[kinkrtyavimoodh]

I am not sure if that's a bad thing? In some sense, that is the point of having different countries.

It's nothing conceptually different from the US deciding to tax its citizens on their worldwide income even when they are living abroad. It's "completely independent of where they're actually doing business or living"

[geofft]

US citizens gain benefits from the US government by definition, and they have the ability to give up their citizenship if they don't want that. The reason they're taxed is that they are actually subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction, in addition to the jurisdiction of whatever country they're physically in. (For instance, they can choose to leave the country they're currently in and be allowed visa-free entry to any country that permits visa-free entry to US citizens, and of course they can choose to return to the US.)

The Double Irish involves a company in non-Ireland country A doing business with a customer in non-Ireland country B, and routing that transaction through Ireland. I have no issue with either A or B deciding that they ought to tax this transaction, because both countries are relevant.

[throwaway2245]

> In some sense, that is the point of having different countries.

If large corporations can decide to pick their country of incorporation freely and according to what most benefits them, but people can't (in general) pick their country of citizenship, then something has gone wrong.

[kinkrtyavimoodh]

And perhaps countries do it because it benefits them that random companies can come and incorporate themselves in their country, but it doesn't benefit them (and often hurts them) when random people can?

After all, there ARE countries where more or less anyone can relatively easily become a citizen, it's just that most people don't want to actually live in those countries.

Some countries give people easy visas on arrival. Others make you jump through several hoops. Why? Perhaps this works out best for both groups of countries. The first group benefits from the tourism dollars, the second group perhaps sees benefits from not having the country flooded by tourists who might or might not leave easily.

[geofft]

That may be why things have gone wrong, but wouldn't that situation mean that corporations are in fact more powerful than governments? They are powerful precisely because governments need things from companies more than companies need things from governments - the companies have the negotiating power here. (And, analogously, individuals don't.)

[throwaway2245]

> there ARE countries

I'm not sure where this fits into your argument anyway, but I could not identify what country you might mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#Summary_by_coun...

[s1artibartfast]

There is citizenship and residency. Many countries have very low bars for legal residency, and have it as a viable route to citizenship. With a business investment of $30,000 or a monthly income of $600, it is possible to gain residency in Nicaragua. Citizenship can be applied for after five years providing the person has lived in Nicaragua for 6 months each year.

[throwaway2245]

As best I can immediately tell, the cost to incorporate in Nicaragua is $0 and ~30 days application period, with no residency requirement, and 0 tax on global income/profits.

A (low) bar to residency which leads to being eligible to apply for citizenship after a several years' commitment (also being highly dependent on any political change during those years) is not what I would call an "easy" process.

[s1artibartfast]

Maybe we’re discussing apples and oranges then. I would consider that a very easy and clear path to citizenship. In my mind, A residency is entirely reasonable and not difficult. I would consider the US system difficult due to the barriers intentionally set up around legal residency and visas