3 ms·
In-reply-to: ZigZigZag: Once again, it comes down to a question of fairness; you describe Apple's tax deal as if it is a conventional part of fiscal policy wher
by phab 10y ago
In-reply-to: ZigZigZag: Once again, it comes down to a question of fairness; you describe Apple's tax deal as if it is a conventional part of fiscal policy where clearly it cannot be treated as such (indeed, if it were, and such tax deals were cut fairly across all corporations in this sector, Ireland would have quite some budgetary problems).
The argument is that the deal that Apple brokered would not have been available to any other company.
A country regulating an industry's tax across the whole industry, affecting every player equally, is very different to a sweetheart deal with one company that puts other players in that same market, both at home and abroad, at a grave disadvantage.
The modern EU is based on freedom of access to market and equality of opportunity. This is what is enshrined in the treaty currently enforced. The EU is not forcing "its members to give up tax policy", it is forcing its members to treat companies fairly across the bloc according to those policies which they have each set. Whilst this could be seen as an assault on their sovereignty, for a collective union to work there has to be common rules, and everyone has to play by them; thereby fairness is ensured. Everybody concedes an equal amount of their sovereignty for the common good (c.f. the ECJ). When one country doesn't play by the rules for its own gain, the others are disadvantaged, and so it is only fair that the central body of that union enforces the previously-agreed rules.
- wonder_er 10y agoIronically, "Fairness for everyone" is the same as "forcing bad outcomes on the individual". Group fairness doesn't trump individual liberties, as long as that individual doesn't harm someone else. What Ireland did with Apple is the same as a company hiring away developers from its competition by paying them more. Does it hurt them? Sure, they lost a talented developer. Is the proper response wage controls? Dear god no. Do you think that bureaucrats and politicians "play by the rules"?
- phab 10y ago> "Fairness for everyone" is the same as "forcing bad outcomes on the individual". I contest this unsupported assertion; you provide no argument to back it up. Ensuring a fair marketplace cannot cause "bad outcomes on the individual" for everybody, as this implies nobody benefits from fairness (a.k.a a law-regulated environment) (an everybody-lose situation simply doesn't make sense, otherwise anarchy would have taken hold centuries ago). > Group fairness doesn't trump individual liberties ... In your humble opinion. This is an ideological statement with no support. > What Ireland did with Apple is the same as a company hiring away developers from its competition ... Except that it's not the same, as the two are in no way equivalent: * the labour market is very different to the market for corporate domiciling * private companies have no necessity to exist; failure (consequent from labour market failure) is acceptable whereas a state's failure (or a diminished form, a state's failure to collect adequate tax revenues) is unacceptable * The market for corporate domiciling in the EU was regulated and there were regulations in place to prevent this action. There is usually no such regulation in employment law. So really, the two are not "the same" at all. > Does it hurt them? Sure This is in contradiction with your statement "doesn't trump individual liberties, as long as that ... doesn't harm someone else". In this case the poaching company is harming the target company, and so by your argument group fairness ought to trump individual liberties. On the one hand you argue for constrained liberty, and on the other you accept unconstrained liberty. The two aren't compatible on this simple a level.