@Rich: ...given all the loopholes and tax breaks that are currently built into the absurdly byzantine U.S. tax system...
I agree -- it makes one want to cry -- there are so many special interests out there -- I honestly feel that it woudl be so much better all round to have a handful of rules to cover all cases, and for evertone to be treated the same. Get rid of all the lobbyists and get rid of all the shady under-the-table dealings...
"...the only US companies who pay the 35% rate are the smaller ones who don't have international holdings."
True enough, and most of them likely don't pay anywhere close to the full 35% given all the loopholes and tax breaks that are currently built into the absurdly byzantine U.S. tax system. But one of the reasons the multinational corporations are able to pay effectively less in taxes - apart from the aforementioned loopholes - is because of being able to shift profits offshore etc. Thus the arguments for simplifying the U.S. tax system and lowering the tax rate to bring back profits to the U.S.
Irelands corporate tax rate is about 12.5% for at least 8 years now (I think Israel corp. tax rate is still at 10%). Beside of that, governments also offer tax holidays and incentives. Incentives can be even capital grants (cash). The cash offered is not only for China but also for Germany. AMD Dresden for example received $550M cash grant plus some more in direct/indirect stakes plus at least $80M from Saxony investors. So, the 12.5% corporate tax rate in Ireland may not be all for Intel.
Ah .. but the only US companies who pay the 35% rate are the smaller ones who don't have international holdings. There was a report on the NPR (national public radio) just the other day saying that the big multinationals typically end up paying something like 14%. Also there was another report a couple of months ago saying that their multinational branches could move the cash into US banks without paying tax ... but that was when my head started to hurt...
Thanks Peter! We had the impression that Fab 24 is relatively old and needs quite some retrofit for 14nm. Fab 24 is about 9 years old (Fab 24-2 is younger). We even heard about plans of a new fab instead of using the old ones. But since you saw the connection built to upgraded Fab 14, looks like they upgrade these old fabs. Do you have any idea how big the incentive package is offered by the government?
You also have to bear in mind that Intel is more or less out of 65-nm manufacturing. There can't be much, if anything, that needs what is for Intel a trailing process.
Therefore WITHOUT an upgrade to 14-nm there is not much reason for Intel Leixlip manufacturing to exist.
Intel began the upgrade spending that will ultimately let 14-nm come in several years ago.
They started by closing Fab 14 in summer 2009 and stripping it back to a shell. Then last year I saw them rebuilding that shell and putting in an air-bridge to Fab 24/Fab24-2.
That creates the clean room environment and extra space capable of running 14-nm. Then it is just a question of buying the equipment, installing it, hooking it up, running test wafers through for a quarter or two to pipeclean, and then running real product.
As we have been told Intel has done some training of Irish workforce on 14-nm machines and production flows in the US.
I expect Intel Israel to get the nod for the 10-nm node but that must assume that Intel remains economically healthy AND that Moore's Law continues at the same periodicity going forward. Neither is a given and at some point Intel's new CEO may have to make some more radical decisions.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.