I live in Zurich - the tightest rental market in the world (.7% availability) but don't really have a homeless problem for some reason. I have met a lot of people that have had to move to neighboring cities though.
I find it fascinating that Europeans will look down on Americans for their race problems, but mention the Roma/travelers and they respond in a way that would make Archie Bunker say calm down.
> I find it fascinating that Europeans will look down on Americans for their race problems
I don't know why Americans keep saying we look down on you for your "race problems," but we do not. Generally speaking, we look down on you for manufacturing race problems for politics as a team sport. We have our own race problems.
> Generally speaking, we look down on you for manufacturing race problems for politics as a team sport.
Which we don’t do.
What you need to understand is that race problems in the US are very complex because of our history and diversity. We have people from all over the world here, truly. And it’s not small percentages.
In comparison, most European nations are much more homogeneous. And, no offense, but y’all are not handling it as well as you should be given your position. The amount of extreme racism I hear from Europeans especially in regards to immigration is repugnant. Immigration which is comparatively quite low.
Really, you wanna police speech on HN? What priggishness. smh
As long as the gypsies in Slovakia call themselves thus, you have no moral leg to stand on.
> As long as the gypsies in Slovakia call themselves thus
As is the case with the n-word.
I'm not policing anything (obviously, since I'm not in any position of authority) - I am however pointing it out since I've come across people that truly didn't know.
I call my wife “baby” but that doesn’t mean it is ok for random men to call her that. You are free to use ethnic slurs if you want, and people are free to point out that they are in fact slurs.
It's socially constructed, what's a slur. Something below a fact.
What, you downvoted to disagree? Look:
"We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report." Women and Equalities Committee, UK Parliament. 2019.
Of course that was six years ago, maybe it's a slur now. Or maybe it's a slur to you, but not to them. Or it won't be slur tomorrow, or it's a slur everywhere but not on Tuesdays and except in Scotland. Socially constructed, see? Not factual.
It makes for a compelling argument for these companies to build campusses / cities, offering housing as another perk for working for them. Of course, it would have to be regulated to avoid the mining town exploitation.
I wouldn't mind working in e.g. Ireland if a furnished apartment was part of the offer.
... because after Ireland agreed to implement the OECD minimum corporate tax rate (15%) same as everyone else, Ireland just didn't do as agreed, came up with some excuse (I would tell you which excuse, but they keep retroactively changing it), the prime minister explained in at least 5 extensive speeches how fabulous, fantastic and great he was for implementing it, and kept it at 12.5%. Then the minister of finance signed up to another minimum tax initiative in 2023 (the "EU Minimum Tax Directive"), in trade for EU money. In this they agreed to retroactively impose EU taxes up to 15% on all companies (oh and no deductions allowed to get it below 15%), and pay most of that money to the EU instead.
... which Ireland proceeded not to do. Then the new prime minister went onto TV declaring what a great success all this was for Ireland (... while ignoring that this is literally stealing money from other EU countries), and how they intend to continue this and were putting some of the money into a new "Irish" sovereign wealth fund (isif.ie) that has since used the money to hire the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2] composed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
But do not worry. Meanwhile in Brussels and Strasbourg, the requisition for a meeting about the approval of the color of the bikeshed (so called because when you call the place where you park your armoured Audi A9 motorcade a bikeshed chances of reelection go up dramatically. It IS, of course, a garage that was built where a park with a playground used to be) where then the request for the beginning of the process to requisition a meeting room to discuss who will make the agenda for discussing a meeting room for the actual issue is making great progress!
> ... because after Ireland agreed to implement the OECD minimum corporate tax rate (15%) same as everyone else, Ireland just didn't do as agreed, came up with some excuse (I would tell you which excuse, but they keep retroactively changing it), the prime minister explained in at least 5 extensive speeches how fabulous, fantastic and great he was for implementing it, and kept it at 12.5%. Then the minister of finance signed up to another minimum tax initiative in 2023 (the "EU Minimum Tax Directive"), in trade for EU money. In this they agreed to retroactively impose EU taxes up to 15% on all companies (oh and no deductions allowed to get it below 15%), and pay most of that money to the EU instead.
Can you provide a source for this assertion? AFAIK, we've implemented the 15% rate (but the profit shifting part died in the US senate, which Ireland is not responsible for).
> the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2]
They all look to be 40+ from the linked page (except for one lady who looks to be late 20's/early 30s).
> omposed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
I really hate Fianna Fail (the Taoiseach's party) but Micheal Martin has never been corrupt. He is literally the most boring person in the world, but he's not corrupt.
> For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but it's worth noting that most US tech companies are booking all non-US revenue in Ireland (taxed at 15%) rather than Bermuda (taxed at 0%) for about a decade now.
Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP? Was this moral? And then basically be put into controls on the part of the EU (who are the people preventing them from burning the bondholders).
Ireland is basically the most indebted country per head in the world at this point (the GDP looks better because of the tax dodging multinationals).
And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there.
To answer the question above about properties in Dublin, this has a number of reasons:
1. post 2007 (the crash) housebuilding stopped for about a decade
2. Over the past decade, Ireland has seen significant immigration, particularly in the cities which has driven up prices
3. A zoning/planning system which is very similar to California and a culture where people object to the opening of an envelope
4. Lots and lots of investment in rental properties which pushes up house prices, which pushes up rents, which pushes up house prices.
Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, which Ireland is bad at dealing with because we've basically never had any success before.
Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
> Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but
(it is)
> Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP?
(yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
> And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there ...
I couldn't make my point any better than you did here. This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
> Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, ...
Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
> The new global minimum effective tax rate of 15% means that many large multinational corporations operating in Ireland will face a top-up tax.
From the second line of the AI overview. I mean, seriously?
So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
> Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like. They mostly look like the kind of middle-aged people I work with. And I think you're missing that most of those roles are pretty low-level, the investment fund is very very small by investment fund standards.
> (yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
So, the Irish government tried (repeatedly) to renegotiate those deals. The bondholders were (mostly) fine with it (as they'd bought the bonds later). The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian. This lead to basically all capital projects (housing/water etc) being cut, and basically the entire public service taking massive pay cuts. And remember, at this point the multinationals were paying approximately zero tax, so people like me (higher rate taxpayers) funded all of this.
And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis (where this thread got started).
> This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
This is a ridiculous argument, who does the tax revenue "belong" to? If the US charges Shell taxes on their US activity is that stealing? If the Feds charge Shell tax revenue on their Texas activities is that stealing? If Shell pay all their corporate tax in Delaware is that stealing?
I'm making the assumption that you are Dutch (based on previous comments). Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India? Is that also against your moral code? Do you plan to make reparations to the Indians about this?
> Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
Again, on the assumption that you are Dutch, do you realise that most of the schemes avoiding all of the tax (the double irish with a dutch sandwich) involved your country? Was that OK? How come you haven't changed your tax laws?
Note: i think there's a really interesting question here around where revenue "should" be taxed so even if you're annoyed at the rest of the comment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.
First, you're right that Ireland is the currently worst offender (in tax law). It is not at all the only country violating EU treaties when it suits them.
> So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
And what IS a "multinational"? It is a collection of country-limited companies owned by a single global entity. So in other words, these days almost EVERY multinational IS an "Irish headquartered company". Meta (Facebook) Ireland is the European headquarters. Amazon Ireland is ...
And if you look at the stats, the 12.5% is exactly what Ireland charges multinationals, because of the above reason. If you look at who pays this, it's American pharma companies, US internet companies, ... it's multinationals.
> You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like
Yes we do seem to. When it comes to leadership of large funds, the people usually look like mummies.
> The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian ...
Actually true, kind of. Ireland demanded the whole EU lowers it's corporate tax rate, together with Ireland and the whole EU said "fuck off". Then Ireland just ignored it's obligations, made a lot of money off that, and called it a success.
As a result, the future seems to be that all payments will be taxed when they happen. Any kind of payment, across any border. You want to send 5$ to another EU country? You have to declare what for and it will be fully taxed during the money transmission, in 20 different ways at least. Right now that happens for VAT, but it will happen for VAT, various taxes, company tax, profit tax, "top up" tax, ... That's what they're negotiating, that's what's coming. It will be a total disaster, but if Ireland (and others, true) keep just violating treaties everyone will violate treaties (not just tax treaties) and there is simply no other choice.
> And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis ...
Which Ireland is solving by causing an even bigger problem everywhere else in the EU.
> who does the tax revenue "belong" to?
The consensus of everyone, including the Irish state is that income should be taxed where it is earned. Which is the same reason most financial analysts call Ireland's revenue "artificial": it has nothing to do with Ireland. It comes from the large EU economies, and the UK. France, UK, Germany, Italy. THAT is where Irish GDP is produced, and it is taxed in Ireland, which goes against international treaties Ireland signed. That's the point.
So Ireland's government has signed (more than once) that this is illegal ... and does it anyway.
> Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India?
In my opinion, yes. EVEN by the standards of the time they were. Also from the Dutch citizens btw: they paid no tax, because they were owned by the royal family. But it happened a long time ago ...
They crashed and burned, by the way, the Dutch East India company, by the way, crashed and burned when foreign states started "enforcing tax" (well ... really just outright preventing the system the Dutch East India company operated under through outright military force, which resulted in Wars, that of course were NOT paid for by the company, or the royal family for that matter. We paid for them. Not even just the Dutch)
> Dutch tax law ...
Dutch tax law still follows the treaties the Netherlands signed. Corporate tax in the Netherlands is pretty high (26%, and because dividends are taxed, the effective tax rate is closer to 40%)
With most housing things, people like to blame everything else except for supply restrictions, you can also see this in the other replies to the comment you replied to. It's way easier to blame ghosts than it is for any politician to piss off the homeowner constituency.
It's (unfortunately) rational for politicians to respond to home owners, as they stay in one place for longer, and therefore are more likely to vote for you in the future.
But it's also significant infrastructural deficits (water and power) that are downstream of incredible debt taken on by the government as a result of the 2007 crash (as well as a planning system where dogs have the right to object to planning applications).
Ireland doesn't give free immigrant housing. They have processing centers where you can stay while your application is being processed. They are very bare bones accommodations and you only stay there for up to 14 days.
Please don't kid around, we know exactly how the government facilitates the migrations. If it weren't a biggie, why are there protests happening on the streets of Dublin?
Where do they live after the 14 days? Who pays their rent? I know in the UK private landlords are offered very favourable terms via SERCO, which would beat those they would get if they rented to individuals.
How is public transport to nearby commuter towns? If it's affordable/convenient/reasonably quick that can help a lot, I suspect. (But am quite ignorant so appreciate correction!)
Very good, generally. It's affordable by Swiss standards, which is to say expensive for tourists but remarkably good value if you're a resident on a median salary. The cost of the whole-country annual rail pass costs less than a point to point season ticket in the UK, and there is no peak travel. So you should never pay more than 3-4k a year. Most people just get a half price card (often employer subsidised) and/or a local pass which is generally better value unless you're commuting between cities.
Switzerland has the best rail system in the world (IMHO). One app can manage ticketing across all public transit in the entire country, and it is extremely fast and reliable. Lots of people who work in Zürich, for example, commute in from Zug (due to lower taxes in the neighboring canton).
It's generally called "as fast as necessary", more focused on total journey lenght with the clock-face schedule across the whole country. Other countries certainly have faster trains.
I guess "fast" is what I mean when I think "on time, efficient" (compared to, say, the struggles Deutsche Bahn has had in recent years). There are no bullet trains laterally crossing Switzerland in under an hour, I suppose.
it's nit-picky, but I think the swiss approach of "as fast as necessary, not as fast as possible" is worth separation from "train go fast", especially since it's mostly the later that shows up in comparisions/statistics because it's much easier to calculate.
