EU–INC – A new pan-European legal entity

National bureaucracy and incorporation experiences

• Many describe Germany as exceptionally hostile to small companies: mandatory in‑person notaries, weeks to get a bank account and registration, repeated notarization for any change, high accounting fees, and difficulty closing companies.
• Some argue it’s manageable if you pay well‑connected lawyers and advisors, but founders complain total setup often costs ~€2–3k+ and ~6–8 weeks before limited liability fully applies.
• Others contrast this with smoother processes in Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Estonia, the Netherlands (post‑reform BV), and Spain (for freelancers, not SLs), where online formation is fast and cheap.
• Several say the real killer is cumulative friction: multiple registries, paper mail, language barriers, and varying quality of local tax offices and consultants.

What EU–INC is supposed to be

• Proposal: an optional “28th regime” EU‑level company form with:
  • No minimum capital (unlike SE’s €120k).
  • Fully online formation within 48 hours.
  • A single EU registry and standardized governance / investment documents.
  • Still subject to local tax and employment law where the business is based.
• Supporters see this as:
  • A “Stripe Atlas for the EU”, reducing need to incorporate in Delaware/UK/Estonia.
  • A way to make cross‑border hiring, option plans, and VC structures predictable across member states.
• Skeptics question:
  • Whether EU law even allows a supranational entity without a national “sponsor”.
  • If it will be a regulation (uniform) or a directive (27 variants, GDPR‑style).
  • Resistance from entrenched lobbies (e.g. notaries) and tax‑sovereignty worries.

Cross‑border operation, tax, and investment

• Founders report that:
  • Investing across borders is legally and tax‑wise painful; many funds stick to domestic deals.
  • Hiring employees in another EU country often requires local entities, EOR intermediaries, or “fake contractor” setups that are legally fragile.
  • CFC rules and “centre of management” tests can cause double reporting or surprise taxation when founders move countries.
  • VAT for digital services across 27 regimes is seen as an early, stressful hurdle, even with OSS/MOSS.
• Many hope EU–INC plus deeper capital‑market harmonization will:
  • Make it easier for pension funds and cross‑border VCs to back EU startups.
  • Encourage founders to stay in Europe instead of defaulting to US structures.

Taxes, labour law, and culture

• Some insist high European taxes and strong worker protections are core features (healthcare, pensions, social stability) and not what EU–INC should touch.
• Others argue rigid firing rules, mandatory social contributions, and complex payroll make founders risk‑averse and favor agency chains and “consultant” pyramids.
• There’s debate whether Europe’s startup gap vs the US is mainly:
  • Cultural (risk aversion, love of stability, bureaucratic mindset), or
  • Structural (fragmented legal systems, banking, and capital markets).

EU capacity and political skepticism

• Optimists see EU–INC as a concrete step toward a true single market, alongside capital‑markets and energy integration.
• Pessimists doubt the EU can simplify anything, expecting:
  • A new layer on top of existing bureaucracy instead of replacement.
  • Years of committees, national delays, and a watered‑down result.
• Some worry about loss of national “diversity” in company law; others reply that diversity in culture, not legal fragmentation, is the real strength.

Meta: site, messaging, and existing forms

• Commenters note eu-inc.org is an unofficial lobbying site (with merch), not an EU asset, and criticize its Notion‑style docs and vague landing page.
• Several point out existing EU‑level forms:
  • SE (Societas Europaea) and SCE, but these are seen as too capital‑intensive and complex for startups.
• Thread repeatedly asks for clear comparisons between SE, EU–INC, and national forms, and for hard guarantees on UX metrics: time, pages, and cost to incorporate and dissolve.