I think conclusion is a bit of a strong term to use here, as far as i can read its a possibility, but the only real conclusion is that there has been human movement between the regions, which might indicate mixing (that is, they didn't move there, at least, not all of them).
This is not how a VAT works. An American car manufacturer _selling_ a car to Germany means that the importer on the German side pays the tax, not the American. VAT is always applied to the buyer, not the seller.
Whether the buyer or the seller pays the VAT is not relevant. If the price to the consumer is higher, the economic effect is the same.
As another commenter said, this is the same as tariffs. If someone said that tariffs disadvantage foreign producers, you wouldn't smirk and say "idiot! tariffs are paid by the buyer, not the seller!" Instead of trying to demonstrate how very smart you are, you should engage with the arguments that I'm presenting.
Tariff is applied to import and export. VAT is applied to everything, including domestically produced things. German cars pay the same VAT which makes it fundamentally different them VAT.
A regular tariff is also paid by the buyer yes, the comment i replied to seems to not understand either concept.
Where the VAT is different is that since all products are taxed the same regardless of origin there is no advantage given to any origin. A tariffs would make the foreign product less attractive. VAT does not.
I already explained why the VAT makes the foreign product less attractive. It's because the foreign product already paid taxes in the country where it was made. So it gets taxed twice, whereas the domestic product is taxed once.
And before you comment, I do understand that the EU allows VAT tax collected in one member country on a product to reduce the amount of VAT tax collected in another member country. There's no such arrangement in place for the US, which is what makes it discriminatory.
Please respond to my actual argument rather than insulting me.
I am unsure what you mean by "the foreign product already paid taxes in the country it was made" in this case. The VAT is done on the buyers side. The foreign product is taxed by the importing entity in the country with the VAT, then by the consumer when they buy the product from the importer.
For the consumer there is no difference between the foreign and domestic product and therefore there can be no difference in how attractive it is.
Because it is single market. Just like inter-state commerce inside USA.
Now why the corporations inside USA have failed to lobby mechanism that allows them to get refunds on sales taxes when they export stuff is reasonable question to ask.
> Because it is single market. Just like inter-state commerce inside USA.
No. The US doesn't do this for interstate commerce. For example, California doesn't reduce its sales tax on an item just because Illinois already charged some other tax on that item.
> Now why the corporations inside USA have failed to lobby mechanism that allows them to get refunds on sales taxes when they export stuff is reasonable question to ask.
It's not the job of US corporations to fix discriminatory tax and tariff schemes cooked up in Europe.
On the other hand, in Washington, some people are starting to take notice. If the Europeans want to slap a 20% price increase on US goods, we also know how to do that for European goods.
You should negotiate with Trump if you think American taxes are too high. Unless EU attacks US militarily and takes their territory, USA taxes are not their issue.
Specifically on reducing farmland. Denmark is intensly cultivated, and the reduction targets the lowest yield land that for various reasons were reclaimed over the last two centuries. Using the high yield land more efficiently is intended.
I am not sure the job of the EU should even be to make technical standards in this case. The point is to develop strategy and to convince an endless amount of non-technical stakeholders on value, and that is something the EU usually does well.
Or, in this case, a tax pushed for by multiple large and small parties, negotiated in agreement with the agricultural sector. Long time since it was polled, but it was like 50/50. No elites needed.
I found it quite funny to try out, even if it isn't that impressive in the bot answers.
Humans seemed to just have an easy way of knowing each other based on posting nonsense as the first message, so that probably needs to be taken into consideration.
