[bitL]

Ireland wants to lose money US corps pay them in order to bypass higher EU taxes I guess. I am wondering if they did some game theory scenario about what fine Meta can absorb before it's easier for them to relocate elsewhere with laxer standards that would love some more tax income.

[bathtub365]

Turning a blind eye to companies violating the law because they’re giving you money is corrupt.

[bitL]

I mean that's precisely how Ireland raised their GDP, they took all US companies and offered them low tax deals, making the rest of EU upset. Now they probably burned through all that money and are trying to outsmart those corps to get more money from them. Tax offices always project the same or higher income for the next year and when they get hit, they need to squeeze it out from somewhere.

[ben_w]

The "G" in "GDPR" is the same as the one in "AGI": "General".

As I understand it (not a lawyer), every country in the EU unified their data protection regulations to match it, and the penalties for non-compliance are the same in all cases.

So, even maximal enforcement shouldn't cause any company to relocate. So long as the companies accept this as reality.

[tremon]

Actually, the GDPR only defines a minimal baseline for all the EU countries to meet. And countries didn't need to update their own laws to match it: since it is a Regulation rather than a Directive, the GDPR is enforcable in the entire EU even without a local law supporting it. Countries are still free to enact stricter policies if they want to, but those obviously wouldn't apply outside their own national borders.

[ben_w]

Thanks; appears I got what "regulation" meant exactly backwards relative to the alternative.

I think it makes the conclusion stronger, in this case, but regardless, thanks :)

[bitL]

That's in theory; in practice countries often look the other way or delay actions when they see fit. I guess Ireland is running out of money they planned to get and are now trigger happy on Meta.