The Dutch government is spending billions to keep ASML in The Netherlands. To circumvent these prohibitions, the money doesn't go directly to ASML but is invested in better infrastructure, housing and education in the local area. More trains and busses to bring people to the company, better energy grid to power all the ASML offices, more money towards STEM studies of the local universities so they are creating the new ASML workforce, building extra homes so the company can hire more people.
Plus tax cuts for the employees of ASML, which is fully legal under EU legislation and prohibitions.
This seems like a pretty fair way to do it - the government invests in being a place worth staying in, rather than just subsidizing or lining the profits of the target business. If ASML left, it might blow up the economic model of tax + investment, but the constructed infrastructure and social assets would remain.
Not complaining! It's wonderful that we are finally getting investments in a better environment. And ASML provides a big boost to the economy as well.
But a bus line that goes from the train station directly to one company, together with housing that will be filled with the expats from ASML is obviously an (indirect) company subsidy.
I had to research this claim. It looks true for some. <<This allows certain workers recruited abroad to keep 30 percent of their income without paying tax on it for a period of five years as compensation for relocating.>> Ref: https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/25/cabinet-close-eu14-billion-pla...
The 30% ruling isn't specific to ASML, it's a general tax credit you get if you're a non-EU national that moves to the Netherlands (plus a bunch of other conditions) on a sponsored work visa.
I don’t know what Switzerland you are talking about, only 12% of the population is considered obese so I don’t see how over half the men here are obese.
Hate to be pedantic but it's European Union or European Parliament, not Europe. And it's a directive, not a law.
Also, "Employees Will Know How Much Their Colleagues Earn" is a false claim as this only reports salary ranges for the function and the average salary.
2026 is only for the Spanish implementation of this directive. And for Spain, it's only large companies that need to provide it by then.
That's not cynical at all, just misinformed about what the difference is between the two.
Laws are created by member states themselves, directives are the "goals" EU sets for the member states. Consider them "specifications" for the members to deal with the implementation of those specs.
You could buy a large plot of land in Ghana or Nigeria. Start a large cacao plantation. Hire locals to do the labour intensive work for you. And then fly in management from Western European countries to oversee the operation and to make sure that no children set foot on the plantation.
