5 ms·

> If companies do not comply, they could face fines totaling 4 percent of their annual revenue. I am curious on how did they arrive at the 4% cap?

thanksgiving 9y ago
I'm just glad it is based on revenue instead of profits. I think corporate taxes should be the same way. I imagine the four percent had to be large enough to motivate compliance without scaring people away and further fueling anti-EU sentiment? I'm just speculating.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  What anti-EU sentiment? The only anti-EU sentiment inside the EU comes from populist politicians and the people who vote for them, who have no idea how the EU works. And what non-EU entities think is, frankly, irrelevant.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    >What anti-EU sentiment? Allow me to introduce you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
    - sgift 9y ago
      > The only anti-EU sentiment inside the EU comes from populist politicians and the people who vote for them, who have no idea how the EU works. Already noted.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        It's kind of hard to dismiss as easily as you did when it passed a popular vote and is being implemented as law. Saying "besides Brexit, what anti-EU sentiment are you talking about" is like saying "besides oxygen, what gasses do you inhale in order to survive". Sure other gasses may exist... but you're kinda missing a big one.
  - orbifold 9y ago
    That must be why almost any time an EU related thing was put up for a popular vote it was rejected by the people. I can think of Maastricht, the EU „Constitution“, which was rejected and then rebranded and simply put up for vote 2 years later, the Bailouts and Austerity („elections can‘t change economic policy“, according to Dr. Schäuble), most recently Brexit. Allegedly it is always populists that ruin everything, but at least in the case of the EU constitution and the Bailouts there was legitimate criticism that was largely surpressed and ignored.
    - lhopki01 9y ago
      That posits that you can have a legitimate vote on something as complex as an EU treaty. Voting on a one off decision in any sensible way requires that people understand what they are voting about really well which is essentially impossible. Voting for a government doesn't require that level of in depth knowledge because you are voting on wether you feel the direction of the country is right and you can then change that decision in a few years time.
- nwellnhof 9y ago
  > I'm just glad it is based on revenue instead of profits. I think corporate taxes should be the same way. This would be a value-added tax levied at every step in the supply chain. It's a bad idea because it favors large, vertically integrated companies.
trampypizza 9y ago
I think it was a balancing act. Currently in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office can fine up to a maximum of £500,000. The concern was that for larger organisations, the cost of compliance with the Data Protection Act (1998) was higher than any potential fine handed out by the ICO. So by placing the limit at 20m Euro, or 4% of annual revenue, they give the legislation adequate 'bite' to persuade boards that investing in systems and people to ensure data privacy is upheld is worth it. However, the EU doesn't want to drive business away entirely, so the figure was selected to ensure that it was punitive, but not to the point where organisations would seriously consider shutting down in Europe, or restricting services to European consumers.
- smueller1234 9y ago
  Do consider that they can also shut down whatever operations they consider to be in violation. For example, if you're in e-commerce like my previous employer, then having your website/app channels shut down while you implement some bizarre scheme can cost you even more than 4% of your annual revenue. For a big, established company with byzantine operations and large code bases, being caught entirely unprepared can mean a mountain of effort - months - to become compliant. (And I haven't checked but I imagine it's past year's revenue that is used for the calculation so the double whammy doesn't even get reduced by being shut down.)

thanksgiving 9y ago

I'm just glad it is based on revenue instead of profits. I think corporate taxes should be the same way. I imagine the four percent had to be large enough to motivate compliance without scaring people away and further fueling anti-EU sentiment? I'm just speculating.

literallycancer 9y ago
What anti-EU sentiment? The only anti-EU sentiment inside the EU comes from populist politicians and the people who vote for them, who have no idea how the EU works. And what non-EU entities think is, frankly, irrelevant.
- freehunter 9y ago
  >What anti-EU sentiment? Allow me to introduce you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
  - sgift 9y ago
    > The only anti-EU sentiment inside the EU comes from populist politicians and the people who vote for them, who have no idea how the EU works. Already noted.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      It's kind of hard to dismiss as easily as you did when it passed a popular vote and is being implemented as law. Saying "besides Brexit, what anti-EU sentiment are you talking about" is like saying "besides oxygen, what gasses do you inhale in order to survive". Sure other gasses may exist... but you're kinda missing a big one.
- orbifold 9y ago
  That must be why almost any time an EU related thing was put up for a popular vote it was rejected by the people. I can think of Maastricht, the EU „Constitution“, which was rejected and then rebranded and simply put up for vote 2 years later, the Bailouts and Austerity („elections can‘t change economic policy“, according to Dr. Schäuble), most recently Brexit. Allegedly it is always populists that ruin everything, but at least in the case of the EU constitution and the Bailouts there was legitimate criticism that was largely surpressed and ignored.
  - lhopki01 9y ago
    That posits that you can have a legitimate vote on something as complex as an EU treaty. Voting on a one off decision in any sensible way requires that people understand what they are voting about really well which is essentially impossible. Voting for a government doesn't require that level of in depth knowledge because you are voting on wether you feel the direction of the country is right and you can then change that decision in a few years time.
nwellnhof 9y ago
> I'm just glad it is based on revenue instead of profits. I think corporate taxes should be the same way. This would be a value-added tax levied at every step in the supply chain. It's a bad idea because it favors large, vertically integrated companies.

trampypizza 9y ago

I think it was a balancing act. Currently in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office can fine up to a maximum of £500,000. The concern was that for larger organisations, the cost of compliance with the Data Protection Act (1998) was higher than any potential fine handed out by the ICO. So by placing the limit at 20m Euro, or 4% of annual revenue, they give the legislation adequate 'bite' to persuade boards that investing in systems and people to ensure data privacy is upheld is worth it. However, the EU doesn't want to drive business away entirely, so the figure was selected to ensure that it was punitive, but not to the point where organisations would seriously consider shutting down in Europe, or restricting services to European consumers.

smueller1234 9y ago
Do consider that they can also shut down whatever operations they consider to be in violation. For example, if you're in e-commerce like my previous employer, then having your website/app channels shut down while you implement some bizarre scheme can cost you even more than 4% of your annual revenue. For a big, established company with byzantine operations and large code bases, being caught entirely unprepared can mean a mountain of effort - months - to become compliant. (And I haven't checked but I imagine it's past year's revenue that is used for the calculation so the double whammy doesn't even get reduced by being shut down.)