3 ms·

European Union is a union in a UN sense rather than USA sense. There is no European value or identity to defend, so neither Cyprus nor Luxembourg is doing anyth

by gutnor 12y ago

European Union is a union in a UN sense rather than USA sense. There is no European value or identity to defend, so neither Cyprus nor Luxembourg is doing anything wrong really, just playing their card and do the best for their citizen first and foremost. Cyprus found itself in a hole with no good geopolitical bargaining chips so they got screwed. All the argumentation that followed was to make the pill easier to swallow for other EU citizen. Like "Look we are screwing them up and it is scary but they are bad guys, so don't worry, that won't happen here." Nobody is unhappy with Luxembourg right now, so nothing will happen. At best politician in other countries will moan and complain about the various companies involved and maybe build up public outrage to justify extra local taxation.

return0 12y ago
>European Union is a union in a UN sense rather than USA sense Are you from the EU? You do know that EU law supersedes national law, right? Or that a number of southern european countries don't have control of their finances for 5+years now? It's not an inconsequential union. Also, if they are not doing nothing wrong, then i don't know if the word "wrong" has any uses anymore.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  EU law functions via directives, which are implemented by governments into local law. It's a little different to the US federal system. Those southern European countries do have direct control of their own finances. They could declare bankruptcy and start over if they wanted to. When people say they are 'controlled' by Germany or whatever, those people are in a lazy and misleading way saying that those countries preferred to get loans from other countries and submit to those lenders requirements rather than immediately make their spending match their tax revenues ... because borrowing is easier, politically. But that's still a free choice they made. WRT wrongness, you seem to believe that any country which charges a lower tax rate than any other country is somehow immoral? You want a global government that sets a single tax rate for every person and company on earth? That's one way to avoid people playing jurisdictional arbitrage, but I don't see anyone arguing for that.
  - return0 12y ago
    So in any case, EU is something a lot deeper than the UN. Wrt to wrongness, yes, it is wrong that a small country takes advantage of the openness and loopholes of global economies to funnel money in their direction. There is a simple asymmetry at the core that thei exploit: a big democratic country will never be able to lower corporate taxes because the citizens/wealth generators will protest. A tiny dictatorship or otherwise tiny country with no other resources will be able to convince its citizens that a sustainable future can be built by leeching off funneled money made in other countries. To me that is immoral Or are you suggesting that any of these countries could survive financially with such low tax rates without the foreign money? PS. With respect to the amount of control over indebted countries government, consider the case of Greece. Yes they could have opted out by voting in a referendum, but when the prime minister proposed to do that he was deposed overnight.
    - mike_hearn 12y ago
      Yes, the Greek people really really didn't want to see the Drachma come back. They know that their corrupt and inefficient government would inflate away their currency at a prodigious rate if they went back to having their own currency and the rules imposed by the foreign lenders are really the best way to reform their governments. Kind of messed up, but there it is. Do you seriously think Luxembourg is actually some kind of third world state that is only doing well because it has low corporation taxes? I think you should review the economies of countries painted as tax havens before concluding that. And of course big democratic countries can lower corporation taxes. If the citizens prefer not to do that, OK, that's their choice, but companies leaving is the expected outcome of that. It's not some kind of immorality on the behalf of other citizens of other countries to exploit that. Unless you're going to paint all Irish people as immoral, for example, which is absurd.

by gutnor 12y ago

return0 12y ago

>European Union is a union in a UN sense rather than USA sense Are you from the EU? You do know that EU law supersedes national law, right? Or that a number of southern european countries don't have control of their finances for 5+years now? It's not an inconsequential union. Also, if they are not doing nothing wrong, then i don't know if the word "wrong" has any uses anymore.

mike_hearn 12y ago
EU law functions via directives, which are implemented by governments into local law. It's a little different to the US federal system. Those southern European countries do have direct control of their own finances. They could declare bankruptcy and start over if they wanted to. When people say they are 'controlled' by Germany or whatever, those people are in a lazy and misleading way saying that those countries preferred to get loans from other countries and submit to those lenders requirements rather than immediately make their spending match their tax revenues ... because borrowing is easier, politically. But that's still a free choice they made. WRT wrongness, you seem to believe that any country which charges a lower tax rate than any other country is somehow immoral? You want a global government that sets a single tax rate for every person and company on earth? That's one way to avoid people playing jurisdictional arbitrage, but I don't see anyone arguing for that.
- return0 12y ago
  So in any case, EU is something a lot deeper than the UN. Wrt to wrongness, yes, it is wrong that a small country takes advantage of the openness and loopholes of global economies to funnel money in their direction. There is a simple asymmetry at the core that thei exploit: a big democratic country will never be able to lower corporate taxes because the citizens/wealth generators will protest. A tiny dictatorship or otherwise tiny country with no other resources will be able to convince its citizens that a sustainable future can be built by leeching off funneled money made in other countries. To me that is immoral Or are you suggesting that any of these countries could survive financially with such low tax rates without the foreign money? PS. With respect to the amount of control over indebted countries government, consider the case of Greece. Yes they could have opted out by voting in a referendum, but when the prime minister proposed to do that he was deposed overnight.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    Yes, the Greek people really really didn't want to see the Drachma come back. They know that their corrupt and inefficient government would inflate away their currency at a prodigious rate if they went back to having their own currency and the rules imposed by the foreign lenders are really the best way to reform their governments. Kind of messed up, but there it is. Do you seriously think Luxembourg is actually some kind of third world state that is only doing well because it has low corporation taxes? I think you should review the economies of countries painted as tax havens before concluding that. And of course big democratic countries can lower corporation taxes. If the citizens prefer not to do that, OK, that's their choice, but companies leaving is the expected outcome of that. It's not some kind of immorality on the behalf of other citizens of other countries to exploit that. Unless you're going to paint all Irish people as immoral, for example, which is absurd.