4 ms·

government employees being exempt from regular taxation would never be accepted in a normal country so I don't see why it should for something that isn't even a

government employees being exempt from regular taxation would never be accepted in a normal country so I don't see why it should for something that isn't even a country can you imagine federal employees in california being immune from california state taxes? me neither

foldr 3y ago
It's not really a comparable situation as the US Federal Government isn't an international organisation. I think the aim is just to avoid having countries that happen to host lots of EU institutions receiving lots of national tax revenue as a result. It's also not an exemption that's entirely unique to EU employees. For example, NATO employees based in Belgium pay no income tax, and neither do employees of the United Nations. Similar response here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968
- blibble 3y ago
  it is government and they're government employees and they're exempt from tax the little people have to pay
  - foldr 3y ago
    The EU is a sort of suis-generis cross between a government and an international organization and is very much unlike the US Federal Government. It’s quite standard for employees of certain international organizations not to pay national taxes in the host country, as my other examples show. The reason behind this is simply to avoid certain conflicts of interest and squabbles between member countries over who gets the tax revenue, not some kind of conspiracy against the ‘little people’.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  Is there any other profession where as a general rule, they don’t pay state/local taxes?
  - foldr 3y ago
    I don’t think the question makes sense, because we are talking about national taxes here. The EU is not analogous to the US Federal Government. But anyway, my comment already gave other examples (e.g. NATO employees).
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      I'm trying to question the core assertion you made, that the US federal relationship is not comparable to the EU's relationship to it's member "states" (which is what they are in fact called). Yes one is a federation and one is a confederacy, but what about that relationship makes it relevant to taxation? Apparently employees of NATO don't have to pay taxes in any member state except the US. (https://www.taxesforexpats.com/articles/expat-tax-rules/nato-personnel-us-tax.html https://www.taxesforexpats.com/articles/expat-tax-rules/nato...) So even in the case where the US is a member of these special organizations, the employees are not tax exempt. The only rationale you provided was: > I think the aim is just to avoid having countries that happen to host lots of EU institutions receiving lots of national tax revenue as a result. Why is it unreasonable for a country that hosts lots of EU institution to receive any tax income from that activity? Hosting an international organization's business must cost the host country money, it's not a free lunch.
      - foldr 3y ago
        >I'm trying to question the core assertion you made, that the US federal relationship is not comparable to the EU's relationship to it's member "states" Honestly that's a weird thing to challenge. There's a long list of differences which you can easily discover by googling. Also, "everything should work the same as it works in the US" is not an argument. Even if the EU were analogous to the US Federal Government, then that could just as well argue that the US ought to follow the same rules on taxation as the EU rather than vice versa. >Yes one is a federation and one is a confederacy, but what about that relationship makes it relevant to taxation? How about the fact that the EU doesn't have the power to collect taxes? (There's the special 'tax' paid by EU employees, but citizens of EU countries don't pay taxes to the EU, and the EU has no powers to levy such taxes.) >Why is it unreasonable for a country that hosts lots of EU institution to receive any tax income from that activity? It's not inherently unreasonable, it just has a tendency to lead to conflicts of interest and conflicts between member states. One thing to bear in mind is that member states within the EU have much greater powers (as full nation states) than 'states' within the US system, so it's important to avoid this kind of thing. The EU can't just whip member states into line the way that the US Federal Government can usually force a state to do whatever it wants. There's a more thorough explanation in the comment I linked earlier: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968

foldr 3y ago

It's not really a comparable situation as the US Federal Government isn't an international organisation. I think the aim is just to avoid having countries that happen to host lots of EU institutions receiving lots of national tax revenue as a result. It's also not an exemption that's entirely unique to EU employees. For example, NATO employees based in Belgium pay no income tax, and neither do employees of the United Nations. Similar response here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968

blibble 3y ago
it is government and they're government employees and they're exempt from tax the little people have to pay
- foldr 3y ago
  The EU is a sort of suis-generis cross between a government and an international organization and is very much unlike the US Federal Government. It’s quite standard for employees of certain international organizations not to pay national taxes in the host country, as my other examples show. The reason behind this is simply to avoid certain conflicts of interest and squabbles between member countries over who gets the tax revenue, not some kind of conspiracy against the ‘little people’.
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Is there any other profession where as a general rule, they don’t pay state/local taxes?
- foldr 3y ago
  I don’t think the question makes sense, because we are talking about national taxes here. The EU is not analogous to the US Federal Government. But anyway, my comment already gave other examples (e.g. NATO employees).
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    I'm trying to question the core assertion you made, that the US federal relationship is not comparable to the EU's relationship to it's member "states" (which is what they are in fact called). Yes one is a federation and one is a confederacy, but what about that relationship makes it relevant to taxation? Apparently employees of NATO don't have to pay taxes in any member state except the US. (https://www.taxesforexpats.com/articles/expat-tax-rules/nato-personnel-us-tax.html https://www.taxesforexpats.com/articles/expat-tax-rules/nato...) So even in the case where the US is a member of these special organizations, the employees are not tax exempt. The only rationale you provided was: > I think the aim is just to avoid having countries that happen to host lots of EU institutions receiving lots of national tax revenue as a result. Why is it unreasonable for a country that hosts lots of EU institution to receive any tax income from that activity? Hosting an international organization's business must cost the host country money, it's not a free lunch.
    - foldr 3y ago
      >I'm trying to question the core assertion you made, that the US federal relationship is not comparable to the EU's relationship to it's member "states" Honestly that's a weird thing to challenge. There's a long list of differences which you can easily discover by googling. Also, "everything should work the same as it works in the US" is not an argument. Even if the EU were analogous to the US Federal Government, then that could just as well argue that the US ought to follow the same rules on taxation as the EU rather than vice versa. >Yes one is a federation and one is a confederacy, but what about that relationship makes it relevant to taxation? How about the fact that the EU doesn't have the power to collect taxes? (There's the special 'tax' paid by EU employees, but citizens of EU countries don't pay taxes to the EU, and the EU has no powers to levy such taxes.) >Why is it unreasonable for a country that hosts lots of EU institution to receive any tax income from that activity? It's not inherently unreasonable, it just has a tendency to lead to conflicts of interest and conflicts between member states. One thing to bear in mind is that member states within the EU have much greater powers (as full nation states) than 'states' within the US system, so it's important to avoid this kind of thing. The EU can't just whip member states into line the way that the US Federal Government can usually force a state to do whatever it wants. There's a more thorough explanation in the comment I linked earlier: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/4968