Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland

What will the complaints be... by QQBoss · 2012-06-10 04:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder if they will approach the level of condemnation that Saverin received for giving up his USA citizenship first before the IPO?

Re:What will the complaints be... by jhoegl · 2012-06-10 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, the consumer will see the savings... I mean that is what the argument has been.
Except, I dont see the "savings". Hell, when oil goes down on the stock market, it has to be down for 2-3 days before we see the change at the pump.
Trickle down economics in deed...
Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 05:15 · Score: 2, Funny

" Hell, when oil goes down on the stock market, it has to be down for 2-3 days before we see the change at the pump.
Trickle down economics in deed..."
So you are saying you have no idea what the bolded part means.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

cost reductions *rarely* result in lower retail prices -- they *always* increase profits, though.
Increased profits result in increased competition.
Increased competition results in lower retail prices.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

yeah, that worked really good for ma bell.
Let me guess, you're not old enough to actually remember Ma Bell.
I am old enough, and I remember having to rush through long-distance (and even local) calls, so they wouldn't end up costing a fortune. That was when Ma Bell was a legal monopoly and didn't have to worry about competition.
Prices dropped dramatically once competition was allowed in.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

That mechanism is incredibly slow and in most industries could only ever operate on a scale of many years.
And you just can't stand the thought of that first company making any evil profits, even though they were the first to market, and they were the risk-takers who didn't know ahead of time that there would be any profits.
And, yes, for things like heavy industry, it takes a while for competition to get up to speed. That's not a bad thing. It's far better than, for instance, having the government rushing to give out loans to companies that can't compete even with the government handouts, as we've seen several times in the last few years.
Re:What will the complaints be... by jellomizer · 2012-06-10 07:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

No consumers will not see savings. Trickle down was never about consumer prices. However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people.
Trickle Downs failure like a lot of political mumbo jumbo is because it is too simplistic model for an advanced system.
Trickle Down is part of a well balanced economy. Too much of it will just hurt because the company will make too much profit and will have less incentive to grow. Thus pocketing the money.
Too Little, then the company is forced to pay taxes for services that they don't need and have the government holding them back, because they need to give the poor there "fare share" even though they are not going out on the line risking their money, and working really hard to get where they were.
Like real life you need balance. The more complicated the system the more factors you need to balance and often it is more then left right you need to balance but up down and forward and backwards too...

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:What will the complaints be... by icebike · 2012-06-10 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

In Angry Bird-like industries, where they have an actual monopoly on that game and a virtual monopoly on games of similar ilk, the slowness is actually legislated in. Essentially, anywhere there are patents and copyrights slowness tends to be institutionalized.
Some of this is by design. Creators should be able to profit from their work for a while, which is why we have patent / copyright laws.
So there is no capability for the market to operate in these areas, as society has already decided that it should not. In infrastructure heavy sectors, the barriers are natural, in IP heavy sectors barriers are largely legal.
So there will be no end-user price reduction. (Hell, its free on Android, so unless you expect to be paid to download it, it can't get much cheaper).
This move to Ireland is strictly a tax avoidance move by the owners, and will help their Yacht fund. Further, its probably a bluff, trying to secure some tax breaks from Finland, because you don't uproot 400 people (or even the 100 people you really want to keep) just to avoid some taxes.
Figures for Rovio total revenue suggest about $95 million in total revenue (2011). After paying wages and plant costs, their earnings (before taxes) was $58.7 dollars, which suggests they are banking 65% of their total intake.
Paying 12% Ireland tax rates will save them around 7 Million bucks per year in taxes over the Finland rate.
Since you could probably move the company lock stock and server farm for $7Mil, the multi-year payout would be significant, but not earth shattering.
Angry Birds has about run its course, and unless they have a stable of additional games in the pipe-line there may not be any long term advantage in moving.
Ta-hoochapie!

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Voogru · 2012-06-10 07:25 · Score: 2

Yep, this is why the combine harvester drove food prices through the roof.
Re:What will the complaints be... by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-10 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Increased profits are typically achieved through restructuring manufacturing to a third world nation or other anti-worker means. If driving down prices at worker's expense was a magic pathway to increased prosperity for all (a rising tide lifts all boats... ) , then Walmart would have achieved this by now. Instead, the rich are getting fabulously richer and the poor and middle class are being systematically destroyed.
It's not surprising. They're going to try to pocket that money they save for themselves alone at least as hard as they're going to try to save it in the first place.
The magic bunny, er I mean invisible hand, of of laissez faire capitalism as espoused by Ayn Rand and Mitt Romney or to speak more precisely Mitt's handlers, puppet masters and soon to be policy makers Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist benefits, as a matter of historical fact, the top 1% as we all know by now:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Re:What will the complaints be... by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-10 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Some of this is by design. Creators should be able to profit from their work for a while, which is why we have patent / copyright laws.
This is a misconception. Patents don't exist to help inventors profit from their invention. They exist to encourage inventors to reveal the technical brilliance behind their inventions to the rest of society, thus benefiting society at large. That's why they exist. In order to lure the brilliant people at Angry Boids to tip the hand of their overwhelming genius to the eternal benefit of a grateful society, they are offered by the government a time-limited monopoly. Not all inventors opt in, e.g. Google.
Patents are not issued to help inventors make money or profit from their invention. They're issued to further progress in the useful arts and sciences.
It's an important distinction. If the patent system doesn't have the effect of advancing the useful arts and sciences, then the patents should not be issued and the inventor be damned.
This goes to the heart of the software patent debate. Do software patents advance the useful arts and sciences? In fact, they impede them. So they should stop being issued and those issued should be nullified. What about the inventors profiting from their work? That is not the concern of the government or the patent system.
Re:What will the complaints be... by icebike · 2012-06-10 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Patents are not issued to help inventors make money or profit from their invention. They're issued to further progress in the useful arts and sciences.
That's nonsense, pretty much quoted from the Constitution, but which even the founding fathers didn't really believe. No other country had such language in their law. Great Britain's patent and copyright laws were strictly revenue oriented from the start (well over 300 years ago).
Most of the greatest works of art, literature, music, and inventions never enjoyed patent or copyright protection until about 200 years ago (far less in most countries), and it was ALWAYS assumed that anything you invented would be also made by others in short order. Yet there is scarce evidence of any withholding of works or inventions from this time.
In fact it is precisely BECAUSE OF PATENTS that inventions and creative works are withheld, kept secret, and locked up.
Patents have ALWAYS been about the money. Its fiction to believe they promote the science or arts, and it has always been fiction.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:What will the complaints be... by shmlco · 2012-06-10 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

"....even though they were the first to market, and they were the risk-takers who didn't know ahead of time that there would be any profits."
Bullshit. Seriously. We were talking about oil. Hundreds of wildcat outfits rushed to take advantage of the Texas oil boom in 1901, over one hundred years ago. Today's mega-corporations bear little to no resemblance to those companies, and most, if not all of their "risks" are insured and subsidized.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:What will the complaints be... by icebike · 2012-06-10 08:50 · Score: 2

It states in the Constitution that the purpose of issuing a patent is "to promote the useful arts and sciences". This is the raison d'etre and is taken quite at face value by judges juries and Congress.
You make the assumption that patents began and end with the US Constitution.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Patents predated the constitution by about 300 years.
Go read up on the history of patents some time.
I already addressed this fiction in the message you responded to. Do you think with Franklin sitting in on the drafting of the constitution there would be no economic protection for inventions?
Please stop quoting some throw-away text in the constitution as if it were world wide gospel.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:What will the complaints be... by shmlco · 2012-06-10 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

"However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people."
Assumption. And even if that's what's being said, it's a rationalization. Effective tax rates for corporations are at the lowest they've been for decades. Many industries, like the aforementioned oil industry, are enjoying record profits and sitting on mountains of cash.
And yet job creation is at a standstill. If giving more money to the rich "creates jobs", everyone would be employed by now. They're not.
In all likelihood, the extra profit will sit on the companies books or be doled out to upper management in the form of bonuses and other executive perks. The only "reinvestment" likely to occur is in yet another Ferrari.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Skal+Tura · 2012-06-10 09:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm a Finnish small business owner, and i can say that the tax caveats at Finland don't stop to the corporation tax rate.
There's also VAT which is 23% which limits direct consumer customers heavily on the European market, nevermind all the taxes when you employ someone which are quite heavy, mostly in form of hidden taxes etc.

--
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
Re:What will the complaints be... by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-10 09:45 · Score: 2

You make the assumption that patents began and end with the US Constitution.
You make the assumption that I make the assumption that patents began and end with the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Re:What will the complaints be... by cayenne8 · 2012-06-10 10:24 · Score: 2

I don't understand why we in the US don't revamp the tax system....
Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?
That would entice, I would think, all kinds of businesses to want to come or stay in the US. No tax at all...BUT, also, get rid of most incentives, etc...since they'd not need these to play the numbers games to shuffle money and write offs to offset taxes charged?
Seems simple enough, and would cut tons of business costs having to hire so many firms out there and accountants to figure all this shit out?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:What will the complaints be... by RobotRunAmok · 2012-06-10 10:33 · Score: 2

Patents have ALWAYS been about the money. Its fiction to believe they promote the science or arts, and it has always been fiction.
Sure. Because only poor starving artists and scientists make good art and science, right?
God forbid a genius should have a payday once in a while...
Re:What will the complaints be... by djlowe · 2012-06-10 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?
I'm assuming that you're talking about the US Federal government. You are making two assumptions here:

1) That the US Federal government still exists to serve the citizens of the US and

2) That the corporations that benefit the most from the current labyrinth of Federal tax law, loopholes, etc., would actually permit that. No Federal taxes on corporations would actually help level the playing field, and there's NO way that the corporations that are benefiting from the US Federal tax code as it currently exists will ever permit that.

After all, they paid good money to lobby for them, and they're entitled to the rewards, right?

Cynically,

dj
Re:What will the complaints be... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-06-10 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?
It's a silly argument.
All taxes are ultimately passed to the consumer. Personal income tax, too - since the company has to pay higher to its employees to entice them to work for it, and of course it also needs to raise prices for compensate. Ditto for sales and property taxes, since they affect the cost of living, and therefore indirectly how much people will ask in wages.
At the same time, you could similarly argue that taxes are "passed on to the corporations" - if I'm taxed higher, I'll ask for a bigger wage.
The truth it, taxes aren't "passed on to" anyone. They are simply extracted from the economy. Both companies and physical persons are actors in that economy, so both pay.
Re:What will the complaints be... by bitt3n · 2012-06-10 14:31 · Score: 2

Patents don't exist to help inventors profit from their invention. They exist to encourage inventors to reveal the technical brilliance behind their inventions to the rest of society
Then why do we allow drug patents? You don't need the inventor to reveal the structure of the drug, or even how to make it.

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Re:What will the complaints be... by meglon · 2012-06-10 15:23 · Score: 2

I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being broke up too, as well as remembering that prices where i lived (southern Oregon) rose soon afterwards.

However, regulation in general is better than de-regulation in protecting consumers: http://www.ehow.com/list_6300097_effects-phone-deregulation.html

--
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Re:What will the complaints be... by Voogru · 2012-06-10 19:23 · Score: 2

Nope. Gas stations could charge $10/gallon if they so desired. No law against it.

The only laws that might apply is they can't charge high prices during emergencies.

What is interesting even though they could charge $10/gallon if they wanted to, something magically prevents them from doing it, and it's not a government law.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Luckyo · 2012-06-11 01:15 · Score: 2

This argument works in all-encompassing single market economy. It utterly fails when people receiving more then the rest simply do what people in the OP are thinking of doing - pulling their profits out of the country and out of the country's economy.
Then taxes start to function as the only way to keep the money in the economy.
Re:What will the complaints be... by Asmodae · 2012-06-11 04:28 · Score: 2

I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being broke up too, as well as remembering that prices where i lived (southern Oregon) rose soon afterwards.
Of course they did, a bunch of separate businesses all doing something 'new' that used to be centrally managed, each baby bell had new operating costs. When you multiply overhead, by splitting things up, there's going to be more costs. Simple simple. Of course, how long did that last? Over the LONG term, as other posters point out, prices have crashed through the floor. Splitting a company up is expensive, but if you can think past a few years, it's cheaper in the long run... for consumers... (if anyone cares about them anymore).

Same problem here in the US by guises · 2012-06-10 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Same problem here in the US by SniperJoe · 2012-06-10 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would respectfully disagree. In certain cases, such as some of new automobile manufacturing facilities (Volkswagen in Chattanooga, TN, Kia in Georgia, etc.) they aren't causing a plant to move from one state to another, but encouraging the building of a new facility that wasn't previously existing in the US. Now, the potential argument could be that if they didn't build it in one state, they would simply build it in another, thus you wouldn't have a net increase overall, as it would be built regardless. However, the counterargument to the previous statement is that competition between states is providing a more attractive locale to building a manufacturing facility overall. Frankly, I'd rather have them say, "which state" than "which country." End result being more jobs for Americans.
Re:Same problem here in the US by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-10 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
Re:Same problem here in the US by SilenceBE · 2012-06-10 04:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

The funny thing is that the low tax rates for some is the reason why Ireland had a deficit crisis.

And ironically it is then those countries that they are trying to undercut that needs to bail them out.

The problem with a lot of corporations is that they are narrow minded. They want to have a healthy and educated workforce. Companies like Rovio have benefit by being situated in a country where (I presume is like the average European country) where good education and healthcare is quite accessible. And the fact that is very accessible and like in this country is not because those things are heavily privatized.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Teun · 2012-06-10 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Indeed, and Finland is compared to the size of it's economy one of the largest contributors to the EU rescue package for Ireland.
It is indeed time for the EU to further level the playing field and make countries like Ireland adjust their taxes to the expenditures they have.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Same problem here in the US by xelah · 2012-06-10 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why tax corporate profits in the first place? Their taxed when they become someone's income. Wouldn't it be fairer, cost less in administration and drastically reduce the number of tax games people waste resources on playing, if corporate taxes and labour taxes were abolished, and if the tax on all kinds of income and capital gains was equalized at a level which raises the same revenue? There's been a big public argument here (the UK) over the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%....but most people seem to remain unaware that salary is one of the most highly taxed forms of income, and that those who can manipulate how they receive their income or can receive it through dividends, royalties or capital gains can do much more than that to reduce their tax burden.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Archangel+Michael · 2012-06-10 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants, who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for. Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period. They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive. And as nice as that sounds, it does nobody any good, other than career politicians who increase the public benefits and raise taxes to keep getting elected. Both the (R) and (D) do this, and I"m sure that other countries have their variations of the same thing.
If I had one opportunity to make a constitutional amendment, it would be to limit politicians to no more than 20 years of elected office, all levels combined (local, county, state, national), for their entire life. Anyone that has 20 years (or more) of elected office, cannot run or hold any elected office, ever. By eliminating career politicians, perhaps we might start looking at statesmen for public elected office.
Taxes are regressive, and politicians use them to curry favor and pay out benefits to keep getting elected.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Government cannot create private sector jobs" the military industrial complex disrespectfully disagrees.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Dynedain · 2012-06-10 05:29 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm glad you brought up automotive plants because there's a perfect example going on right now in that sector.
Chrysler is trying to close down plants in the steel belt and build new ones in South Carolina. South Carolina doesn't put them in a better position for acquiring materials, and it doesn't put them in a better place for delivering their product to the consumer. The reasons for the move are simple: 1) lower business taxes, fees, etc. 2) it lets GM break out of existing labor contracts with expensive tenured employees, replacing them with cheaper new-hires.
Another problem with your choice of example: those overseas manufacturers creating plants here for the US market are actually just brining back jobs we lost to them in the past as Americans started favoring foreign cars over domestic.
(speaking as an American with a 2-German-car household)

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Same problem here in the US by Microlith · 2012-06-10 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants
Then be a goddamn citizen and start keeping tabs on your government.

who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for.
Well, that's why we pay taxes, right? Or are you suggesting something else?

They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.
Bullshit. You're saying the only purpose of government is to give money to the lazy?
What about public infrastructure?
Re:Same problem here in the US by Archangel+Michael · 2012-06-10 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hard to keep tabs on government when the lazy and the idiots keep electing people like Reid, Pilossi, GWB, Obama, and Santorum.
Taxes for infrastructure is such a small number, that I think most people would be willing and happy to pay them, and we already do (fuel taxes etc). I don't have a problem for government doing what private sector cannot, like infrastructure and a standing army. I oppose taxes for social engineering and feel good/do good liberal causes. There was a recent study that showed that of the government programs designed to help people get jobs, the only real jobs those programs actually helped with were for the people running the programs. However it is impossible to cut those worthless programs off, because some liberal somewhere will claim that "the evil _____ doesn't want people to get jobs", so we are left with worthless programs that don't actually do anything. It would be better and easier and less expensive to just give the money to people who needed it.
Government is supposed to be of the people, for the people and by the people. It is supposed to be the glue for society, not fix all societal ills.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Archangel+Michael · 2012-06-10 05:53 · Score: 2

Social programs to help those that, as you claim, are fully incapable of supporting themselves, is such a small number of people. Your argument is lost on me when you start looking at all the people gaming the system because they are in fact lazy and do not want to work. I know plenty of people who are on government welfare of one kind or another who could be working but instead are not.
Even those people who cannot work at "capacity" can do something, and requiring that they do nothing instead is insane. Lets identify people and their disability and help them reach their potential, while not ignoring their needs. The problem with most social programs, is that they are designed to do neither, but rather are designed for the efficiency of government.
I suspect that if you ask most "teabaggers" the same thing, they will give you a similar response. They are not opposed to helping the truly needy. But there is always the anecdotal outliers that people like you will always bring up as evidence of heartlessness.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Same problem here in the US by ultranova · 2012-06-10 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants, who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for.

I wholly agree with you in that people who don't work shouldn't get such a large share (if any) of the fruits of labour. This, however rises a question: why do you oppose corporate taxes? It's taxing money going to shareholders, who didn't lift a finger to earn it.

Government cannot create private sector jobs.

Of course it can. For example, in Finland the government pays for education up to and including university level, so the fact that Rovio was able to hire competent people is entirely due to public investment.

Period.

Saying "period" doesn't actually give your argument any extra weight.

They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.

Well, I'd be happy to stop bailing out the banks over and over again, but then we'd need a heavily regulated institution for handling money transfers. Since the regulations would limit risk, they'd also limit profit potential, so the whole thing would probably need to be government-backed.

Anyone that has 20 years (or more) of elected office, cannot run or hold any elected office, ever. By eliminating career politicians, perhaps we might start looking at statesmen for public elected office.

Or, more likely, you'd end up with politicians even more beholden to corporations, since they'd know that their future depend on earning a retirement position.

Taxes are regressive, and politicians use them to curry favor and pay out benefits to keep getting elected.

Well yes, they are. Let's make them progressive instead.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Same problem here in the US by im_thatoneguy · 2012-06-10 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles. We heavily subsidize the costs of our auto-infrastructure through general taxes. We do this because if people paid the real cost of gasoline we would be alarmed and outraged --demanding we lower the price of gasoline.
Gas taxes are also extremely regressive. If you are min wage and need to drive to McDonalds you pay the same or more than the yuppie who drives their Prius to Apple every day. If anything the person picking up a $150k a year check is benefiting *more* from the road access than the McDonalds worker since every mile they drive gets a substantially higher return on investment.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Alomex · 2012-06-10 07:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period.
Creation of infrastructure is a net producer of jobs. For example a highway connecting two cities increases the wealth of both cities for decades after, due to the increased efficiencies of trade. This is a well known and studied phenomenon.
"Government cannot create private sector jobs" is a meme from the republican party. Initially it was "Governments cannot create jobs" [Senator Shelby, Republican, 2010] . When people pointed out the absolute falsehood of that statement, particularly during recessionary times, the GOP went back to the drawing board and reissued it in its current version. It is still false, but as all memes, that doesn't stop it from being passed on.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Cochonou · 2012-06-10 07:35 · Score: 2

You need to go back to the goals of the EU common agricultural policy. It was created out of a very simple observation: on the whole, the EU did not product enough food for its own needs, and was therefore dependent on the external market. The CAP was made to make farming more attractive, and thus increase production. France has a large agricultural sector, so it effectively leeches more funds than other states, just as Spain or Portugal. Development of the industrial sector is quite irrelevant.
Re:Same problem here in the US by im_thatoneguy · 2012-06-10 07:48 · Score: 3, Informative

They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.

Ummm, yes that is something government can do. For example it can take money from a productive 40 something worker and give it to an unproductive 18 year old student and subsidize their education so that some day they too can be a productive 40 something worker paying for an unproductive 18 year old student... and so on and so forth.
Also it can rebalance out of scale productivity compensation. If one employee is twice as productive as another but getting paid 1,000 times as much then the scale of productivity is out of whack and it makes sense to try and correct a legal system that evidently has an inefficient glitch in it which is over-rewarding players for only marginal success.
Also it can stabilize economies by acting as insurance. If my house burns down and I have insurance then the 'productive' policy holders whose houses are still standing are paying into my costly home replacement. But by sharing risk it becomes affordable. Without that insurance *everybody* would need $200k-$400k saved up for the possibility of their house burning down and needing to be replaced. If everybody did this then everybody would be wasting money that would be sitting uselessly idle. Instead we spend a fraction on insurance in case we need it.
This is how taxing productive employed members of society helps the economy. If getting layed off results in economic strife then everybody starts saving unnecessarily even though the chance of being laid off are maybe 1 in 20 (but everybody has to prepare for that possibility and everybody starts spending less). With less demand more people get laid off and a downward spiral begins. If however you provide good unemployment benefits then those who are employed can have confidence in their job and continue to spend regularly knowing that they don't need to switch over into potential survival mode. This keeps more people employed and doesn't add costs to those who aren't actually at risk of being laid off.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Kohath · 2012-06-10 07:54 · Score: 2

Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles.
False.
Re:Same problem here in the US by Solandri · 2012-06-10 08:18 · Score: 2

Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles. We heavily subsidize the costs of our auto-infrastructure through general taxes.
Gas taxes are a huge fraction of the cost of the infrastructure for automobiles, perhaps exceeding 100%. We heavily subsidize the cost of our trucking infrastructure through automobile gas taxes and general taxes. The average automobile doesn't weigh enough to put any significant wear on most of our roads. Almost all the damage to roads, and hence their upkeep and maintenance costs are due to trucks using them.

Kinda makes you wonder how we ended up using trucks instead of rail, doesn't it?
Re:Same problem here in the US by nbauman · 2012-06-10 09:02 · Score: 2

Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period.

Bullshit. The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health spent billions on cancer research -- which included half the funding for research in molecular biology. As a result, they reduced the cancer death rate by about 25% since 1960. And they made a lot of money and created jobs. They generously (or foolishly, depending on your perspective) handed the results over to pharmaceutical companies to make further billions. And they created jobs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, chemists, etc.
It really amazes me how people can just accept an article of faith like, "Government cannot create private sector jobs," without any evidence. Part of it seems to be that they don't know any history, particularly the history of technology. Part of it seems to be that they don't have the habit of turning their beliefs around and looking at the evidence for the other side. Part of it seems to be that they don't understand why it's necessary to look at supporting evidence behind their beliefs. Where do they get this from? Ayn Rand?

I thought all their production was Chinese already by damn_registrars · 2012-06-10 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Greed by SwedishPenguin · 2012-06-10 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Greed by Kymermosst · 2012-06-10 05:03 · Score: 4, Informative

A 10% reduction on taxes on profits
Nice try. There is a difference of 12 percentage points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point).
The reduction in taxes is nearly 50%.

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Greed by JamesP · 2012-06-10 05:06 · Score: 2

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.
Please, what system? Workers are mobile inside Europe. Social security and welfare is more or less equal inside Europe as well.

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.
Their workers will probably make up for the 4Mi to the Irish government since income tax is higher on Ireland. Still
"perception of greed" yes, sorry, it's a crime to be profitable, I forgot.
"which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers" yeah, right
"costs associated" I'm not sure, they certainly can move some of production to Ireland, but maybe if it's done slowly it's not complicated
More power to Ireland, they can use the extra taxes.

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Greed by lingon · 2012-06-10 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.
Please, what system? Workers are mobile inside Europe.
No, they're not. Inside the European union (which I'm sure is what you meant), while you have the right to move around and work as you wish, most people don't do it and don't want to. In practice there's language barries and cultural barries all over the place.

Social security and welfare is more or less equal inside Europe as well.
Absolutely not. You can start by looking at one article in wikipedia where it is immediately apparent that countries are running their own systems, with substantial differences in rules and rates. The Nordic countries (such as Finland) are generally in the lead.
Rovio is in this case a prime example of a company which has benefited substantially from Finland's school system for skilled employees (they're one of the absolutely best in the world), Finland's stable democracy and their stable economy. When they're asked to pay back, they flee -- an extremely immoral act which I sincerely hope will bite them in the ass.

ok but by circletimessquare · 2012-06-10 04:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:ok but by durrr · 2012-06-10 04:48 · Score: 2

LOTR actually have some relevance to Finland as Tolkien essentially picked Waelish worlds and mutilated them with Finnish grammar to create the elven language.
Re:ok but by hydrofix · 2012-06-10 04:58 · Score: 2
Well, very funny indeed.
It's not Gaelic but Finnish. The pronounciation of Finnish is actually massively more regular than English, and you can easily learn it (although learning to understand Finnish is a different deal.) Here's the approximate pronounciations of those family names in the Wikipedia spelling key with approx. translations:
- Hämäläinen: ham-ah-lai-nen (trans. Tavastian)
- Räikkönen: reye-kE-nen (trans. Ratchetman)
- Jääskeläinen: yaas-ke-lai-nen (untranslateable)
E = upside-down e, like a in about. For some reason, Slashdot does not allow this letter in comments.
Re:ok but by catmistake · 2012-06-10 18:31 · Score: 2

LOTR actually have some relevance to Finland as Tolkien essentially picked Waelish worlds and mutilated them with Finnish grammar to create the elven language.
The Tolkien conspiracy goes deeper... apparently much of Tolkien's mythology has been borrowed from Finnish mythology, and is, for instance, the origin of the character Gandalf. I'll let the reader decide what familiar continent is seen when s/he holds Tolkien's map of Middle-Earth up to a mirror.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

12.5% Corporate tax? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-06-10 04:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

Re:12.5% Corporate tax? by varargs · 2012-06-10 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Their "dues?" The way governments piss away money, I'd say it's better to give citizens jobs and starve the government beast.
Re:12.5% Corporate tax? by vigour · 2012-06-10 06:10 · Score: 2

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...
The headline rate might be 12.5%, compared to that of 33.3% for France for example which has complained for a long time about the headline rate; but in reality the effective rate in France can be as low as 8.2% which they actively advertise here.

References can be found here (second graph), here, and here.

What brought down Ireland, and will bring down Spain and the rest of the PIIGS is the private banking debt owed to non-indigenous investors/wholesale banks & the ECB that their taxpayers are being forced to pay for by the ECB. In Ireland's case it was three times its national debt, and continuing to cost more. For Spain it could be worse, possibly €100Bn-300Bn. What turned both countries into basket cases was an unregulated credit fuelled bubble and the idiocy in Germany and the EU commission for confusing a banking problem for a fiscal (i.e. sovereign) problem. The fiscal problem was created by forcing unsustainable levels of debt on the taxpayers of these countries.

Re:People do what you incite them to do by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-06-10 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.

Don't bet on it yet. The government sponsored benefits in Finland are much better than in Ireland. If management (and possibly staff) move to Ireland with their families they'll be giving up things they take for granted at the moment. This could result in higher salaries and benefit costs. It may not rise to the 12.5% they'll be saving on corporate taxes on profits, but it will surely eat into it ... and affect their quality of life.

Don't quite agree by King_TJ · 2012-06-10 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Don't quite agree by Bill+Dimm · 2012-06-10 05:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties.
No, that's not the real problem, either. The problem is that they are, as you put it, deals. Instead of having a set of tax rules that are applied uniformly to everyone, some companies get special deals. Since those deals are done at the discretion of some politician or appointee, the politician is given more power to toss tax breaks and unfair advantage to his/her friends or people that will contribute the most money/votes to his/her re-election. The deal is beneficial for both parties -- the politician and the company. Like much of modern politics, it is all about amassing power to take money from one group of people and give it to another, rather than benefiting society overall. How many times have you heard that small companies are the real job creators? How many times have you heard of these deals going to small companies?
Re:Don't quite agree by AngryDeuce · 2012-06-10 05:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

The entire process is rife with opportunity to rip off taxpayers. Here in Madison, WI, a locally based company, Spectrum Brands, hired a Florida firm to make overtures to the state government for tax breaks in consideration for "moving their business to Madison". Yes, a company that was already located here had a firm from another state negotiate for a 7-figure forgivable loan to move where they were already located.
Then, when the Madison public got wind of it, they moved to Middleton, anyway. With their loan, of course.
Gotta love corporate extortion and the transfer of public funds to private corporations. Oh yeah, plus the CEO of Spectrum Brands received a compensation package last year worth 13.7 million dollars. He couldn't take a little bit of a pay cut rather than bilking the government out of 4 million bucks? Heavens, no! That's just punishing success, right?!
And these are the "job creators" we're supposed to bend over for and throw money at for the privilege of working for them (which obviously generates them more revenue then it costs otherwise the job wouldn't exist in the first place)? America! Fuck Yeah!!

Re:Huh? by SniperJoe · 2012-06-10 04:42 · Score: 2

If my colleagues are any measure, they're all playing Angry Birds all day.

Re:Seems fair to me by SwedishPenguin · 2012-06-10 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know where you live, but Finland is not the same as the US. Like in all Nordic countries, the taxes are actually used for something other than military ventures - namely providing education and healthcare for everyone and a stable society with functioning infrastructure. The authors of Angry Birds have benefited from free education at the Helsinki University of Technology, free healthcare all their lives, etc.
Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

Re:People do what you incite them to do by Shienarier · 2012-06-10 04:51 · Score: 5, Informative

I can attest to that. I lived in Ireland for six years. I'm now back in Scandinavia and is more then happy to pay my tax here again.

Re:Corporate tax... not sure. by GuldKalle · 2012-06-10 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Too little competition is also bad ... by perpenso · 2012-06-10 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Too little competition is also bad ... by MightyMartian · 2012-06-10 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Finland's taxes are high, but then again by most measures it is a country that uses those taxes to fund a very comprehensive social benefits system.
Ireland, on the other hand, is a basket case economy that became attractive in no small part by funding its low corporate taxes by irresponsible borrowing, which now means the rest of the Eurozone has to bail it out.
By most American measures, Finland is an overtaxed Socialist wasteland, and Ireland's low corporate rates make it a responsible government.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Corporate tax... not sure. by djmurdoch · 2012-06-10 05:04 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Seems fair to me by Teun · 2012-06-10 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

That's only reasonable when your view of the future reaches beyond the quarterly results your bonuses depend on.
Caring for the educating your future employees and consumers is not part of the Anglo-Saxon company moral.

Oops, I used company and moral in one sentence...

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."

Rich people are most dependent on government by mozumder · 2012-06-10 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

>Does anyone even know any rich Irishman?
>Do they even exist?
Bono, but he moved to Holland to pay less in taxes.
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by lightknight · 2012-06-10 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

"It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves." -> I am far from wealthy, and yet am libertarian. I spent years perusing the various ideologies offered by, well, everyone; with each of them, I perform a test to see if what they were selling was true. Granted, it is a painstaking endeavor, as you have to actually read the treatises and materials from these ideologies, which for the lesser of minds can be quite frightening and true objectivity is something difficult to measure. However, it is well worth it all, as you acquire first-hand knowledge of where the faults of each ideology actually lies, as well as an encyclopedic amount of information on disinformation. The amount of lies out there that each ideology promotes about the others is greater than the stars in the sky. I am thoroughly convinced that the problem with humanity isn't humanity itself, but the languages used; they are...heavily context-based, and invite a certain amount of imprecision inadequate to storing knowledge / wisdom past a certain level.
How did you come to choose your ideology (if you have one)? Have you performed experiments to see if what you believe is actually true, or do you simply accept it as self-evident? Are you willing to throw the entire ideology out if it's proven false, or would you attempt to modify your beliefs / explain away the erroneous data? At what point do you say "Enough"? Do you believe it's important to have an ideology even if it's a broken / imperfect one? Are you okay with one that works in 90% of all cases, or do you slave away in your mental workshop until it covers 100% of all cases?

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by jcr · 2012-06-10 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

>We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government.
There's a hell of a lot of government in North Korea, why aren't they rich?
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by donscarletti · 2012-06-10 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's a hell of a lot of government in North Korea, why aren't they rich?
All babies come out of females, but why do you never see babies coming out of a convent, or the ladies senior bridge club, or a girl's elementary school.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by I_am_Jack · 2012-06-10 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quick question. Where does government get its money from?
Various sources (e.g. taxes, tarifs and debt, for starters). But going back to the parent posting (which I'm surprised why it was modded down, unless the realities of society are too much truth for some to handle), wealth wouldn't be created without a fairly stable society to provide the education, protection and regulatory stability needed to provide a framework for the growth of capital. Anyone wanting to disagree can watch what capital remains now vaporizes in 20 years as our crumbling education system, along with the transportation, police, fire, health care and regulatory systems which are currently being gutted will no longer support the creation of wealth. Demand fuels growth. If people have no education, if they can't drive to work, or be protected at home by police or fire, if they can't afford basic healthcare, they can earn no income. If they have no means to purchase, then there are no means to create growth and wealth.
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by Bacon+Bits · 2012-06-10 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves.
No, people become Republican after they become rich, and suddenly believe they got where they are because they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and had no help from others, no privileges of birth, and no other contributing special circumstances, They honestly believe that the most valuable members of society are people who can succeed just by putting in extra effort, and therefore deserve extra protections and rights. They tend to see public corruption as a greater evil than private corruption.
People become Libertarian when they believe the liberal philosophy (in a classic sense) they were taught, and lack either the life experience or practical knowledge that in a vacuum people will be ruthlessly selfish rather than act towards the common good. The only way someone who is rich becomes Libertarian is if they can't stomach the social policy of the GOP (which is tailored to attract the religious social right). They tend to see both public and private corruption as evil, but seem to think natural laws will overcome that.
For completeness sake, people become Democratic when they have faith in the system of checks-and-balances and believe in the common good, without realizing that what will happen is half your money will go to the rich (because they'll get it anyway) and the other half will go to the poor (because of your social programs) and you in the middle will just be paying higher costs for everything. They tend to see private corruption as a greater evil than public corruption.
It also depends somewhat on what your life goals are and how you define success or happiness, but that's how I see it.

--
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by im_thatoneguy · 2012-06-10 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.
If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth. If your government allows you to have wealth then you can have wealth.
Now you can say "oh well I just won't live in a region without a government. Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.
Someone is going to determine the rules by which you 'play the game'. If you don't setup a government of sufficient strength then someone else will impose their rules on you--and you might not get to participate in its decision making process so it behooves you to establish a sufficiently powerful organization that you can control. In our case the government is "of the people" therefore we are self governed. Therefore all wealth comes from "The People". It's a fine line between this distinction and circular logic but ultimately all wealth comes from the government (which establishes the rules by which property ownership is determined) and all government derives its power from various source. If that's the military then ultimately all wealth is from the military. If it's from the people then all wealth is ultimately from the people but sanctioned by their manifestation of will which is the government.
Now the fox news paranoid survivalist says "ahh but I have GOLD! The government can't control bartering of gold!" Sure. But the government is sufficiently powerful to take said Gold from you. So the fact that the government doesn't use its power to take your gold by force isn't thanks to your impressive weapons collection (however much you have isn't enough to stop a navy seal team) it's thanks to the governments lack of *desire* to take your gold.
ALL wealth comes from the government because the freedom to live ultimately is held by the most powerful organization in the land. And the most powerful organization in the land is your defacto government. The Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan isn't the "Government" but seeing as it controls the territory and is capable of writing the rules by which those living in the territory will behave it's the "Government".
The libertarian who thinks the government hasn't done anything for him is ignoring the fact that the government is protecting the libertarian rule-set. It could just as easily use that power to say that nobody can own anything and the state has absolute power.
So participate in your government and ensure it's the most powerful force in the land--so that it's actually the government and not a proxy for another interest but also participate so that it's acting as a proxy for the people who give it authority.
Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by LordLimecat · 2012-06-10 14:40 · Score: 2

North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.
No, its the perfect example of why its horrifying that people think we want a government that is responsible for the creation of all wealth.

If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth.
No, you have a tyranny, and its time to maybe think about doing something about that.

Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.
Perhaps you should adjust your point to something like "government is responsible for making sure you can generate your own wealth, and keep it in peace." Its most certainly NOT their role to dole out your wages, food, and whatnot. The twentieth century has been a testament to why thats true and why we really do want the individual responsible for making their own living.

Re:People do what you incite them to do by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-06-10 05:20 · Score: 2

I'd rather drink Bushmills and Guinness than Finnish fermented reindeer milk.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Re:People do what you incite them to do by pnewhook · 2012-06-10 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Canada has 15% corporate tax rate (http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income-tax-rates/), 52 week combined maternity/parental leave, free health care, and federal pension plan.

There is no reason the US cannot provide the same level of benefits except for political bickering and the close to 2 billion *per day* the US spends on its military.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.

Re:People do what you incite them to do by cowboy76Spain · 2012-06-10 05:38 · Score: 2

That does not work this way. They will not move, they will create a subsidary in Ireland (a "ghost company").

The Finnish company will sell Angry Birds and whatever they produce to the Irish ghost company, to the point of getting no profits (or even getting loses, if that gives them any advantage). The Irish ghost will then resell to the real customers, getting a tax cut.

Meanwhile the management of the company keeps enjoying finish welfare, at the expenses of their compatriotes.

Later on, probably they will complain about their country public deficit and how "politicians have ruined it".

--
Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.

Re:What is Antartica's effective tax rate? by currently_awake · 2012-06-10 06:01 · Score: 2

The corporations would counter by merging into a single huge company, with no wealth transfers and no taxes. A better solution is to tax all income where it's made, with all forms of income (pay, capital gains...) taxed at the same rate.

Greedy bastard by jopet · 2012-06-10 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Finnish education by ryzvonusef · 2012-06-10 06:30 · Score: 4, Informative

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!

Re:People do what you incite them to do by DesScorp · 2012-06-10 06:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Canada has 15% corporate tax rate (http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income-tax-rates/), 52 week combined maternity/parental leave, free health care, and federal pension plan.

There is no reason the US cannot provide the same level of benefits except for political bickering and the close to 2 billion *per day* the US spends on its military.

Canada can afford to do all this with a piss-poor military. With a population of just over 30 million, Canada's military is so small that it's barely adequate to protect one quarter of their territory. The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Corporate tax... not sure. by ultranova · 2012-06-10 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ?

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.

Ireland is one of the PIIGS by Kergan · 2012-06-10 06:55 · Score: 2

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.

Re:People do what you incite them to do by CRCulver · 2012-06-10 06:57 · Score: 4, Informative

The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

Finland, the subject of this Slashdot post, offers some evidence against this common claim. For decades Finland refused to joined NATO, managing its own defense. Nonetheless, it has built a welfare state comparable to its Nordic neighbours while at the same time maintaining one of the stronger armies in the world.

Re:People do what you incite them to do by Alomex · 2012-06-10 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why would I want a Canadian-style health care and retirement plan when I already have a better private plan in the US?

For the time when you get fired from your current job.

It's not about the 12.5% by bfree · 2012-06-10 10:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Rovio denies it is going to move by Aggrajag · 2012-06-10 15:59 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Slashdot Mirror

Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland

92 of 626 comments (clear)