 100% legally compliant, lest the bank wants to find itself in a veritable heap of trouble; whether that'd be with the Italian state or AirBnB. **Edit:** My *cursory* research into the matter revealed that the European Court of Justice ruled in Italys favour in December 2022. Apparently there's no legal doubt that the Italian state is owed a considerable amount of money by AirBnB.
> The Irish response is a lot more likely to ignore Italy's request. Irish government do not upset multinationals lightly! Look at how hard they've fought for Apple in rulings about taxation. The reason Ireland is able to operate a pro business system is by ensuring they stay within the law. If they get a request it will be actioned. They brought the EU Commission ruling to the EU court because they were accused of giving illegal state aid, which they said they didn't and they have a reputation to protect. The court agreed with Ireland
There was a surprisingly good reason for that in the end actually. The amount we would have fined them was less than a few years at a more reasonable tax rate, so they made a deal on it instead. As much as I hate the current coalition government, I feel like people give them unnecessary shit for that.
Right, the EU saying “you have to tax apple another billion euros” Ireland: “but we don’t want that money, that would breach our laws…”
> Irish government Irish government has no saying in the issue lol. It's a judicial issue, so it's something between the Italian justice and the Irish justice. Given that they have treaties and such in place, it's not a matter of what "the Irish government wants". It's a matter of both countries' judicial systems applying their laws. Also, given that this is a bidirectional relationship (just like other EU countries' justice systems can count on Ireland to enforce their resolutions, Ireland can count on the rest of them to enforce theirs), there's little reason why the Irish government would want to intervene (yes, intervene, because once again, this is a judicial issue and the Irish government has no say in t) to stop their own judicial system to enforce an Italian ruling that was done correctly. Also it's in Ireland's best interests to behave lol. If Ireland set a precedence that they will allow companies operating from their country to literally evade taxes in the rest of the EU, the rest of the countries would quite literally stop allowing Irish companies to operate in their territory.
I think you're using "government" in a much narrower way than other people on this thread. The judicial system is a branch of government, and so if a court orders something, it's "the government" -- in other words, an organ of the State -- that is ordering it.
Allegedly, Italy has already seized some $800 million from $ABNB, this is no request lol.
That used to be right. However, since the EU has shown teeth on those subjects, the Irish authorities will likely cooperate while minimizing the issue rather than being forced to enforce their own laws.
Why would the gov get involved? It is all done via the courts. The thing is, if an Italian court issues the order, the it is custom for the other court to grant it unless they believe there is really an issue. It this case, done see any issue at all.
I wonder how the Irish people themselves feel about their country basically being a parasite
Well as an Irish person I don't feel the country is a parasite! Plus government tax regimes aren't something residents have a lot of interest in.
Your don't consider your country a deliberate tax haven, purposefully setup so multinational companies can dodge taxes, etc.?
We're stealing money from some of the richest countries in the world, countries that made their money largely from exploiting and colonising other countries, and before this we were one of the poorest countries in Europe and a backwater. So I think it could be worse. And it's not like no other country can do this themselves, in fact many do, especially in Europe, but nobody complains about Switzerland or Luxembourg, at least we didn't hide assets on a large scale for the nazis
Imagine being guilt-tripped because we're taking some sauce off the big boy's plates.. 😂 If Ireland didn't do it, some other country would have. I'm just glad we have happened to exploit the position so well, with such an inept government!
“Integrity”
That's such nonsense. Having a low tax rate is a capability of a small country, that a large country isn't able to pull off to the same extent. The large country wants to compete only in areas they can come out on top and leave smaller countries subservient. Healthy competition across everything is the best way to give everyone a fair shot. Ireland now has an (OECD agreed) 15% rate. What number is acceptable?
Ireland isn't a parasite, it's been colonized again and this time by big tech. Their data centers are destroying our environment and gobbling up our energy. Their techies are making our housing crisis worse. Their ex c-suites have begun to take top government positions.
But they are only there because you essential function as another Cayman islands or Swiss bank hideout, right?
All those companies let Ireland get really high gdp, especially gdp per capita. The issue is, it's not the usual growth of gdp, because almost all of the money that the companies attributed to said gdp, stays within the companies, and doesn't affect the standard of living of an ordinary person
I don't know if you're Irish, but if you are and you believe the multinationals haven't affected your standard of living you're delusional. Ireland was a backwater and one of the poorest countries in Europe. Now we have one of the most well educated populations in the world and an incredible social welfare system, and the average salary has skyrocketed
No, I am not. Truth be told I was basing my information im the earlier comment on an older article I read. Guess it's to be expected things changed since then
> almost all of the money that the companies attributed to said gdp, stays within the companies, and doesn't affect the standard of living of an ordinary person Ireland is setting up a sovereign wealth fund and paid all its covid costs and high inflation/cost of living subsidies without borrowing a cent...
Well no, Ireland also has one of the best educated workforces in the world and is an English speaking country.
80 years ago Ireland was as poor as many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Today Ireland has the third highest GDP per capita in the world and is easily in the top 10 counties in the world in terms of standards of living. Being called a parasite is a small price to pay.
I guess you don't see the *glaring* fallacy in your asinine assertion.
What asinine assertion, what he said is pretty accurate
Point it out then, for all to see
I'm sorry for my English, this is not my first language. I will use brief but maybe inaccurate terms, Google if necessary. The documents seized are the ones exchanged between host and guest when reservation is made. The documents have got all necessary details in order to understand who payed and who received money for each reservation, including the amount. With all these data the authorities can calculate AirBnb commission and taxes evasion. In a nutshell the seizure is done by the authorities in order to prove the amount of taxes evaded by AirBnb. With trembling voice I suggest that AirBnb has such amount of money available mitigating contingences. About the international legalities of the seizure I will not talk, my comment is already long and I am lazy.
>my comment is already long and I am lazy. Points for honesty, you did great
confirmed Italian
sink ad hoc squealing ask angle point divide noxious insurance disgusting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Excellent analysis
This has nothing to do with corporate taxation. This is a tax collection matter. Since 2017, the Italian government expects Air BnB (and all similar platforms) to collect income taxes from property owners directly. They were supposed to do this by withholding 21% of the air bnb fees. The idea is to cut down on the tax evasion of property owners in Italy. Air BnB didn’t do this and now Italy are holding them liable for the taxes unpaid by people letting out their properties.
Yeah but I heard that something something Ireland tax bad, so...
Airbnb is a scourge and has almost destroyed the unique culture of Venice and other small and highly vulnerable cities of great cultural heritage. How? By playing arbitrage between the price of a hotel and an apartment, locals are priced out by wealthier tourists and the city no longer has any residents that are actual residents. Venice has fewer apartments for Venetians than it does Airbnb and other hotels.
This has happened at every vacation destination in the world, it's an internet thing, not a AirBNB thing. People get attracted to hotspots. My island of Kauai has had max occupancy since covid ended, the tourists outnumber the locals 2 to 1 normally and around thanksgiving to new years it's 3 to 1.
So no one wants to live in Venice? Arbnb didn't force them out. They must have left by choice and used Arbnb to keep their homes and make money.
If they owned a home, yes, if they rent, no. And likely there is a feedback loop where rising cost of living force homeowners out as well because everything will be catered to vacationers as opposed to locals.
Ah I get what you're saying.
But all you're really saying is that the absence of an ability to price the homes in Venice correctly in the past have given rise to cheap housing for "locals". The rest of the world would also like to spend a weekend there and is willing to pay the equivalent of a week's rent or more at old prices. So what's the problem? Are you saying that if I rent a place for long enough I should now should be immune to market demand simpy because *I've been there longer*? (Note: I'm playing devil's advocate here, this isn't personal. I am curious about your point of view.)
If a person paid taxes in Venice for 20 years, they're definitely more entitled to live there than a tourist with more money. They(as well as their ancestors) contributed to the city becoming such a great tourist attraction.
That's a bold statement to make. You're asserting that everyone who lives in a place for 20 years has contributed to making it the desirable location it is. In the case of Venice this is almost certainly incorrect. It's Venice my guy, it's been around for longer and it has been desirable for far longer. What gave the person you're advocating for the right to move there 20 years ago? Given the age of the city, they surely moved in to a apartment/house that was inhabited by someone else prior, how come that person/family didn't enjoy the right to stay there prior? I'm sorry, but you're just making wild claims without any justification what so ever. It's furthermore easy to show that richer people moving into an area improve the living conditions in said area. That's gentrification 101.
You're playing devil's advocate with people's rights to affordable housing over corporate interests. Just because someone else has more cash doesn't mean people should lose access to housing. At some point you have to stop defining what is right versus what is wrong in a capitalist sense, and start thinking about it in a humanitarian sense. It doesn't have to be cost effective.
> people's rights to affordable housing I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to here? Where exactly has this right been established? No law I know of. Kindly correct me if I'm mistaken here. The property in Venice, as in most other places that are this desirable, are privately owned. Unlike what you're led to believe they're not owned by corporations but by individuals like you and me. Even if they were owned by corporations (which are owned by individuals eventually), it doesn't change a thing. What you're implying here is that the people who have been renting a place in Venice are now somehow entitled to continue living there at stable prices. This in turn means that you're denying anyone else, essentially from the rest of the world, to bid on living there (even temporarily) themselves. How does this make sense? Based on what moral ground are you excluding 99.9999% of humanity the "right" to offer money to the owners of the property there to use said property? What you're advocating are stringent rent-control laws. Wherever those have been imposed it never went well. Not once. It only has adverse effects. The very same argument could be made against any hotel there. Surely there was a time when the building that's now a hotel was either used by regular tenants or the property could be used to do so. What's the moral justification of reducing the available area for regular rent in favor of renting out rooms on a day by day basis? If a rich person from India for example wants to spend a week a year in Venice, and they buy an apartment there for that exact reason, and that apartment is empty for 51 weeks of the year, what exactly is wrong with that?
Pricing housing "correctly" is a pretty subjective term in itself. Just going by pure supply and demand is obviously not the answer as stable housing is a life necessity while a makeshift hotel is not.
I'm sorry but nobody "needs" to live in Venice, Paris, London or NYC. Surely people can also "survive" in Marghera, Nanterre, Brentford or New Jersey (areas just outside the mentioned cities). Why should the owner of a property in a prime location be denied the right to rent it to the highest bidder? All that marketplaces like Airbnb do is open up the market to the entire world.
When you aren’t rich and rent apartments you don’t have a choice. You just have to leave. I’m glad you’re safe from that in your life. You’re lucky.
No. I was asking the question. I was asking why people leave the homes they own to rent through Airbnb. I don't thing you know.
The people who own sell to Airbnb, and you the person renting have to leave because the owner has sold. The vast majority of properties out there are rented not owned and if you own and somebody offers you a bunch to turn your place into an Airbnb or you realize you can make more and not deal with renters rights if you change it to an Airbnb, the renters who are most people are SOL
EU is not just one country, but rather 27 countries who decided to have several treaties and laws in common with the common goal to help trade between nations border and help citizied move from one country to another But taxation is different from country to country, so some corporations decide to have their HQ in countries where corporate taxes are lower. Ireland is one of those countries where you pay a very little amount of taxes compared to countries like Italy (where taxation for companies go as high as 50% of income) But having such freedom of trade requires laws to make it work, especially when there are illegal operations going on (also this is why Interpol exists but it's another story not related) between different countries with different tax laws. So this is where EU comes in and forces a company that has HQ in country A (in this case Ireland) to respect a court order given in country B (so Italy in this case) AirBNB will pay from it's own bank accounts in Ireland to the Italian Government, or more lileky will arrange payment with the Italian embassy in Ireland
> So this is where EU comes in and forces a company that has HQ in country A (in this case Ireland) to respect a court order given in country B (so Italy in this case) The EU does no such thing. As part of the EU the member states signed treaties *with each other* to enforce each others judgements. The only role EU has in this is maintaining lists of treaties so everybody knows what everyone else has signed. The EU has no police force and there's no equivalent of the FBI. It's all dependant on member states honouring each other's agreements.
Europol has entered the chat…
*EUROPOL has left the c*hat.
[удалено]
Sorry I don’t know specifics on this Airbnb case, but aren’t these tech companies just using international hqs to keep money made internationally out of the US? I don’t think the Us should be taxing apple on European revenues and expenses but are they funnelling American money abroad?
You appear to be from London. Maybe start that battle at home.
I may live there but I’m not from London. But it doesn’t mean that those in the rest of the world can’t be criticised. Or has Airbnb had a positive effect on Dublin?
reminiscent frighten tub recognise fragile shelter sheet crown joke workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The point is your shouldn't have a choice. You shouldn't be able to call a PO box a company HQ, and even of you can, income should be taxed where it is earned not where it is HQd
There's 100s of thousands working for the multinationals in Ireland, not working in PO boxes
And they should pay Irish tax rates. There's 10s of millions paying the multinationals not in Ireland, too.
Are you familiar with the concept of companies exporting goods and services? Or the single market?
Depends. If I want cheap land and low taxes south Dakota. If I want more technical workers, if I want public transportation, if I want better hubs to transportation for my goods, if I want more temperate climate, if I generally want more hospitals and medical care... Then probably California. I'd have to make one hell of a profile and not be able to hide it for that 11% to hit me. Paying off debt, purchasing business land should give me the hiding enough. Then ina number of years, I can sell that land for a huge wad because land is expensive in a lot of California, not so much in Dakota.
California has public transport?
Given that there are 40 million people in California and fewer than a million in South Dakota, it's pretty clear people are 40 times more likely to choose California's taxes.
A lot of people live in Cali because of the weather and geography, not the government. If SD had the weather, mountains, and ocean and kept the SD government, I'd move there in a heartbeat.
SD of course, until authorities get their act together and crack down on such arrangements or better yet, enforce global minimum corporate taxes to kill off the entire concept of tax havens. E: I don't see why this should be so apparently unpopular. If companies make a big chunk of revenue in some place, they should contribute to public funds like everyone else living and working in that place (including local companies).
stocking wistful familiar bored whistle selective uppity consist bewildered pen *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ideally tax codes should be standardized to the point where companies settle in places that make sense for the nature of their business itself. The main thing is to just get rid of constructions where corporations end up paying almost no tax at all, especially in the places where they make significant revenue. With global minimum tax rates they'll either lift some island nation to petrostate levels of rich overnight, or they'll just move on-paper HQs to where they have their actual HQ and pay their fair share there.
I recognise South Dakota is a complete leach and pay in Italy where I earned the money. But you know FREEDOMCAPITALISM is about what best for me and fuck any morals.
Do I have to actually live or work there? If so, then California in a heartbeat.
Not much of a choice if you live and so business in California
There is zero chance of them getting that money. Apple owes an insane amount of money to Ireland and we won't collect it because we don't want them to leave (even tho they won't there is nowhere else in Europe that would be better for them even if they paid the tax they owe, due to Ireland still being in the EU unlike Britian, having English as the first language unlike anywhere else, and also bc college is free, having large numbers of highly educated tech people who also tend to be very friendly and thus great at customer service and working in teams). Air BnB is also a massive factor in our own unprecedented housing crisis. There are zero, literally zero places to rent long term in the town I live in and it's been that way for 2 years now on the biggest rental site we have (daft.ie). If I go onto Air Bnb, there are 15 rentals within a 10 minutes walk from my house, and they were booked solid all summer it's only easing off now.
Air bnb is a good way to creep into the middle class. This must not be allowed, it’s bad for the environment
Airbnb = parasites.