Dutch government in panic mode over keeping ASML in the country
theregister.com
theregister.com
In the Netherlands we are currently having a housing crisis, which is partly caused by labor immigration. This has caused many people, especially those from gen Z, being unable to buy a house. In and around Veldhoven, where ASML has its main offices, house prices have gone up. ASML is investing some money in housing projects.
For these reasons, some political parties feel that the tax break should be removed. Which would mean that ASML would have to pay their employees more and due to this they will make less profits.
ASML is depending on many companies in and around Veldhoven/Eindhoven and even on some further away for parts of their machines. For that reason, I think it would not be that easy for them to relocate to a different country. They would have to build up contact with local parts produces. If the move to a different country, it maybe also would mean that a part of their employees is not willing to relocate.
Must play a role too, yes. It was reported a few weeks ago that a primary school in Veldhoven (the relatively small town where ASML’s headquarters is) will not get access to the power grid. They will place a diesel generator next to the school for the next few years [1].
[1]: https://nos.nl/video/2510756-een-splinternieuw-schoolgebouw-...
ASML is still Dutch, as far as I understand, but I guess they already have offices in the US or something? Why would a US government license be required for a Dutch company to sell to Chinese customers?
In the 2000s ASML bought Silicon Valley Group (SVG) to develop EUV lithography. Now ASML has to abide by the EUV LLC license terms which include US congressional oversight.
It’s the US governments tech commercialized by a Dutch multinational company who also has to abide by Dutch export and government restrictions.
The licenses and limitations are the standard used for all technology coming out of the national laboratories; it is only unusual because ASML is not located in the US.
The US has leverage to do this, because much of the world's financial transactions run through the US financial system, and much of the world's financial industry has significant exposure to the US. If ASML shrugs off the US government's demands, it will quickly find itself shut off from every major bank, and every supplier who wants to avoid the same fate will cut off its business with ASML.
In the specific case of ASML, however, the US also has a Cold-War-era agreement with the Netherlands on transfer of technology to other countries.[0-1]
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Arrangement
1. https://www.reuters.com/technology/amid-us-pressure-dutch-an...
I haven't read more about this besides this article, but why should highly skilled foreign employees receive tax breaks?
Then again, i can understand the argument that indirectly the company is paying tons of taxes because it is a big company. Losing that company + its employees might be a bigger negative in tax income than having those employees pay less taxes.
In this light I think that temporary tax breaks like this are a nice way to ease immigration and create more of a win-win situation.
> If you decide to live and work in The Netherlands, i would expect you to pay the same amount of taxes as others.
Fair, but worth noting that highly skilled migrants are also paid more than average, and thus the absolute amount of tax contributed in their lifetime turns out higher despite a few years of tax breaks.
They didn't receive education, their parents didn't get childcare support, it didn't cost a single penny in taxes from the host country to get skilled labour who'll pay higher taxes than a lot of native population even after tax breaks.
A temporary tax break would probably just even out the equation in the end, if the immigrant stays for longer then the balance would tilt back to the host country benefitting more in total taxes received over a lifetime.
I think it's naive to think this money ends up with the worker. Realistically, what happens is that companies like ASML can pay their migrant workers less than they would have to otherwise.
Remove this tax break, and ASML will have to raise salaries or lose those migrant workers to other countries - or, god forbid, hire more Dutch workers.
I'm not that skilled, but I've already turned down some opportunities in Europe due to the taxes. I don't wanna work to give almost 50% to King Charles, I prefer living in a beautiful condo in Panama and cash everything.
But this is my point of view only.
I think that's fair. I wouldn't fault you for that. My counter argument would be that this 50% of your income won't go to Charles, but it will go to all of the social services we have in our country. Those aren't cheap. If you don't want that, sure. But i think it would be wrong if we would then let you live + work here and give you a tax break.
I think the mistake in those arguments is that there's no intrinsic reason why the world's tech sector has to be so concentrated in Silicon Valley. The major reason why the industry continues to be so concentrated in Silicon Valley is because that is where the workforce is. If the flow of skilled workers to Silicon Valley - from all over the world - is choked off, the industry will move to where the high-skill workforce is.
The Dutch seem to be testing out this theory in real life. I would guess that ASML is heavily dependent on highly educated people who come from all over the world, and that restricting its workforce to Dutch (or even EU) citizens would severely damage the company.
At salaries and with work hours that are far from enviable.
On the other hand, the US benefits massively from its research universities, which attract large numbers of top-quality graduate students from around the world, many of whom remain in the US after their studies and make up much of the tech workforce.
> giving away their countries
How does immigration of highly skilled tech workers in any way "give away the country"?
And I didn't say that left-wing parties were good for the economy, I just said that right-wing parties weren't.
If you want a business-friendly party, you have to examine their platforms.
For example, Trump's 10% import tariff proposal would destroy the American economy. But that sort of proposal is more common in left wing parties.