[AnthonyMouse]

> Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU.

That seems odd. For example, if the government provides a national healthcare system, this is effectively a subsidy to employers who can then avoid providing a health plan their employees might otherwise demand or otherwise have to pay them more to compensate for their need to pay for their own healthcare. How is this being distinguished from any other form of subsidy? Isn't subsidizing things what governments do with tax money?

[padjo]

Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. However it’s far from simple in practice and is something the member states have been arguing about forever.

The rest of the eu has never been happy with irelands tax policy but since taxation is a national competency they can’t do anything about it directly. They can however frame it as state aid and try to attack it that way.

Edit to add, information on how state aid works in eu context: https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/what-we-do/eu-internal-market/e...

[AnthonyMouse]

> Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid.

It seems impossible to avoid this. If one state spends money on something that benefits businesses and another spends it on something else, those businesses will prefer the first one. But this isn't actually that much of a problem because each state has finite resources and its people get to decide how to use them. If one wants to have a UBI (which might increase entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses engaged in taxable activity) and another wants to lower unemployment by attracting large employers with subsidies and a third just wants to have lower taxes, what's the problem? That one might actually work better than another?