One question is: does the US wants to keep its big tech leader ship or not? Thankfully for the US the EU is nowhere in tech (biggest market cap is SAP and it's tiny compared to the US giants). But China is becoming big and quickly.

RAM makers are going to feel the heat from China soon. Batteries makers. China is eating the world with its EVs. Drones, etc.

If you're not nice with your corporations, they incorporate elsewhere: that's why the EU is nowhere in tech. Insane taxes since forever and a very strong anti-entrepreneurship mindset (in the EU you're a loser if you tried and fail, for example).

Companies like Meta, Google, MSFT, Apple, etc. should receive medals and thanks from the US government for the insane amount of money they syphon of the other countries and the wealth they create for the US.

Some countries are understanding this: in the UAE for example Dubai is now the world's busiest airport in the world for international passenger traffic. Some countries really fucked up big times to allow this to happen. Dubai is also now a very important hub for commodities trading. And diamonds: Antwerpen/Anvers (Belgium) used to be the city where the most diamonds exchanged hands, now it's... Dubai.

There is such a thing as competition between nation states and at some point entrepreneurs simply pick the best place to launch their businesses. And having the IRS using "tactics" to say that Meta owes them tens of billions does not send a nice message to people wondering in which country it's best to incorporate.

I now live in the country with the 2nd or 3rd highest GDP per capita in the world and that requires a mindset where businesses are welcome, entrepreneurs are welcome and the IRS doesn't feel like they're out there to get you at any cost.

And I'm here because I voted with my feet, my wealth and the future wealth I was going to create.

There is being hospitable to startups, and there is being hospitable to massive corporate giants.

Turns out there is a big difference in what “hospitable” actually means in these two cases. Although the tech giants don’t want people to think so. They work hard to keep up their “scrappy” underdog patinas.

I am not for punishing any organization for being successful, or for being big. But actual neutral tax parity, for the middle class up, would be good. The rich have so many tax-not-neutral alternate ways to do the same thing, but with lower or no taxes, it is ridiculous.

Progressive taxation isn’t effective for the most part. And when it is, the high disparity in application is its own kind of unfairness.

But inescapable neutral tax treatment would remove so many high paying financial, legal and lobbying jobs. Who would subsidize political careers if we eliminated that work, and cut of those perverse incentives? Not a likely scenario.

Everything in correct. But one omission there is politics. People occupy nations and don't all have the same interest. Those (felt, or actually) left aside, not benefiting enough from the macro growth speak and act in their interest.

The people in the E.U arguably are more successful at getting their demands met. They typically are less fooled by the "American dream", they see Zuckerberg and the others for what they are, a tiny number of lucky, or privileged, sometimes just very gifted unicorns, the extreme majority won't make it so they want social welfare, this tax.

The IRS going after big corp may simply be the result of this MAGA movement, which underneath really is just a popular uprise for the little guy to get a slice of the lie.

Of course the current head of state is a master manipulator so this news may just be fluff to make his electorate happy

Oh no! Heaven forbid nations around the world tax mega corporations and lead to a more balanced way of living

> If you're not nice with your corporations, they incorporate elsewhere

> China

China has capital controls and can still have billionaires "disappeared" (Jack Ma). And yet its industrial strategy seems to be working.