Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck Games

Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland 626

Posted by timothy
from the actually-it's-the-delicious-green-weather dept.
jones_supa writes with this news, straight from The Irish Times: "Rovio, the Finnish company behind Angry Birds, is considering moving its headquarters to Ireland, chief executive Mikael Hed has said. Rovio employs approximately 400 people, mostly in Finland, but Rovio is in contact with IDA Ireland about establishing headquarters here. The reason for the move would be corporation tax rate, which in Finland is 24.5%, while Ireland's rate is 12.5%. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also set up European headquarter operations in Dublin for the same reason. Hed said that if the decision was made to move to Ireland, the company would then decide exactly what elements of its operations would move. 'If we did make that decision then it would be a natural thing to do to have some production [in Ireland] also.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland

Comments Filter:
  • by QQBoss (2527196) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:18PM (#40275157)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jhoegl (638955)
      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...
      • by jellomizer (103300) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @03:09PM (#40276673)

        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...

        • by shmlco (594907) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @04:50PM (#40277477) Homepage

          "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.

    • by mozumder (178398) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:12PM (#40275619)

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:42PM (#40275901)

        >Does anyone even know any rich Irishman?
        >Do they even exist?
        Bono, but he moved to Holland to pay less in taxes.

      • by lightknight (213164) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:43PM (#40275907) Homepage

        "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?

      • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:58PM (#40276607)

        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.

  • by guises (2423402) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:24PM (#40275211)
    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.
    • by SniperJoe (1984152) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:38PM (#40275333)
      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.
      • Jobs for Americans mean nothing if it's not a job for you and your friends. The US has added something like 2-3 million jobs in the last 3 years, but unless you go to the towns where those jobs were added, most people will say that there are no jobs to be had.

      • by Dynedain (141758) <slashdot2 @ a n t h o n y m clin.com> on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:29PM (#40275789) Homepage

        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)

    • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:39PM (#40275339)

      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: (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 rais

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:26PM (#40275745)

          "Government cannot create private sector jobs" the military industrial complex disrespectfully disagrees.

        • by Microlith (54737) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:30PM (#40275793)

          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?

          • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:45PM (#40275939) Journal

            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.

            • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:28PM (#40276331)

              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.

              • by Kohath (38547)

                Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles.

                False.

              • by Solandri (704621)

                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 t

        • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:19PM (#40276253)

          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.

        • by Alomex (148003) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @03:27PM (#40276839) Homepage

          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.

        • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @03:48PM (#40277023)

          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.

        • by nbauman (624611)

          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.

          I

    • Don't quite agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by King_TJ (85913) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:39PM (#40275347) Journal

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bill Dimm (463823) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:05PM (#40275555) Homepage

        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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:15PM (#40275651)

        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" [madison.com]. 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 [madison.com]. 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 [madison.com]. 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!!

    • by SilenceBE (1439827) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:47PM (#40275411)
      The funny thing is that the low tax rates for some is the reason why Ireland had a deficit crisis [irishexaminer.com].

      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.
      • Finnish education (Score:5, Informative)

        by ryzvonusef (1151717) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:30PM (#40276355) Journal

        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 [bbc.co.uk]
        [2]: http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Profiles/ [oecd.org]

    • by schwit1 (797399)

      Please cite data to support these statements.

    • by perpenso (1613749) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:01PM (#40275523)
      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.
      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:27PM (#40275753) Journal

        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.

    • by xelah (176252) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:04PM (#40275539)
      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.
  • 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?
  • This is an example of a benefit that only goes to corporations and the very rich, one not available to us regular suckers.

    I wish I could simply declare that I live in Florida or some other state with no income tax, and still keep my same job/income/benefits/lifestyle, but I can't. But society has decided that it's OK to allow corporations to do exactly this.

  • Greed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:33PM (#40275287)

    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.

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.

      The counter point to this is that as long as what they do is legal, then they should be free to do it - implying that they have a moral obligation ("when it's their turn to pay") does't really cut it. I'm sure that they have thought about how this will be perceived as a dick move (albeit probably briefly), yet they are still choosing to do so.

      But how do you stop people from following their own self interest without resorting to stringent or totalitarian-like restrictions?

    • Re:Greed (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kymermosst (33885) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @01:03PM (#40275529) Journal

      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%.

    • by JamesP (688957)

      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lingon (559576)

        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 [wikipedia.org] 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 i

  • ok but (Score:5, Funny)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:33PM (#40275289) Homepage Journal

    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

    • by durrr (1316311)

      LOTR actually have some relevance to Finland as Tolkien essentially picked Waelish worlds and mutilated them with Finnish grammar to create the elven language.

      • 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.

    • by hydrofix (1253498)

      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 [wikipedia.org] with approx. translations:

      • Hämäläinen: ham-ah-lai-nen (trans. Tavastian [wikipedia.org])
      • Räikkönen: reye-kE-nen (trans. Ratchetman)
      • Jääskeläinen: yaas-ke-lai-nen (untra
  • 12.5% Corporate tax? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dodgy G33za (1669772) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:37PM (#40275315)

    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by varargs (2260180)
      Their "dues?" The way governments piss away money, I'd say it's better to give citizens jobs and starve the government beast.
    • by vigour (846429)

      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 [invest-in-france.org] here [invest-in-france.org].

      References can be found here [ronanlyons.com] (second graph), here [aeaweb.org], and here [fixmytax.com].

      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 [wikipedia.org] that their taxpayers are being

  • I'm on the fence about corporate tax, because I consider it triple dipping. After all, people buying Rovio's products are spending their post-tax income. Rovio's employees pay income tax. 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).

    On the other hand, I loathe any modern corporation that amasses vast amounts of wealth and doesn't create jobs to spend it. We see far too much of this happening

    • by GuldKalle (1065310) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @12:56PM (#40275479)

      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.

    • by djmurdoch (306849)

      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, th

    • After all, people buying Rovio's products are spending their post-tax income. Rovio's employees pay income tax. Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ?

      If you employ a plumber does he not have to pay tax on his fee because you already paid it on your salary?

      One man's spending is another man's income. The same money isn't being taxed again. A new transaction is.

    • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:45PM (#40276511)

      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.

  • Come to the US and buy some congresscritters. Ask GE and the lot..hell.. if you play the game right theyll pay you to be here and even give your employees revolving jobs in the administration making laws for yourself.
  • by Osgeld (1900440)

    Fire 400 workers, move headquarters, save what 4-6 mil? get new workers, new office space, move all your shit, dwindle savings down to about 1 mil then watch your one and only hit fasty fade away into fad history

    sounds like a bunch of effort for little reward, and honestly your a 1 hit wonder, there is no long term benefit

  • Greedy bastard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jopet (538074) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:11PM (#40276161) Journal

    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.

  • by Kergan (780543) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @02:55PM (#40276583)

    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.

  • by bfree (113420) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @06:57PM (#40278205)
    As others have mentioned, the 12.5% isn't even the best rate around. Moving to Ireland is more generally about the Double Irish [wikipedia.org] 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.
  • by Aggrajag (716041) on Sunday June 10, 2012 @11:59PM (#40279609)

    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 [taloussanomat.fi]

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...