5 ms·

When Caesar divorced Pompeia, he said "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion". As a European I feel the same about the way the EU is plundering US tech c

When Caesar divorced Pompeia, he said "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion". As a European I feel the same about the way the EU is plundering US tech companies. Maybe they really broke the law, but you should be above suspicion. When VW has not paid any fines in Europe for the emissions scandal, it's hard not to be suspicious about what's going on. The Eurostoxx 50 is still below its 2007 peak (and that peak was below the 2000 peak). GDP growth has been pathetic. Almost a decade into the Greek crisis they're still just kicking the can down the road. Is the EU trying to be a productive economic system or a kleptocracy that survives on the scraps it can extract from the Americans? Get your house in order, then maybe these fines would not look as bad.

Oletros 9y ago
> Is the EU trying to be a productive economic system or a kleptocracy that survives on the scraps it can extract from the Americans? Taking into account that Apple and Amazon case (and FIAT in Netherlands) are not fines and don't go to the EU I don't understand how are they scrapping anything
NicoJuicy 9y ago
Plundering US companies? At least back that up with numbers. You mean they pay almost no taxes on their profits in the EU. They are plundering Europe! Eg. the so called Double Dutch in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement and now this. By numbers: 15 million pound taxes on 19,5 billion pound revenue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/amazon-uk-halves-its-corporation-tax-to-74m-as-sales-soar-to-7bn https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/amazon-uk...
- noarchy 9y ago
  >Plundering US companies? At least back that up with numbers. You mean they pay almost no taxes on their profits in the EU. They are plundering Europe! How can that be defined as "plundering"? Even if these companies didn't pay a single cent in taxes, that would merely mean that the EU government didn't plunder them.
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    No, they are paying millions to find loopholes in the system. At least they are getting closed cross order ( which is hard on a democracy)
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > How can that be defined as "plundering"? Even if these companies didn't pay a single cent in taxes, that would merely mean that the EU government didn't plunder them. There's no need for the plunder rhetoric. They omitted to pay tax to EU states, and now they'll have to pay. You have to pay income tax as company here in the EU, including big multinationals. Actually, especially multinationals because those are selling the most. So our EU governments are also missing out the most on them. The whole problem can be solved btw, if there's political willpower. It is fairy easy. If you have a McDs franchise in San Francisco, then you are selling your McNuggets in San Francisco at that franchise. There's a fellow swiping his card in San Francisco and receiving his goods in San Francisco. A clear case of selling your goods in San Francisco. This means that your transaction was in San Francisco, so you pay income tax there as well, ie. to California. There you go, done. No more companies incorporated in silly states or countries like Delaware or Liechtenstein or Ireland or Cayman Islands. It isn't happening because "everyone is doing it" but that is a bad excuse, a fallacy actually: Tu quoque [1] [1] https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoque https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoq...
rbehrends 9y ago
This is not how this works at all. The issue at hand is "illegal state aid". Briefly, in the EU, member states may not unfairly favor local businesses by subsidizing them [1]. This includes subsidies via tax breaks that favor some companies over others. Now, you can have reasonable disagreement about whether those tax breaks are indeed illegal state aid or not (in the case of Apple in Ireland, reasonable arguments have been advanced for both sides). But this is not about plundering US companies: it's about large companies not getting special favors from the state. The tax breaks would not be owed to the EU, but to the member state that gave them the illegal tax break. The Volkswagen situation is different, as this is not about antitrust law, and the EU has much less power outside antitrust cases [2]. That does not mean that the European Commission hasn't tried to exert political pressure on Volkswagen [3] and the member states [4], but it is bound by the powers granted by the EU treaties. [1] There are exemptions in the treaties, such as for charities or in response to a crisis or natural disaster. It also only affects state aid that distorts or risks distortion of competition. [2] European carmakers have been hammered hard in the past for antitrust violations, too, such as: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm [3] http://www.politico.eu/article/how-not-to-lobby-juncker-the-volkswagen-way/ http://www.politico.eu/article/how-not-to-lobby-juncker-the-... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-eu/eu-takes-legal-action-against-germany-uk-over-vw-scandal-idUSKBN13X14N https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-eu/e...
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  >But this is not about plundering US companies Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, McDonald's...do you notice a pattern? The suggestion that the Commission is not targeting big US companies is comical (especially in the light of similar actions with other justifications, like the 2.7b fine on Google for their shopping search), as is their interpretation of both tax law and illegal state aid. The commission doesn't even challenge the transfer pricing laws, they just interpret them differently and based on their interpretation they decide that the tax authorities have granted a selective advantage. The procedure is completely arbitrary as its entire basis is the disagreement between the commission and the tax authorities. Given the complexity of corporate structures and tax law, and the inherent ambiguities of things like transfer pricing, such disagreements can be generated wherever the commission wants to find them. If they wanted to target Chinese companies it would be trivial to conjure up similar issues. It's particularly ironic that a law against selective treatment of corporations is being used to selectively punish some of them.

Oletros 9y ago

> Is the EU trying to be a productive economic system or a kleptocracy that survives on the scraps it can extract from the Americans? Taking into account that Apple and Amazon case (and FIAT in Netherlands) are not fines and don't go to the EU I don't understand how are they scrapping anything

NicoJuicy 9y ago

Plundering US companies? At least back that up with numbers. You mean they pay almost no taxes on their profits in the EU. They are plundering Europe! Eg. the so called Double Dutch in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement and now this. By numbers: 15 million pound taxes on 19,5 billion pound revenue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/amazon-uk-halves-its-corporation-tax-to-74m-as-sales-soar-to-7bn https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/amazon-uk...

noarchy 9y ago
>Plundering US companies? At least back that up with numbers. You mean they pay almost no taxes on their profits in the EU. They are plundering Europe! How can that be defined as "plundering"? Even if these companies didn't pay a single cent in taxes, that would merely mean that the EU government didn't plunder them.
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  No, they are paying millions to find loopholes in the system. At least they are getting closed cross order ( which is hard on a democracy)
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > How can that be defined as "plundering"? Even if these companies didn't pay a single cent in taxes, that would merely mean that the EU government didn't plunder them. There's no need for the plunder rhetoric. They omitted to pay tax to EU states, and now they'll have to pay. You have to pay income tax as company here in the EU, including big multinationals. Actually, especially multinationals because those are selling the most. So our EU governments are also missing out the most on them. The whole problem can be solved btw, if there's political willpower. It is fairy easy. If you have a McDs franchise in San Francisco, then you are selling your McNuggets in San Francisco at that franchise. There's a fellow swiping his card in San Francisco and receiving his goods in San Francisco. A clear case of selling your goods in San Francisco. This means that your transaction was in San Francisco, so you pay income tax there as well, ie. to California. There you go, done. No more companies incorporated in silly states or countries like Delaware or Liechtenstein or Ireland or Cayman Islands. It isn't happening because "everyone is doing it" but that is a bad excuse, a fallacy actually: Tu quoque [1] [1] https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoque https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoq...

rbehrends 9y ago

This is not how this works at all. The issue at hand is "illegal state aid". Briefly, in the EU, member states may not unfairly favor local businesses by subsidizing them [1]. This includes subsidies via tax breaks that favor some companies over others. Now, you can have reasonable disagreement about whether those tax breaks are indeed illegal state aid or not (in the case of Apple in Ireland, reasonable arguments have been advanced for both sides). But this is not about plundering US companies: it's about large companies not getting special favors from the state. The tax breaks would not be owed to the EU, but to the member state that gave them the illegal tax break. The Volkswagen situation is different, as this is not about antitrust law, and the EU has much less power outside antitrust cases [2]. That does not mean that the European Commission hasn't tried to exert political pressure on Volkswagen [3] and the member states [4], but it is bound by the powers granted by the EU treaties. [1] There are exemptions in the treaties, such as for charities or in response to a crisis or natural disaster. It also only affects state aid that distorts or risks distortion of competition. [2] European carmakers have been hammered hard in the past for antitrust violations, too, such as: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm [3] http://www.politico.eu/article/how-not-to-lobby-juncker-the-volkswagen-way/ http://www.politico.eu/article/how-not-to-lobby-juncker-the-... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-eu/eu-takes-legal-action-against-germany-uk-over-vw-scandal-idUSKBN13X14N https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-eu/e...

bobcostas55 9y ago
>But this is not about plundering US companies Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, McDonald's...do you notice a pattern? The suggestion that the Commission is not targeting big US companies is comical (especially in the light of similar actions with other justifications, like the 2.7b fine on Google for their shopping search), as is their interpretation of both tax law and illegal state aid. The commission doesn't even challenge the transfer pricing laws, they just interpret them differently and based on their interpretation they decide that the tax authorities have granted a selective advantage. The procedure is completely arbitrary as its entire basis is the disagreement between the commission and the tax authorities. Given the complexity of corporate structures and tax law, and the inherent ambiguities of things like transfer pricing, such disagreements can be generated wherever the commission wants to find them. If they wanted to target Chinese companies it would be trivial to conjure up similar issues. It's particularly ironic that a law against selective treatment of corporations is being used to selectively punish some of them.