Slashdot Mirror
Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland
jones_supa writes with this news, straight from The Irish Times: "Rovio, the Finnish company behind Angry Birds, is considering moving its headquarters to Ireland, chief executive Mikael Hed has said. Rovio employs approximately 400 people, mostly in Finland, but Rovio is in contact with IDA Ireland about establishing headquarters here. The reason for the move would be corporation tax rate, which in Finland is 24.5%, while Ireland's rate is 12.5%. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also set up European headquarter operations in Dublin for the same reason. Hed said that if the decision was made to move to Ireland, the company would then decide exactly what elements of its operations would move. 'If we did make that decision then it would be a natural thing to do to have some production [in Ireland] also.'"
I wonder if they will approach the level of condemnation that Saverin received for giving up his USA citizenship first before the IPO?
For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.
State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.
When governments (collective entities) try to act like businesses (competitive entities) it seldom works out. Usually only a few who are able to take advantage of the situation benefit.
I think that Antartica could have the lowest of tax rates. Wouldn't it be funny to see MS, Google, Apple, and all the fortune 500's fighting over HQ space in Antartica.
We should also move Washington D.C. to Antartica. Who is with me.
Every store I go in to seems to have Angry Birds figures, cereal, watches, and adult toys. They are all made in China already. Why not just finish it off and move the whole company over their if that is their top brand?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My country has done pretty much nothing for me. They tax the heck out of anything I make and the government wants to basically strip-search me anytime, anywhere without a warrant or explanation. If I every made it rich I'd be out of here. Strike that - I'd be gone if I ever made enough to move to another country. Loyalty. It works both ways.
The march of the greedy, take, take, take. Benefit from an educated healthy work force and strong legal protections, But as soon as the tax man comes you threaten to leave.
One thing I've learned from the years is that rich people and corporations think that they are special, and that by their very existence benefits humanity. But they are just takers, taking advantage of the fruits of society and burning all the ladders to the top.
This is an example of a benefit that only goes to corporations and the very rich, one not available to us regular suckers.
I wish I could simply declare that I live in Florida or some other state with no income tax, and still keep my same job/income/benefits/lifestyle, but I can't. But society has decided that it's OK to allow corporations to do exactly this.
I need to start living more selfishly.
They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave. For what? A 10% reduction on taxes on profits? Currently, Rovio has a net income of 48 million Euros according to Wikipedia (for how long is anybody's guess, Angry Birds won't stay popular forever and that's the only game for modern phones that they have, the rest appears to be old J2ME games, none of which gained any real popularity), so that means saving about 4 million euros in taxes, while at the same time dealing with both a perception of greed which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers as well as the costs associated with moving the operation to Ireland.
how do you pronounce Hämäläinen , Räikkönen , or Jääskeläinen in Gaelic?
will you assholes in the rest of the world just speak the American language please?
it's like a goddamn Lord of the Rings movie in here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Rovio employs approximately 400 people
Okay, so you've got a few guys working on Angry Birds and someone to make the tea. Plus maybe 50 managers. What's everyone else doing?
And they only have two games (three with the space version), and one of them was bought.
And people wonder why Ireland has become the basket case of Europe.
The EU is very fond of harmonising the pain to its citizens. It should have a minimum corporate tax rate to ensure that companies pay their dues...
I'm on the fence about corporate tax, because I consider it triple dipping. After all, people buying Rovio's products are spending their post-tax income. Rovio's employees pay income tax. Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ? Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).
On the other hand, I loathe any modern corporation that amasses vast amounts of wealth and doesn't create jobs to spend it. We see far too much of this happening in North America, with the wealthiest companies playing investment games and showing growth on paper, but never feeding any of that wealth back into the system. That numbers game drives up inflation as stagnant wealth does not serve anyone.
I still don't think corporate tax is the solution. It is clearly a stop-gap measure that has proven ineffective at stimulating societal growth.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The real issue with states giving tax breaks to entice companies to move there isn't simply them "stealing jobs from other states rather than creating them".
The reason such measures usually fail is a state's failure to demand specific goals as part of the deal.
Time and time again, companies took advantage of huge tax breaks only to plunk down some sort of office or warehouse that doesn't actually hire more than a few dozen employees. That, or they may only stay as long as the tax break continues, uprooting the whole operation after the 3 or 5 year deal ends.
IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with state trying to encourage businesses to set up shop within their borders. Even though we're a group of 50 United States, each one still competes with each other internally, much like corporations with multiple divisions often operate each division so it competes with the others.
The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties. (Most likely, corrupt politicians simply don't care, because they're getting some kind of kickback or garnering support they need by making the deals happen, at any cost to the citizenry of the state.) Any such arrangement should include contingencies, such as "You will lose the tax break AND owe back taxes from the time you moved here if you don't consistently keep X number of people employed, at wages no less than $Y per year." and "Moving out of the state for a period of 10 years from the time this tax break expires constitutes breach of contract, and again, is subject to back taxes."
A company who genuinely has a desire to move to the state (with a belief it really benefits them in the long-haul) would still gladly accept such an arrangement, IMO. The ones who complain it's too restrictive were likely just trying to milk the system to the state's detriment anyway.
Come to the US and buy some congresscritters. Ask GE and the lot..hell.. if you play the game right theyll pay you to be here and even give your employees revolving jobs in the administration making laws for yourself.
Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ? Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).
Depends what you consider value. Some things that might be worth the extra tax rate: Infrastructure, public healthcare, well educated workforce.
What?
U.S. States that are currently a hub/center for some particular industry were not alway so. American history is full of migrations from one state to another to follow jobs. Why is it all of sudden wrong to do so?
I am not sure your tragedy of the commons argument applies here. Some state governments have become terribly inefficient and somewhat parasitic of their traditional industries, California may be an example. Why should some company or industry be forced to stay put to prop up such a mismanaged local government? Implicit in your argument is the "all other things being equal" caveat, but things are not equal. Some states will have an inherent advantage due to access to transportation and distribution systems, access to natural resources, access to energy sources, access to a trained work force, access to universities, an appealing climate, etc.
Good government seems to rely on a system of checks and balances. I think we need to have company mobility to some degree as a check/balance against the mismanagement of local government. A lack of competition between states may be just as bad as too much competition.
Corporations have many of the same rights as citizens. Why shouldn't they have some of the obligations?
You say your government does nothing of value with the taxes it collects. Do you ever use the health care system, the legal system, the education system or the transportation system? Those are paid for mostly by taxes at various levels. Most research in Canada is funded from taxes, because the corporations won't. The government does a lot of things with my money that I don't like, but in the main, they are reasonably well spent.
May as well just eliminate the corporate tax and change income taxes to make up the difference. With so many different forms of taxes, it's difficult for the average person to understand exactly what the total cost of their government and society actually is. Having no corporate income tax will encourage jobs to move back to the U.S. and allow for a system where we can see exactly what we're getting costs.
If you employ a plumber does he not have to pay tax on his fee because you already paid it on your salary?
One man's spending is another man's income. The same money isn't being taxed again. A new transaction is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
shows its just about money making...nuff said not gonna bother ever commenting on it more.
Fire 400 workers, move headquarters, save what 4-6 mil? get new workers, new office space, move all your shit, dwindle savings down to about 1 mil then watch your one and only hit fasty fade away into fad history
sounds like a bunch of effort for little reward, and honestly your a 1 hit wonder, there is no long term benefit
What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.
None of this would have been possible without a government paid for by taxes.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy. You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?
It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.
A firm producing unnecessary time-wasting crap threatens to move to a country which has alerady bankrupted itself once (had we not entered a "banks are not allowed to fail" philosophy) by having little to offer beyond ephemeral labour contracts and tax breaks.
This is about as bothersome as an article announcing that Britney Spears - or whoever is the latest pop sensation since I stopped being a teenager - has moved herself and her staff to Ireland.
Why would no corporate income tax bring jobs back to the US? This article is the perfect example of how such a move would work in practice. Rovio wants its HQ in Dublin but very few actual development positions. That means, very few jobs will actually come to Ireland. Most will stay in Finland. Cut to US, we put a 0% tax rate on businesses, the rich elite move their HQ to the US and leave all the jobs you want in China. How does that help anything? You really want a bunch of Chinese billionaires moving to the US? Remember, money is speech so I'd like to see how we fare after heavy Chinese money moves in. And it's not hard for the rich to get a visa. There is a specific B visa that only requires either 1) a promise to hire a certain number of Americans or 2) a bond of something around 10 million. So we'll get a bunch of rich Chinese people and the government gets 10 million a pop but China keeps all the jobs and we get even more China favorable legislation.
I wouldn't mind a 0% corporate tax rate, but it's not as simple as just removing it. Ireland isn't doing well with a low tax rate because jobs don't come there. Same with Antigua and other tax shelters. The money flows through in binary and the business location is just paper. No jobs to be had.
It's only "double taxation" if they double the tax rate. Government has to take in enough money to provide the services people democratically asked for (maybe they shouldn't have, but that's a different argument). Whether they tap the economy at one location, or two, or three, is just spreading around where the "damage" is done - income taxes, sales taxes (general, on all sales, or special taxes on gasoline, etc), user fees, inheritance taxes, financial-transaction taxes ... it all has to add up to the total money needed. Some get hit with more - progressive income tax hits on higher incomes more; sales taxes hit on people who buy more stuff rather than saving, and inheritance taxes hit people with rich Dads. Corporate taxes just hit at the production part of the cycle rather than the income phase; no different than tapping your left arm for blood rather than right.
You can tell that corporate taxes aren't doing much damage, in an economy where almost all economic production is through bodies corporate, because individuals that don't *have* to incorporate to make money, do so anyway ... for the tax BENEFITS. Your dentist is probably a "professional corporation", and these days your private electrician is probably losing business to the corporation that employs ten electricians and has one phone number and ad campaign.
Ireland's low corporate taxes made it a conservative darling, the country that was doing everything Right - and it crashed anyway. Now it's had over 2 years of the harshest austerity measures - and hasn't revived. If it gets this head office, yay, but it's still in for years of high unemployment and pain. Clearly, low corporate taxes are no panacea.
Which says that high corporate taxes causes corporations to flee the country which weakens the economy which is bad for everyone.
Yet Finland is quite wealthy and has one of the highest living standards in the world. There certainly is a lot less poverty in Finland than there is in the US.
Although the current crisis is felt in Finland it is not being hit nearly as hard as many other European countries.
Corporate taxes are simply hidden taxes on the consumer. Corporations (businesses run by ordinary people) see "profit" as post tax as that is what they have to spend at the end of the day. (Government sees profit as pre-tax btw). Businesses calculate the prices that they will sell their services for by calculating how much money they need after taxes are paid. Raising taxes on businesses cause them to in turn raise their prices to consumers. This raises prices on consumers dramatically since any middlemen such as distributors and retailers calculate their prices based on multiples of their cost. (Distributors charge 20-30% of wholesale. Retailers for my product typically will double their wholesale price.
This means that a product that generates $0.10 of additional tax will cost the consumer an additional $0.26
So why do politicians like corporate taxes? Simply because corporations can't vote (taxation without representation) and the publics misguided belief that somebody else is paying their taxes. Additionally, the public by and large do not have any idea what percentage of their products prices are due to taxes, tariffs and fees making these hidden taxes.
In the end, every business puts all its profits to work. They don't "enjoy" money as an end. They can only:
-Put it in the bank or investments (creating lower interest rates which helps people to buy / build houses etc. Or provide capitol to other businesses or projects). This is good for the economy.
-Hire people ( who pay income taxes) which is good for you and me.
-Buy stuff (which takes people to build or make). This hires people (who pay taxes) and is good for the economy and you and me.
Taxes are infinitely dipped. You get paid, and 1/3 goes to taxes, then you buy a car and (aside from paying sales and registration taxes) the dealership pays taxes, then the dealership owner gets his profits and pays 1/3 of that in taxes and then buys a boat and (aside from paying the luxury tax and sales tax) the boat salesman gets his commission and pays taxes, then buys dinner and (aside from liquor and sales and meals taxes) the server gets a tip (and won't claim it, so won't pay taxes) and the restaurant makes money, and the restaurant owner gets his profit and pays 1/3 of that in taxes...
The taxes on a single dollar could, taken this logic, cost $10 in taxes for a year. The point is that for every transaction, someone has benefitted from the protections and advantages afforded by the programs which are government funded. It might be safety from invasion (military), or maybe the person spending the money is on welfare (money straight from the gov't), or the land you own is protected through zoning laws from being used in a way that is incompatible with your business, or the item you sell (like a car) would be useless without government-maintained roads, or you sell American Widgets, which are protected from foreign competition by the Widget Importation Limitation Act.
Every time you buy or sell stock, or a home, or anything that uses a broker, the people who made that transaction possible get paid. Twice, actually, since the buyer and the seller pay their brokers respectively for the same transaction, even if that broker is the same person/entity. The government works the same way, after a fashion. The idea being that if you are benefiting from the governments services, and you have the resources to pay (i.e. you make money), you are expected to put a certain percentage back in the master kitty.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
And no Big Gubmint telling you want to do, so why not move there?
Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).
Really? Roads, policing, rubbish collection, the legal system, the military, healthcare etc. are all worthless?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why didn't they start the company in Ireland to begin with?
Your first paragraph could easily be reworded to show that personal income tax of the employees would be the "triple dip". This would make more sense since people have physical bodies with physical needs and thus taxing them hurts the whole socioeconomic system more than taking the money of a bodiless, nebulous entity that can exist on unicorn dreams and pixie dust.
You say you loath corporations that amass wealth without giving back, but that's exactly what a corporation is for. The entire idea of the limited liability corporation is to create an entity that functions to realize far more wealth than it produces while shielding it's owners from any loss it might incur if what it does turns out to be a bad idea.
The crux of the problem with corporations is that everyone and everything exists inside a economic system which requires constant maintenance, both in the form of policy shifts to take into account changing conditions, and in the physical form with the maintenance of infrastructure (transportation, communication etc). Governments at various levels generally perform this maintenance and need funds to do so. Taxes are how these funds are raised and as such function as a fee on participation in the system that enabled profit in the first place.
A properly functioning corporation will never voluntary give up wealth. At the same time, maintenance of the economic system needs money.
Taxes on corporations need to be strictly enforced and extensive enough to ensure corporations pay for what they've benefited from. The alternative is exactly what you loathe: giant corporations that exist simply to capture and hold as much wealth as possible.
They're still taking though - they still ship their product in the nation they just left. They just don't pay *any* taxes there any more.
Even if they were taking, they gave *something* back, like complements on a first date.
You may not like this kind of venue shopping, regulatory arbitrage, or whatever you call it. Consider the alternative:
One world government and "harmonizing" laws so that all countries are the same.
You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to oppose that. It's easy to see what's wrong with it directly. If you have only one system it had damned better be the right one otherwise everybody is screwed. Competition is good, and that includes the policies of nation-states.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
All money is taxed multiple times. Any time a person makes money, they are taxed for it. If you earn money, then hire a person to do something for you, you will both be taxed. So why should corporations be exempt, if they have nearly all of the advantages of a physical person (and a few extra)? If the owners don't want the extra taxes, they can close down the corporation and run the business as individuals.
The only reason for corporate taxes to be abolished would be taxing the stockholders.
You own 1% of Microsoft? Ok here is the bill for 1% of their income tax. Have a nice day.
Yes, I bet Rovio would have had trouble finding suitable programmers, designers (or even electric power) had they been in Somalia. Don't you think?
And then that crappy government dares to ask something back! How can they!
Why can't
I have played all the Angry Bird games and have really enjoyed them, but I find it hard to believe that it takes 400 people to bring Angry Birds Space to my tablet. I guess I could imagine that it takes a group of 5 people to construct the game and then another 5 to support/manage them. But 400?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Infrastructure is done by the private market that is interested in profit, that's how USA got its infrastructure when it truly was the innovator, was truly increasing its wealth by building up production capacity, becoming world's largest producer and exporter and creditor nation... all without any income or payroll or corporate or any type of wealth taxes and mostly without government at all (1870 - 1913).
Public healthcare is none of government's business, it's a private business, just like all others. Gov't involvement only destroys the healthcare over time, I am expecting to see all gov't ran types of health care to fail within the next 10 years.
Education - what a joke. Years and years (12 for USA?) of this subsidised 'education' that wastes all this human capital. The students that come out of it are so worthless that the gov't then steps in again, and after all the taxes that were paid for this worthless education (made worthless by gov't money and gov't economic and fiscal policy), then the gov't uses taxes to subsidise the minimum wage (minimum wage is a tax, it prevents many people from working, prevents many jobs from existing and creates an imbalance in huge number of cases where the costs and prices are pushed up artificially, where the free market would have those costs much lower, the consumer and the economy end up being hurt by this).
After all of this nonsense 'public education', the students who come out are so worthless they can't legitimately find jobs that are ABOVE the artificial level of the minimum wage, and so the people who subsidised them for 12 years end up subsidising them even further, and all so that what? So that there is a pretence that there is some worthwhile public education system? So that there is a voting block of those, who are basically on a gov't dole as welfare recipients (whether directly from welfare or from ever lasting EI or this minimum wage nonsense).
All of this so that some people who think they are 'progressives' can keep believing that they are doing something useful and good in the world while the reality is that there is a huge number of people in politics and some big business benefiting from all of this resource misallocation?
Here is a form of resource misallocation, a form of welfare for the special interests.
There are 7 witnesses in that Congressional hearing, 6 of them are special interests who want your money, one of them represents the actual tax payers, guess who is being listened to?
You can't handle the truth.
like so many others, another asshole who just wants to take and not to give. For the likes of him there should be an island where there are no taxes and consequently nothing what is made possible by taxes - just a bunch of other greedy assholes who all want to get richer by taking the money of the others.
Society would be a better place without people like him.
I'm on the fence about corporate tax, because I consider it triple dipping.
Help me understand what is bad about that taxes coming from multiple sources.
Money moves around like water. Why does sucking it from one spot sound like such a great idea to some folks? [play jeopardy theme]
The total amount of water being sucked out is a different issue. Even then, some people pretend that water just gets sucked out and ejected to outer space as if the Boeings, LHM's, Raytheons, General Dynamics, etc etc etc of the world don't pay high salaries back into the system.
They grow and prosper with taxes when they are a weaker and smaller corporation - yet with success they no longer can afford to pay taxes? PURE BS.
Corporations benefit and prosper in their home nation and their success is in part due to the employees they have at the time. It is clear betrayal to screw over the people that contributed to success and to the nation which helped facilitate it in the first place.
It is betraying your fellow countrymen by taking their tax-payer-funded infrastructure, workforce, education, and corporate welfare (includes the bankruptcy system that encourages risk taking.) The public (their government) should BILL the traitors for services rendered.
Welcome to the race to the bottom.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In the US, corporations have a certain measure of personhood, they can own property, etc. Taxing income seems reasonable.
benefit by being situated in a country where (I presume is like the average European country) where good education and healthcare is quite accessible.
I don't know about healthcare in particular (although this being a Nordic Economic Model country, it's most likely good) but Finland's education is the best, even beating Fellow Nordics.[1]
It's level[2] is frequently top three, if not the first. And that's a country with NO private schools, and with system that does *not* urge absolute competition between students.
Got to admit, despite their other possible faults, Finns got this education shit covered.
Links:
[1]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm
[2]: http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Profiles/
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
The USA is so corrupt; they can just be the next contractor with NYC to write their employee management software... NYC needs one and I bet the politicians would have a warm view of the Angry Birds maker who unlike previous contractors can actually FINISH something... plus bribes (aka campaign contributions.)
With the republicans taking back the government (like they ever really lost power with Obama) they probably would love to throw more money at the military. Romney wants to put in a Trillion more into the military and he can probably see how Angry Birds could be used by our military somehow... With our increasing stupidity we'll need those kind of easy interfaces so our future soldiers can operate the weapons.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
better move to Estonia - it is much closer (about 70km) and has even lower corporate tax
It paid for the education of Rovio founders and employees. Education in Finland is free up to and including university level.
Oh well, the country doesn't fall from a few leeches showing their true colours.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.
Lower "overall tax revenue" is hardly a tragedy. In fact, it's a triumph for everyone who works and produces anything rather than living off the work and production of others. As more governments compete in this way, there will be more opportunity to get a productive job and less opportunity to sell your vote for a cut of the loot taxed from the producers.
It's only a tragedy for those who want power over their neighbors and the ability to spend money they didn't earn.
Ireland is widely considered to be in the same boat as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. They'll need to balance their budget at some point, and I wouldn't bet on the corporate tax rate to stay this low when they do.
Rovio is probably trying to pull a bluff to get a local tax break.
Finland has a much higher personal income tax rate that Ireland. If the income of Rovio employees is above average, they're financially much better off having a lower income tax rate and paying for the services they used to get from the government themselves.
Sorry, but government services don't come from the tooth fairy.It doesn't matter whether you use corporate income taxes or personal income taxes, ultimately, the only entity that pays for them is the real people living in that country.
Honestly, They are making money hand over fist so HARD it's not funny. Now the selfish bastard want to move because he hates the idea of Giving other finlandians his precious precious money.
He works so hard for it. Damn those social programs he benefited from for over half his own life. will he also be emigrating and giving up his Finland citizenship so he does not have access to all the social benefits of the citizenship? Bet you $100 he wont.
Rich people are like that, two faced wanting it both ways.
That's right. Defect from the country that provided you with outstanding developers who were the end product of the best k-12 (and 12- 16 AND into adulthood) educational systems in the world
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39700732_1_1_1_1,00.html
and who were willing to work for start-up wages and take risks because they weren't burdened with student loan debt:
From Wikipedia:
The Finnish education system is an egalitarian system, with no tuition fees and with free meals served to full-time students.
The present Finnish education system consists of well-funded and carefully thought out daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of sixteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and Polytechnical); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education.
The Nordic strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1]
Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]
Yes defect from that system you benefited from so you can save a measly 12.5% on taxes :
FTA:
The corporation tax rate in Finland is 24.5 per cent, while Ireland's rate is 12.5 per cent.
Yes do defect . Because that's coke n' whore money you could be putting up your fucking nose instead of giving it to the most effective and civic minded governments the world has ever known and supporting one of the most egalitarian societies the world has ever achieved. .
In truth, this happens all to time to Finland . Sports stars, recording stars etc etc defect to a low taxation country. They know about it and build in an allowance for it. They STILL like their society better , and as far as the loss of "talent" goes, they know how to print that shit on demand:
"Finland has reached number 1 or number 2, with very high rankings in reading literacy, mathematics and science. If one could make a calculation of the total, comparing different fields, Finland would be number 1. The country received very high marks in this international comparison of students," Finnish Ambassador to Thailand Sirpa Maenpaa told The Nation recently.
"Furthermore, the results that come from Finland are uniform. They do not come from some top students, but from the performance of all of the students," she said.
from:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/09/28/national/national_30113177.php
For anyone interested in how the Scandinavians think about taxes, this is a great listen from Planet Money:
Quotable quote- an incredulous interviewer asks a woman "would you like your taxes to be even higher??" to which she replies "...mmmm .. what will I get for my money?"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html
Maybe you should lay off that medication. They seem to really mess you up.
What?
Just another race to the bottom. Corporations are going to end up tax-exempt and we're all going to end up living in a Neo-Feudalistic society where instead of an aristocracy we've got C-levels and their retinues while national governments sputter out with less and less tax revenue coming in and become more and more irrelevant.
The saddest thing in all of this is, though, that there will be a sizable number of middle- and lower-class people out there cheering the shit, even as their own well-being is threatened directly by it. When you've got people in trailer parks arguing that taxes do nothing but punish success and cheering on the dismantling of the social programs they're actively using (such as Medicaid, welfare, public schools), you know that we're fucking doomed...
Oh please, that only happens in your imagination. The tax burden is very high. Medicaid and public schools are not being dismantled.
Where do you get your info from?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Corporate taxation is just rabble rousing. It should be ended entirely and instead tax capital gains/dividends at normal tax rates.
If you or I packed our assets into a suitcase and tried moving them across borders, Customs and the Infernal Revenue Service would stop it right there. Duties must be paid and (if you are an American or from a few other totalitarian states) taxes must still be paid on income it generates. Even overseas.
But convert those assets into intellectual property and them move across borders unimpeded. Poof! They disappear from one tax jurisdiction. Voila! They appear someplace else (with lower tax rates). Note that this magic trick can only be performed by a fortunate class of people: Corporations.
Have gnu, will travel.
Most natural thing to do will be to move production to country where production costs are cheaper. It won't be Ireland. He might have popular game, but he still has to get more experience in cost management.
Why should the Rovio founders and employees have to pay back those costs 20 or 50 or 100 times over? Why isn't is ever, ever enough?
Today we are insane; highly profitable businesses who are charging high prices due to high market demand are minimizing expansion if not shrinking in actual size while bitching about the small taxes they can't CHEAT out of paying. Naturally their "profit" goes down because that is actually tax money owed to the public and they've been STEALING from us. They DO NOT need to raise prices to pay their taxes! They have the tax money already in their pockets which they misrepresent as profit!
Corporations need MORE police and MORE fire protection. They benefit MORE from educated citizens than parents do (unless you have more children than the corporation has employees.) Corporations use more resources and government services. Welfare programs for corporations are some of the biggest programs in existence; almost always far exceeding what an individual can receive from the welfare programs for people.
If corporations are "people", then they should pay as much tax as I DO. I don't know anybody who would not be extremely upset if their neighbor was paying almost no taxes while making way more income.
Operating expenses are part of the equation of any business; if taxes raise their prices that is the REALITY they must work with. DEMAND DRIVES GROWTH. If they cost too much and the market demand will not bare the costs, then they go under. tough luck... take your publicly funded bankruptcy protection and go start another business. Somebody wanting money will start a business, there is never a shortage of people willing to earn money.
It is a red herring to simply cite the fact corporations employ people as if that is a legitimate answer.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
When a government spends money it is not "pissed away". When they pay someone to pave a road or to provide schooling or fire/ambulance service, the money does not somehow "disappear". It goes into the pockets of the people doing the work, who then (assuming they are not millionaires) typically spend it on consumer goods.
No, instead our grown with stagnate or go backwards a bit until India/China/South America and others catch up a bit more. What moron doesn't grasp this already?
Sorry, but Finland is not Scandinavian, it's a Nordic country, according to us Scandinavians. You will find multiple definitions out there, but none matter more than that of the people concerned.
The Nordic countries, which we Scandinavians use to describe our region, includes the three Scandinavian Kingdoms; Denmark, Norway and Sweden, as well as Iceland and Finland.
The reason being that Finland does not belong to the same ethnic or linguistic group as the others. To put it simply: the Vikings came from the three Kingdoms, while Iceland was settled by them. Finland however was later conquered by Sweden and partly colonized.
It's awesome how you reference the US's government problems in a discussion about Finland. The largest point in your post is that the US's education is shit, whereas Finland is excelling at education.
I wish I could move my company to Ireland. (We're in the US, for reference.)
Yes, fuck you, tax happy retards.
My company makes money. It's taxed to hell. We pay employees. We're taxed to hell again, and so are the employees. The employees buy things, things they like - they're taxed again. Or they wisely save it, where they're taxed on the pitiful interest that cock, Bernanke is responsible for. We pay out bonuses? My. Fucking. God. The taxes.
Hurr durr, roads. Herpaderp society.
Call me when we don't have more fucking aircraft carriers than there are oceans. Call me when we have a health care system that isn't third world - and no, don't start crying about Republicans, because Obama's plan was terrible and he should feel terrible. Call me when we're not being raped to provide outrageous pensions for government drones.
Fuck you and your society. You have enough fucking money to make the United States a utopia. But what, we just need a little bit more thrown down the rathole, right?
Fuck, because I haven't said fuck enough in this post, and you tools won't even consider the obscene wealth already available to our government anyway.
the founders should pay because they eventually need both new employees (unless ofc they plan for obsolescence), they - founders and employees - should also realise that there is ongoing spending from the state to keep them all healty, safe and not too drunk. Instead of the state sending invoices for everything they get to pay taxes, neat huh?
And this story is about a company that is looking for a way out of that messed up government system, that forces people to give up their earnings, as if they are actual possessions of the government.
Finland is losing the companies now, in the global world, they will lose their gravy train of having a closed system of monopolies created by the government, as more and more is outsourced elsewhere, as the capital searches for ways to make things cheaper and make more profit, and the socialist welfare system that was overtaxing the population will collapse and I am going to enjoy watching it collapse if I am not dead in the next 10-15 years.
You can't handle the truth.
It's their only brand. They've made it rich on a simple but cute concept.
Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).
Please leave Canada. I'll enjoy my healthcare, maintained roads, relatively low crime rate, and generally pleasant country. Oh and my education, both pre and post secondary. My taxes (I promise more than what you pay, hint: the federal portion is well into the 6 figures alone) cover this, and I'm proud to be a Canadian. (As much as I may dislike the current prime minister and our mayor here in Toronto)
So Mr Libertarian, again, please leave my country.
...and good riddance, Rovio.
Same in Finnish:
Jorma Ollila on taustapiruna Nokian alasajossa ja mobiilikäyttöjärjestelmiensä ohjaamisessa pohjoisamerikkalaisiin käsiin Microsoft-yhteistyön kautta. Vaihtokauppana Nokiasta annettiin lupaus luoda Suomelle uusi jätti, tällä kertaa immateriaaliviihteen parissa, ikäänkuin uusi Disney. Angry Birdsin menestyksen syy on pohjoisamerikkalaisomisteisen median suorittamassa markkinoinnissa. Tämän kautta pelistänne on tullut ilmiö. Joten Rovio, haistakaa paska ja painukaa jo pikavauhtia sinne Irlantiin.
Ireland needs higher taxes since it's one of those "troubled Euro countries", and here's the proof... companies are still moving there for TAX reasons and nothing else.
Because it is nice to live in a country with good infrastructure, proper education and healthcare? Where you know that when someone comes of age he'll be taken care off, regardless of how lucky he got during his life? When you fall ill you won't be bankrupt?
Is it really that bad to pay 33% tax when the regular employee has to pay 50%? Sure 1 year of that 33% may be more than an employee pays his whole life, but that's not the fucking point. Everyone does his share and if you strike it big, it means you end up paying more but you still end up with a whole lot more.
As others have mentioned, the 12.5% isn't even the best rate around. Moving to Ireland is more generally about the Double Irish whereby you form two companies in Ireland, one based in a true tax haven like the Caymans. Ireland then lets the company in the tax haven not pay Irish taxes, so it sells "IP" to the other company at whatever price they want (no transfer pricing rules), so while one company banks all the revenue, it pays just about everything over to the shell "IP" company where it is basically all untaxed profit. In practice this means the company chooses it's real tax rate in Ireland by deciding how much of it's revenues it doesn't ship out to the tax haven.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Except, now that they've already paid Finland back many, many times over, they're "greedy" and "leeches" for wanting to use legal means to start to pay less. So it's never enough, no matter how much they pay. They're still evil for not paying more.
BTW: I can't get that deal where I pay taxes and get decent infrastructure, education, and healthcare in return. My taxes all go to freeloaders, overpaid government workers and pensioners, lawyers, and corruption. Infrastructure crumbles, schools cheat children out of an education, and my healthcare is not included. I only have "smaller" government or "corrupt, useless, giveaway" government to choose from. There's no "efficient, you get what you pay for" government in California. So "smaller" is the only rational choice for anyone not on the payroll.
I bet at least 1/3 of the USA has not caught up with you. You have an optimism bias. Equilibrium will not happen.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Sure they're deals.... But a set of tax rules uniformly applied to everyone doesn't entice anyone new to move to your state, if they're doing just fine where they're at (a state with a lower tax rate).
All I'm saying is, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a state's politicians to take an interest in attracting businesses/jobs from other states, and a limited time exemption from the normal tax rules is as good an incentive to offer as any.
So no, the fact it's a "deal" doesn't automatically strike me as the core problem here. The problem is, just as you say, with politicians acting for their own personal gain vs. having their own state's best interests at heart. The solution? Well, that gets into all sorts of arguments and possible scenarios -- many of which aren't too likely to happen since political status-quo power is so entrenched. But IMO, you should at least subject any such tax break measure to a vote by the citizens of the state. If the people don't believe it's a good deal, there should be no way to just "push it through anyway".
A better answer probably involves removal of politics as a career job... Make it a volunteer position which only pays a small salary (at least something to cover one's own costs of volunteering, such as travel expenses involved), and frankly? I think re-election shouldn't even be an option any more. It encourages too much corruption, and diverts the energy and attention of politicians from the issues at hand to concerning themselves with self-promotion for a re-election.
Some would say "Only the wealthy would ever be capable of volunteering." -- but I'd argue that #1, our nation was FOUNDED by such people in the first place, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. But more importantly, #2, I'd imagine with such a volunteer system in place, a willingness to do so for a term would look very good on one's resume. Just as broke college grads are known to go off and do volunteer work for a while for the sake of the experience, some would do the same with politics.
Why are all of you so thick? Of course they can afford to pay the taxes, but they don't want to. Simple. If you don't like it, lobby your legislators to make a law against leaving the country. It may or may not be betrayal, but if you think it's wrong, then make it illegal. Just don't think that everything will be the same after you do that.
A better answer probably involves removal of politics as a career job... Make it a volunteer position which only pays a small salary (at least something to cover one's own costs of volunteering, such as travel expenses involved), and frankly? I think re-election shouldn't even be an option any more. It encourages too much corruption, and diverts the energy and attention of politicians from the issues at hand to concerning themselves with self-promotion for a re-election.
Term limits don't solve the problem because re-election isn't the only way of compensating the politician for the favors he/she conveys. The quid pro quo can come after leaving office. Remember this story? It may not go directly to the politician, but rather to his/her friends or family members. If you accept that crooked people will find ways to trade favors at the public's expense, the most effective deterrent is to take away their ability to do favors, i.e. minimize their ability to treat people/companies unequally.
Is moving for a job beneath you?
No, but it might be above some people. As I understand, people are expected to find their first job near where relatives live so that they can build up enough savings to move.
a sense of humor
an important thing in life
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I can do it, no modification necessary. Just a skinny white flexible guy.
Really --- the great success story of iOS development is a firm that has 400 employees? What do you call that? Hint: it's not a startup and it's not indie. 400 employees! Jesus!
In an article in Finnish Taloussanomat Rovio denies it is going to move to Ireland:
http://www.taloussanomat.fi/informaatioteknologia/2012/06/09/lehti-rovio-harkitsee-muuttoa-irlantiin-yhtio-kiistaa/201231199/12
Off with your head.
Somewhere on the Earth, an economist had an aneurysm... The cost of taxes is calculated exactly as such. Cost is a well-defined word, it's the value of the next most highly valued alternative. So the cost of a tax is the total value of goods were not produced because of its existence, and since value is subjective, we exchange it into something which has a broad demand, like dollars, from the good's price. But the very first problem with this isn't even that, it's your arithmetic: 30% off a product already 30% off doesn't add up to 60% off, it's about 50%.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
now.
And this story is about a company that is looking for a way out of that messed up government system, that forces people to give up their earnings, as if they are actual possessions of the government.
They'd have more sympathy if they started "looking for a way out" before they actually became successful. You know, like the real Randian supermen, proudly standing up and going forth on their own merit alone, with no social welfare net or free public education system to prop them up with "stolen" money.
Perhaps because universal free education for all is made possible because some of those thus educated pay back several times its worth, propping the rest?
Not any finnish company will build it's headguarters in country that has lost it's language and it's way, never. Irish people doesn't even know how to speak their
own language so how could they be a good home for anyone but for the people who wants to enslave them ?
Are they "greedy" "leeches" if they only pay it back 10 times over instead of 12? How much is enough?
And who says "universal" so-called "free education" is ideal anyway? If parents had to try to get their kids an education, they would value it more. If parents had to try, they'd find a way to get their kids to behave. And then all the other kids could learn too.
I don't know about Finland, but in US schools one of the biggest problems is that all the kids who want to learn are locked up together with apathetic or disruptive or violent kids. So the kids who want to learn lose much of their opportunity to learn. And the ones who don't want to learn don't get educated anyway.
By wanting it to be "universal", we lose much of the "education". And no one who earns a paycheck thinks education is "free".
Wait, what happened to the "businesses are and only here to make money for their share holders not be a socialist welfare system for the government or other people" post.
How can trite expressions be if they arent expressed?
They are NOT Randian, they are just doing business. They never had the money before to care about the issue, now, in my case, I moved my business before I started making any real money with it (as a contractor I was doing well for myself, but I didn't want to have the business stuck in a system where taxes and regulations are absurd). I don't call myself 'Randian' either, I am a libertarian, these days closer to an anarchist, she was not.
You can't handle the truth.
It paid for the education of Rovio founders and employees. Education in Finland is free up to and including university level.
Oh well, the country doesn't fall from a few leeches showing their true colours.
The purpose of tax is to provide "free" services?
Why do people become "leeches" for using this "free" service without paying anything back? Is the service not really "free"?
Or is the problem that someone else pays for this "free" service? Aren't the taxes supposed to work like that?
the country that was doing everything Right - and it crashed anyway.
The country was definitely NOT doing everything right, the government allowed a massive property bubble to develop, and most of Irelands crash was caused by the popping of said bubble. Putting the brakes on such a bubble should have been an easy thing for the government to do, they just didn't have the guts/brains/(insert other body parts here) to do it.
I'm on the fence about corporate tax, because I consider it triple dipping. After all, people buying Rovio's products are spending their post-tax income. Rovio's employees pay income tax. Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ? Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).
For a place that prides itself on being smarter than the average person, there sure are some really crazy attitudes about tax in here. How do you think schools and hospitals are paid for? If you want a easy demonstration, go to your nearest zoo and climb in the lion's cage. That is how life works with no tax or government.
People looking for their first job should have the LEAST amount of stuff to move
But they still need money to rent a place to sleep while interviewing at multiple companies to secure that first job.
There are jobs in Ireland - but the construction bubble effectively lured a generation into trades when what it turns out is needed is professionals. A number of labs closed down as well as everyone consolidated. There are fields where every position has several people with the skills and experience applying for it leaving graduates in the lurch.
On the flip side, anyone with any kind of decent development experience will have a job in no time. All the major software companies have development centers in Ireland, and it's not just for the 12.5% corporation tax rate. Hiring people here is expensive, the Employer PRSI is high, the income tax is pretty high and the VAT is very high indeed.
The tradespeople got badly shafted by the bubble bursting. Construction is non-existent now and many of them had set up as sole traders and weren't paying their employers PRSI so they don't qualify for anything but the most basic social welfare. Many have left for Australia and Canada where there is demand for their skills.
On the corporation tax: the thinking behind this tax rate was sound. The government at the time cut way back on exceptions to the tax rules so everyone paid the same. As was mentioned above, France's effective corporation tax rate is 8.2% against a headline rate of 33%. There isn't a corporation in the world paying headline rates so what should be being compared is effective rates. Ireland's effective rate is pretty close to the 12.5% headline rate, and is unlikely to change.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
They are running away because the local police is on the right track to uncover their participation in creating the Flame virus. And remember, you read it first here on Faux News.
And who says "universal" so-called "free education" is ideal anyway?
A comparison between the societies in Finland and U.S. seems to indicate a correlation.
...that the height of civil disobedience for a Canadian was writing a testy letter to the editor of the local paper. It would appear that the height of Libertarian activism is to debate a misinterpreted post on Slahdot to death.
I wonder if it would even work. Here in Denmark, there's a rule that if the company is still run from Denmark, it has to pay Danish tax, no matter where the on-paper HQ is registered.
To the people complaining about taxes in Finland need to get a clue. Sure the taxes are high in Finland... but lets see what it buys them:
They have a world class health system, world class education system, world class welfare system (to care for the weak and poor). Finland and the other Scandinavian countries are constantly in the top 10`s for: Most free economies, healthiest, most educated, happiest, etc etc.
As a South African I dont envy the American or British way of doing things, I envy the Nordic model. Its working better than all the other models I have seen.
Taxes buy you civilization. Thats its. High taxes are fine as long as people are getting good value for money. Which the people of Finland clearly are. No system is perfect and the welfare model is complex and difficult to manage, but we can work it out.
Empirical evidence shows that countries that have higher tax rates and higher social spending do better than countries with lower taxes and lower social spending.. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
I'm not knocking infrastructure, but the country is in the middle of a growing crisis concerning rampant corruption. Giving these crooks more money right now would not provide citizens with better services, it would only serve to widen the income gap and enable further heavy-handed borderline-fascist activity.
Canada's governments don't need more money, they already take a huge chunk of it and piss it away. They need to spend existing tax dollars more effectively.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The plumber draws a salary, and pays income tax on that.
Corporate tax is a tax on the corporation's income. That's why I described it as triple-dipping. More importantly, the government serves no purpose within the context of that transaction, because it exists only on paper. It's really a midpoint between the client's expense, and the employee's paycheque - at least in well-balanced companies. I don't feel a corporation (in the abstract sense) should be paying for infrastructure it cannot even use. Corporate entities don't need health care. They don't need roads. They don't even need government. Where is the logic in taxing an abstract construct ? They already pay for land use through property taxes, they pay utility bills like anyone else using water, electricity and gas, their employees pay income tax to cover human services.
Using your example, if the plumber were incorporated, he'd have to pay two taxes: corporate tax, and personal income tax. The net result is his hourly rates will increase to cover that extra tax. It all stems from this perverse notion that corporations are almost people. The only difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship is a few extra signatures on the registration form. Why should that clerical distinction entitle the government to charge more money for the same services ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
My understanding is that corporations are created not for tax benefits, but for liability reasons.
If I operate as a sole proprietorship, screw up royally and get sued, I lose everything. My cash, my property, my personal assets - everything. If I incorporate, the company gains its own little identity which can hold assets, and barring exceptional (criminal) circumstances, liability is limited to whatever the company owns, without spilling over onto me personally. Moreover, if every penny the corporation earns is spent as my salary, or operating expenses, its taxable income is zero. I still pay income tax on my salary so the end result is the same.
Where corporate tax kicks in is for unspent money. It has to file its own tax return, which means any money not written off is now subject to another round of taxation. This corporate entity only exists as an abstract construct. It does not get sick, it does not drive a car, it does not drink the water, and it does not get mugged in the park. Why then, should an abstract construct be paying for infrastructure ?
I get what you're saying, that a government needs tax income to cover cost of services provided. That's not under debate, i'm all for socialized services that benefit all. What I'm arguing is that income should come from the people who can use those government services. If shifting that tax burden back to the citizens means the corporations can keep more jobs inland, that's a win-win.
Pragmatically, the money is already poorly spent, which is the one tenet of the Tea Party that actually carries any merit, but that's a separate issue. Up here in Canada, we've been seeing daily protests going on for four months, initially about tuition hikes, but the scope has expanded to cover a much wider umbrella of corrupt spending. You see, there are some few million of us who feel we're not actually getting 43% worth of our income in services from the government, while the super-rich get rewarded with more tax breaks for their secluded mansions and stockpiles of inert cash. Corporate tax addresses none of the issues and instead creates more avenues for tax avoidance and disincentivizes small business growth.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
To people, all those services is highly valuable.
To a corporation, which is an imaginary concept, they are worthless. Ideas don't get sick. Ideas don't catch fire. Ideas don't get bombed for oil.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Perhaps this is my inner socialist peeking out the window, but I see no benefit in having a company sit on huge stockpiles of cash. Money is only useful if it's moving around. Create jobs, buy stuff, make it work for someone. Our western governments are widely recognized for being grossly corrupt, funneling money to the existing plutocracy. I don't feel giving more money to a government is going to result in more value for its citizens when it so much more easily diverted back to the fascist elite.
Instead of corporate tax, perhaps we would be better served by strict regulation that forces corporate profits to be spent on actual growth. After all, government exists to help us all lead better lives, not just a handful of the wealthiest residents who already have the means to serve themselves.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Right. That education is paid from income taxes, which is great because, at least in theory, the better your education level, the higher your income potential. It's a win-win.
The corporation, that abstract entity that exists only on paper and in our minds, it didn't go to school. It is merely a logical grouping of everyone working together at Rovio. Why should that money be taxed again ? Wouldn't it be better applied toward creating more high-paying jobs ?
Let's suppose the corporate tax rate is 12%. That's 12% less growth for the company, or if you share my cynicism, 12% more cash diverted to the fascist elite, who already enjoy countless tax breaks to build themselves giant mansions where they host lavish parties to curry favour with the political leadership. A.K.A. corruption. I'd sooner trust SMBs with that money, than the government.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
This.
This is the root of my argument against corporate tax. Governments have proven time and time again that they cannot properly manage our money. My quality of living is worse now than it was 15 years ago, despite my income having doubled as well as my tax burden. I am paying more to have less rights and less services thanks to privatisation, while the rich get richer at my expense.
I went to college, I'm good at what I do and put in the hours. I am a prime example of someone who's not getting their money's worth from the government. You might look at my hourly rate and think I must be doing well, but in reality I'm worse off than when I was a full time employee earning half as much (on paper). I pay more tax, I get nickel-and-dimed with little fees everywhere, and if I should ever have a bad year, they send an auditor to pester me for a week, further crippling my ability to work. To top it all off, if things really go south and I have to shutter the business, I'm not eligible for unemployment benefits. They won't even let me properly write off expenses, so if I need to replace equipment, that year is almost guaranteed to be a net loss.
The whole damned system seems designed to punish little guys and drive us into debt. There is no reason a guy like me, selling information services, should be running at a loss when I'm working 50 hours a week.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Could you tell me more about this, I'm honestly interested (though not US citizen)?
Usually wealthy get elected more often than poor in USA it seems to me (foreigner) - I doubt there have been many actually poor anyway, but the most important issue is your have is wealthy or not to get elected you need to have wealth - from your party, corporate "sponsors", etc. - I think this is one of the many big flaws in USA political system.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Are they "greedy" "leeches" if they only pay it back 10 times over instead of 12? How much is enough?
And who says "universal" so-called "free education" is ideal anyway? If parents had to try to get their kids an education, they would value it more. If parents had to try, they'd find a way to get their kids to behave. And then all the other kids could learn too.
And what if the kids parents are failures and the kid doesn't get to have proper good education - what is reasonable in that? ;)
Oh, but there is an angry god who will punish peoples sins down to children of 7th generation, or something like that
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.