France Proposes a Tax On Personal Information Collection

3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:37 · Score: 0

If you tax something like that, it will be gone in less than 60 microseconds.

Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by DickBreath · 2013-01-21 04:28 · Score: 1

> If you tax something like that, it will be gone in less than 60 microseconds.

That may be true at the server. But you fail to consider the latency of the network connection to France.

More realistically it will take a significant fraction of a second for internet access to be gone.

France is doing all it can to get itself cut off from the internet. If French government officials thought that taxing sunlight would cause the sun to go dark, I wonder if that would be sufficient motivation to cause them to do it?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you impose the tax on collection not where the data is stored. If you collect data about a french citizen/computer and your company does business in anyway in france you have to pay. Pretty simple method that is in use for lots of things.
Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by tnk1 · 2013-01-21 05:23 · Score: 1

Sounds like a good way to stop businesses from doing business in France.
If it is the American companies collecting the information, and the company does not do business in France, how will they collect? Do they force the end user French companies to collect the tax for them whenever they get their data?
Sounds to me like either the government can't collect somehow, or French companies cannot get their hands on that data, so they do without it. By doing without it, French companies have a competitive disadvantage, and depending on the data, even French consumers may suffer a little.
To my mind, there is only one ironclad way to tax the Internet, tax raw data at the physical layer at the border. It would take some effort, but you usually can't evade it because physical access points can be controlled. Satellite and some forms of wireless might avoid it, but their use is negligible compared to fiber links.
Of course, a raw data tax could do serious damage to the working of the national Internet, but it may encourage research into increasingly more efficient means of getting data through a pipe.
Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 05:49 · Score: 1

I would think the idea is to get french companies not to use this data. So taxing their purchase of it might be enough.
As a way to raise funds this seems more trouble than it is worth.
Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by hsmith · 2013-01-21 05:53 · Score: 2

France is doing everything possible to drive businesses and people with any bit of money out of the country.

Their tax rates have been skyrocketing - and they wonder why they have been averaging 9%+ unemployment
Re:3...2...1....and the data is in the UK by micahraleigh · 2013-01-21 09:51 · Score: 0

And the government is earning this money in someway?

Hilarious by Rakhar · 2013-01-21 02:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I don't believe this is in any way viable to enforce, I think it would be hilarious to sit back and watch the aftermath.

Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:14 · Score: 1

I think its a great idea. Corporations think they can collect and use any data they can get their hands on. Anything that'll make them slow down is a good thing.
Re:Hilarious by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 03:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

There's an interesting change going on. Services, which are basically delivered electronically, can't be taxed. Similarly with lots of IP. Think about it. Who are you going to tax? The consumer, or the producer. Ah, the producer say government. There aren't many of them, so we can get them. Difficult going after the consumer, since they are the ones who vote. Ah, slight problem. We can't go after the producers, if they are overseas. After all, the places where the servers are want their tax cut. If we really went after them, the other countries would retaliate. Not only that, the producers would up sticks, and move their servers. For example, if you use AWS for your servers, you can move them in seconds. Who are you going to tax now? Not only can the server move, the company can move. They will move to lower tax, lower regulation. Same with all IP. So I see IP taxes falling to zero. Far better keeping the employment, rather than driving that offshore. So what are Facebook's assets in France. It's the payments from advertisers. Now under EU rules, there is freedom of movement of goods, services people, and capital. Tough for France, they can't get the taxes. So what's really going on. Basically western states are bankrupt. They have hidden their pensions debts off the books. France is bankrupt, and now its desperate for cash. Any cash, no matter what the damage. However the rich have hopped, over the border to Belgium and Switzerland. Bank of France reported that last month, French banks lost 44 bn EUR of deposits. So a run on France has started. In France the state has educated people they are entitled. Its a right. When that 'right' is infringed, there will be violence.
Re:Hilarious by alexander_686 · 2013-01-21 03:32 · Score: 2

How would this even work? One bit for every byte?
(Use your own definition of bit – I like mine as Spanish gold – Others like them as 1s and Os.)
Re:Hilarious by canadiannomad · 2013-01-21 03:46 · Score: 0

Enter the new world of international tax collection.... It all started when the US gov't decided that it had the jurisdiction to raid a house in New Zealand...

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Re:Hilarious by buchner.johannes · 2013-01-21 04:03 · Score: 1

Ah, slight problem. We can't go after the producers, if they are overseas. After all, the places where the servers are want their tax cut. If we really went after them, the other countries would retaliate. Not only that, the producers would up sticks, and move their servers. For example, if you use AWS for your servers, you can move them in seconds. Who are you going to tax now?
If you impose a tax on having data (in accordance to the practice of data minimisation), what you say is only true if only France would introduce such a tax, and EU countries would not work together.
If you host data on EU citizens, this data has to be hosted inside the EU. If you don't comply, you can't make business in the EU. And while you might not mind skipping France, the EU is a huge market, too large to ignore.
So it would be possible to introduce such a law, even though it would have troubles (e.g. how do you check?). It may successfully discourage free services such as Facebook to unnecessarily collect personal data though.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:Hilarious by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2013-01-21 04:10 · Score: 1

However the rich have hopped, over the border to Belgium and Switzerland. Bank of France reported that last month, French banks lost 44 bn EUR of deposits. So a run on France has started.
It's funny how that happens when you try to introduce a 75% tax rate for the wealthy.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Hilarious by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 04:25 · Score: 1

So they have facebook.us and move all the accounts there. You can, if you want, remove yourself. Now what's France going to do? Is it going to put up a firewall and say to the French, you can't have access to Facebook? That's what you have to get around. [The French really don't get the tax thing. Search for Depardieu and his comments. I'll re-iterate. 44 bn left France last month. Bankruptcies are rife. They have real problems. It's all legal. The French would need to get all EU countries to agree to it, or they would have to leave the EU. Remember, Freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. It's the law.
Re:Hilarious by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 04:26 · Score: 1

Quite. The UK used to have 16,000 people with a million plus (GBP) incomes. Tax went to over 50%. Now there are only 6,000. Wonder what the 10,000 have done.
Re:Hilarious by Shoten · 2013-01-21 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think its a great idea. Corporations think they can collect and use any data they can get their hands on. Anything that'll make them slow down is a good thing.
I agree that anything that will "slow them down" is a good thing. But here's the problem: this will actually incent them to further monetize the data they collect. What does a corporation do if they invariably collect personal data as part of their normal business operations, with no intent to share it, but then find themselves taxed as a result? Beware the unintended consequences that usually arise when the public sector imposes economic impacts on the private sector in the attempt to control behavior.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:Hilarious by hydrofix · 2013-01-21 04:35 · Score: 2

Except that once you start taxing personal information collection, it legitimizes the whole business model. Corporations feel that they are entitled to your information, because they are already paying for it. I would much rather see governments actually enforcing existing laws on who can collect our personal information and to what extent.
Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:40 · Score: 0

Quite.
The UK used to have 16,000 people with a million plus (GBP) incomes.
Tax went to over 50%.
Now there are only 6,000.
Wonder what the 10,000 have done.
They played the markets, lost a bunch of money and then got bailed out with the tax money paid by those who can't afford to buy their own island in the caribbean and move their legal residence to a tax haven.
Re:Hilarious by bhagwad · 2013-01-21 05:16 · Score: 2

Umm...as a customer, I allow them to collect my data. I'm not forced to use Facebook, or Google, or Amazon. They're not a public service. If I don't want my data to be collected, I either give them false info or stop using their services.
This is ridiculous. As a customer I willingly hand over my personal information to Google. Why the hell should the government get involved here?
Re:Hilarious by NeutronCowboy · 2013-01-21 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

In France the state has educated people they are entitled. Its a right. When that 'right' is infringed, there will be violence.
While I find your points interesting and mostly agree with them, you have one thing backwards. In France, the people have educated the state that they are entitled to certain benefits. When those rights are infringed, there is violence. Pretty much since the storming of the Bastille, the French - and particularly the Parisians - have been very quick to protest and to riot. For some lesser known examples, look up the Parisian Communes and the term 68ards: while in the US specifically, the anti-establishment movement was built on peace and love, in Paris it was built on riots and street violence.
The result is that the French government is probably one of the western governments that is most afraid of its population. And also a perfect example of just how easy it is for a population to get awesome toys, even without going through the proper democratic process.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Hilarious by Hatta · 2013-01-21 05:33 · Score: 1

Easily solved. Institute a 99% exit tax. If you want to control the lions share of the economy, you can pay the lions share of the costs. If you try to evade, fuck you. You're lucky if confiscating everything is all that happens.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Hilarious by IamTheRealMike · 2013-01-21 05:48 · Score: 1

A 99% exit tax would be considered capital controls, and those are illegal in the EU. They're illegal exactly because in the past they were used by abusive governments to stop people leaving. Incidentally, the US charges an exit tax for people who try to give up citizenship, did you know that? And they also try to tax citizens wherever they live in the world!
Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 06:56 · Score: 0

If you don't want companies to have your data, don't give it to them? It's ridiculous to say 'okay here's a ton of data about myself I'm providing to you BUT YOU'D BETTER NOT USE IT TO MAKE YOUR SERVICE BETTER'.
Data is what makes services better. Imagine where search engines would be if they weren't allowed to analyze old search data?
In closing, you're an idiot and if you're going to continue to be paranoid about these companies having OMG DATA about you, then stop using them.
Re:Hilarious by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2013-01-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Unless you can put that into effect and enforce it faster than the wealthy can make a couple of phone calls and get on a plane/train/boat, I'd say that's a pretty certain way to crash your economy within 24 hours.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Hilarious by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:17 · Score: 1

I pretty much agree with the assessment of the French attitude. There's a problem. They haven't got the money for the toys. They haven't got the money for the basics. It's all on tick. It's all come from spending people's pension money. So it doesn't matter about the democratic process. Even Zimbabwe is democratic to a certain extent. They've voted for the toys. They haven't got them. They can't afford them. So that's why I think the UK and France are the countries that will end up with violence. France first. Spain, Italy, Greece, its all been a love in.
Re:Hilarious by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2013-01-21 07:18 · Score: 1

Wonder what the 10,000 have done.
I imagine quite a few simply adjusted the timing so they would take more income from their investments later, assuming the tax regime would then be more favourable. Pretty much no-one with that kind of income is taking it all as a salary from an employer or a fixed pension income, and just about every other kind of investment is going to allow some degree of flexibility in realizing returns.
It was telling that after the coalition government came in, there were suggestions that the 50% tax rate hadn't really caused any meaningful increase in tax revenues for precisely this kind of reason. It will be interesting to see whether the drop in the additional rate to 45% from this April actually costs the government anything, or even increases tax revenues.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Hilarious by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:31 · Score: 1

They are only doing what the government says. They want people to move from short term bonuses to longer term bonuses. That spreads the tax out. Joined up thinking? Hmm :-)
Re:Hilarious by jbo5112 · 2013-01-21 13:10 · Score: 1

You think it's a great idea to ban social networking by taxing it to death. I personally appreciate companies learning I want something besides pornographic or slutty ads. I think most people like businesses to get to know their customers, but they've been scared by fearmongering media. How appropriate that you posted as an anonymous coward.
Re:Hilarious by canadiannomad · 2013-01-22 02:44 · Score: 1

I don't see how this is off topic...
- France wants to collect taxes on companies outside its jurisdiction.
- Many other countries want to do that as well (eg. US and Canada)
- Some countries have acted as if international jurisdiction doesn't exist (eg. US in offtopic but somewhat humorous case).
Is it too hard to imagine that this is just tip of the iceberg type stuff?

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Re:Hilarious by DeVilla · 2013-01-24 13:50 · Score: 1

If I don't want my data to be collected, I either give them false info
.....
I think that could get you years in prison in some places.

This is ridiculous. As a customer I willingly hand over my personal information to Google. Why the hell should the government get involved here?
Because the government would like your personal information too, but they'll settle for money.
Re:Hilarious by Subjective · 2013-01-26 08:44 · Score: 1

Umm... as a customer, I allow a store to take my money. I'm not forced to use Walmart, or Target, or Rami Levy. They're not a public institution. If I don't want to give them money, I either take only free samples or I don't enter the store
This is ridiculous. As a customer I willingly hand over my money for a product. Why the hell should the government get involved here and impose a sales tax?

--
My other .sig is also this bad
Re:Hilarious by bhagwad · 2013-01-26 08:59 · Score: 1

That's not an argument since you need to show why your example is analagous to this one. To take your example at face value, you can justify any kind of government intervention in absolutely anything.
Re:Hilarious by Subjective · 2013-01-26 09:07 · Score: 1

Hmmm... I think perhaps that's the point.
Everything is regulated, and has government intervention in it. Everything.
Anything without any government in it is a purely private personal matter, and not done by corporations or places of business.

--
My other .sig is also this bad
Re:Hilarious by bhagwad · 2013-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1

Not every aspect of a corporation is regulated. Nor should it be. The government does not regulate whether or not companies provide coffee to their employees for example.
Some things are regulated. Others are not. There's no blanket rule.

And make 'em publish pages in French, too! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-01-21 02:38 · Score: 1

"Electricity in the home? What good is this 'electricity'?"

"Senator, in 20 years, you'll be taxing it."

Remember, folks. The sordid, scurrilous worms in this are not the innovators.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:And make 'em publish pages in French, too! by Rockoon · 2013-01-21 02:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wont this legitimize any and all collections of personal information as long as the tax gets paid?

"But they collected data on what time of the day I poop.. dont I have any privacy?"

"There is nothing we can do sir. They paid the tax. Quite frankly, we wish more corporations would collect this data so that we could get more taxes"

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:And make 'em publish pages in French, too! by Raumkraut · 2013-01-21 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wont this legitimize any and all collections of personal information as long as the tax gets paid?
No.
Tax is levied on alcohol and tobacco, yet there are still licences and regulations behind selling either one.
Re:And make 'em publish pages in French, too! by oodaloop · 2013-01-21 03:35 · Score: 1

Does taxing liquor mean anyone can sell or buy it without restriction? Tobacco? Cars? If anything, taxing may be the means by which we regulate who can collect how much on whom.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:And make 'em publish pages in French, too! by MozeeToby · 2013-01-21 04:42 · Score: 1

Iowa has a marijuana tax stamp. Selling marijuana without the stamp nets you a fine but that doesn't mean that selling marijuana with it is legal.

Enforcement and Boundaries by Grench · 2013-01-21 02:38 · Score: 2

Their biggest problem, of course, will be how to enforce the collection of this tax. If a user signs up for Facebook (etc), does that mean Facebook has to tell the French government about it so they can be billed correctly for the tax? Doesn't that mean someone can really screw Facebook up by signing up a bunch of bogus accounts registered in France, meaning Facebook has to foot the bigger tax bill? What about French citizens signing up from other countries but marking down their country of origin as France (these people wouldn't be French taxpayers any more, yet Facebook would presumably have to pay the tax on the collection of that users' data). It's not an easy one to resolve...

--
He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.

Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by IamTheRealMike · 2013-01-21 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think a bigger question is how would you enforce such a tax on a company that has no assets in France. Does Facebook have any datacenters or offices here? If no, then .... what is France going to do? Start censoring any website that doesn't pay them? I mean, that's the fundamental thing they're complaining about, right - companies that sell into the French market and make money there don't pay corporate taxes because, hm, they don't actually run their business from there. So why would this new tax be any different?
I'm really wondering if the current French government even cares about France being seen as a serious country. Taxes targeted at a handful of companies aren't going to resolve their budget deficit problems or even make a noticeable dent. This move strongly reminds me of their threats to nationalize ArcelorMittal if they closed a factory. The factory was closed and the threat was not carried through.
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by Anne+Thwacks · 2013-01-21 03:05 · Score: 2

I'm really wondering if the current French government even cares about France being seen as a serious country.
No need to wonder - the answer is Non!. (previous French governments were not significantly different in this respect)

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by Jesrad · 2013-01-21 03:27 · Score: 1

I'm really wondering if the current French government even cares about France being seen as a serious country.
As a french citizen, I can assure you that the last few years have definitely demonstrated that our politicians will squander every last shred of credibility France still has, as long as it can even potentially give them a single vote back.
I mean, seriously... the very existence of Hadopi and its millions of euros worth of budget for nought ? The Florange debacle ? The Peugeot mess ? High-profile Minister posing in marinière with kitchen implements in hands on the cover of a magazine ? Government officials contradicting each other in matter of national policies ? The Twitterweiler communication mishap ? The list goes on and on and on...
Pretty much every member of our governments of the past decades has amounted to little more than a bad clown with delusions of grandeur, much to the population's pain and shame.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 03:27 · Score: 1

The asset is the willingness of French Advertisers to use Facebook, Google etc. They can't tax Facebook, because its all offshore. So the French are going to have to tax the Advertisers that use Google, Facebook etc. Hmmm, not going to go down well is it, taxing your own companies. Neither is taxes the ultimate consumer, the man or woman, dans la Rue. Ah well, that's what comes from running a Ponzi scam. At some point you get desperate for cash to keep it rolling over, then it goes tits up.
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by shadowrat · 2013-01-21 03:56 · Score: 1

clearly facebook has to send all personal information they collect to the government for auditing. it's the only way to make sure they are being properly taxed.
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:01 · Score: 0

When it goes tits up are they 'dans le rue de poo?'
(bad translation of shit street)
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-21 05:38 · Score: 1

Facebook does business in France. It accepts payments from French companies for advertising, and from French citizens who want to pay $100 to send a message to Zukerberg. If Facebook wishes to continue to do that it needs to comply with French law, and it will do so because even if its tax burden goes up it can still make money.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by GodGell · 2013-01-21 11:09 · Score: 1

The story you tell is all too familiar. The same thing is going on in Hungary right now. We basically have our own "Incompetent Little Hitler" running the show.

--
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 03:50 · Score: 1

Literally "in the street of 'poo'"
Which is a thing Paris actually had many of in the middle ages...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by PPalmgren · 2013-01-22 06:02 · Score: 1

Seeing as these were both once world-leading influential countries that have seen their reach decline over the centuries, I wonder if its kinda like a country inferiority complex. I hope the we (USA) don't act that way during our decline, but I wouldn't be surprised. Its kinda like macropsychology or something, would be an interesting research topic.
Re:Enforcement and Boundaries by GodGell · 2013-01-22 11:29 · Score: 1

Seeing as these were both once world-leading influential countries that have seen their reach decline over the centuries, I wonder if its kinda like a country inferiority complex.
I think you're on to something here; I can't speak for France, but I know how deep this goes inside Hungarian people's minds.
It's no surprise really; their history is basically a thousand years of mostly unbroken greatness, resulting in a great sense of pride in their culture and origins (Americans would call this patriotism, but politicians ruined that word), then all of a sudden they basically go from being a world power to a tiny speck and are under violent foreign occupation for close to a century - and then BAM!, the country is thrown back into the "real world" (in 1989) as if nothing ever happened. Now everyone who's been alive for the past 4-5 generations knows how much it sucks to be Hungarian, yet at the same time you can't look at a history book (or even out the window) without thinking the exact opposite, and people end up in this weird sort of frustrated, pessimistic sense of entitlement. And that, to be honest, pretty well describes the attitude most Americans seem to be displaying about their country right now!
You might be on a different point along the bell curve, but you seem to be riding along the same one: Americans will never let go of how great their country is/used to be, but they are already having to face the quickly changing circumstances... And when 300 million people undergo this level of cognitive dissonance, sooner or later *something* extreme is going to happen. Remember, Hungarians went through this before the advent of nuclear weapons...

--
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10

taxation=punitive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:39 · Score: 1

I'm all for taxing data collection of personal data. This would have a dampening effect on the industry, just like taxation has on many other unsavory (and good unfortunately) industries.

France on strike by Buggz · 2013-01-21 02:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Google Rep: What exactly does France want?
France: We want: more... money!
French aide: Yeah! More money!
Facebook rep: More money from where?
France: Just more money! You know! France doesn't get enough money! Other countries have lots of money; we want, we want some of that money! Hu- how about- the Internet? The Internet makes lots of money! So give us some of that money!
French aide: Yeah! Give us Internet money!

Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Excuse me....
From the original article:
"Google generates more than $30 billion a year in advertising revenue, including an estimated €1.5 billion, or $2 billion, in France. Yet, like other American Internet companies, it pays almost no taxes in France."
They've forgotten to add "... nor in the United States."
Google, Facebook, etc.... ( and many others, but these are the ones mentioned in the abstract), pay almost no taxes, because they are addressed in Ireland.
What France and the rest of the European Union Countries have to do is enforce a change in Ireland tax laws.
Just an oppinion from a Spanish guy.
Cheers...
Re:France on strike by Buggz · 2013-01-21 02:59 · Score: 2

I must admit I merely posted the first thing that came to my mind. So there was an article?
Re:France on strike by theRunicBard · 2013-01-21 02:59 · Score: 1

I'm American (so... stupid) and while I can see where you're going with that, given what the government here does with my tax money (go to war, not fix roads, bicker, etc), I would be happy for any organization, especially one as useful as Google, that manages to hide its money. Now, I'm told in countries like Canada, taxes are actually redistributed to the people. That would be a different story. As it stands, I just can't feel sorry for the US not getting its "share" of Google's money.
Re:France on strike by EmagGeek · 2013-01-21 03:05 · Score: 0

Haha that scene sounds like it came right out of Idiocracy: Part Dew
Re:France on strike by Sponge+Bath · 2013-01-21 03:09 · Score: 1

I know this is a South Park reference, but it made me think of the bowling alley scene in the Big Lebowski.
France: We want ze money, Googlebowski.
Donny: Are these the socialists, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.
Re:France on strike by fche · 2013-01-21 03:20 · Score: 2

... because nothing says wise government like redistribution.
Re:France on strike by RedHackTea · 2013-01-21 03:27 · Score: 1

Show me the money! I love black people!

--
The G
Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:32 · Score: 0

I'm American (so... stupid) and while I can see where you're going with that, given what the government here does with my tax money (go to war, not fix roads, bicker, etc), I would be happy for any organization, especially one as useful as Google, that manages to hide its money. Now, I'm told in countries like Canada, taxes are actually redistributed to the people. That would be a different story. As it stands, I just can't feel sorry for the US not getting its "share" of Google's money.
The thing causing wastage and partisan bickering is not government as such, it's the morons you elect to run it (and in case anybody think's I'm unfairly basing Americans we have the same problem here in the old world). Google can contribute to society by paying taxes like everobody else, what is being done with that money is a subject for a separate debate.
Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:56 · Score: 0

I know this is a South Park reference ...
Yup
Re:France on strike by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2013-01-21 04:14 · Score: 1

What France and the rest of the European Union Countries have to do is enforce a change in Ireland tax laws.
Or they could lower their own corporation taxes to a competitive rate and live within their means.
Just sayin'.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:France on strike by WWJohnBrowningDo · 2013-01-21 04:31 · Score: 1

Kinda hard to compete with 0%.
Re:France on strike by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-21 04:59 · Score: 2

TFA misrepresents the French government's position somewhat. It isn't just about tax revenue, it is about making privacy invasion have an associated cost. They are trying to do the same thing with a small financial transaction tax. The amount levied is tiny but still enough to discourage people from high frequency trading and other douchbaggery.
In other words it is behaviour modification, similar to taxes on tobacco or pollution.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:France on strike by IamTheRealMike · 2013-01-21 05:10 · Score: 2

They've forgotten to add "... nor in the United States."
Reality check, according to the SEC filings Googles tax rate in the USA was 22%
The stories you read about Google "dodging tax" or paying only a few percent are looking at worldwide revenues. It's due to Americans going French all of a sudden and thinking that any money earned by any Google subsidiary anywhere in the world should be taxed by the IRS - even if that money was a Swiss Franc earned in Switzerland and then spent on Swiss salaries. Well the Swiss government gets to tax that, but the money never went anywhere near the USA, so the US doesn't get any. If you count all that money you can arrive at very low apparent tax rates, but it's just a fantasy.
ObDisclaimer: I work for Google and don't think there are any issues with the way the company pays tax.
Re:France on strike by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-01-21 05:54 · Score: 1

0%? Since when?
Ireland is a 12.5% flat tax.
Besides, I think it would be somewhat arrogant to march on over to Ireland and forcibly change their tax laws without their say in the matter.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 07:11 · Score: 1

currently the top 100 richest people have enough money to be able to solve world poverty four times. redistribution is necessary. If it dopesn't happen soon, there will be blood.
Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 07:13 · Score: 0

that's 12,5 minus a lot of loopholes and deductions, which mean for some 0%.
Re:France on strike by euroq · 2013-01-21 12:27 · Score: 1

Google does not pay 12.5% tax in Ireland! LOL! Please google "Google tax evasion", "Google tax rate", and so on. They pay close to 0%, and apparently less than 0% in some jurisdictions. Some notable quotations you'll find:

The company reportedly uses complex tax schemes called the 'Double Irish' and 'Dutch Sandwich', which take large royalty payments from international subsidiaries and set up a shell corporation in countries with no corporate taxes, like Bermuda.
Another quote:

Google isn't alone among big corporate tax evaders moving profits to tax shelters abroad. Boeing, DuPont, Capital One and General Electric paid a negative U.S. tax rate in 2010, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Re:France on strike by euroq · 2013-01-21 12:50 · Score: 3

The tax rate is 22%. They actually pay close to 0%, and apparently less than 0% in some jurisdictions and points in time. This is their effective tax rate. My personal federal tax rate is over 30% but I always end up paying around 15%.

The company reportedly uses complex tax schemes called the 'Double Irish' and 'Dutch Sandwich', which take large royalty payments from international subsidiaries and set up a shell corporation in countries with no corporate taxes, like Bermuda.

Google isn't alone among big corporate tax evaders moving profits to tax shelters abroad. Boeing, DuPont, Capital One and General Electric paid a negative U.S. tax rate in 2010, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Now, I wholeheartedly agree with Google's response, "We're capitalistic and not confused about it." But you are either ignorantly ignoring reality, or maliciously distorting reality. Google is most certainly using complex schemes to avoid taxes. For example, Google is neither an Irish company nor a Bermudan company, yet that's what they're telling the IRS.

It's due to Americans going French all of a sudden and thinking that any money earned by any Google subsidiary anywhere in the world should be taxed by the IRS - even if that money was a Swiss Franc earned in Switzerland and then spent on Swiss salaries.

No, you are making that up in your head. Nobody's saying that. What "they" are saying is that Google makes billions of dollars in America, and pays 0% tax on that in America. Absolutely more of its income is made in America than in any other place, simply due to the size of the economy. And yet it pays close to 0% in taxes. Other businesses pay 15-35%, but not Google! And obviously other corporations do the Double Irish as I quoted, but Google is being called out above other corporations due to the Google motto, "Don't be evil".
Just so we're clear, I don't really think this is Google's "problem", it's the system's problem. And the "French way" of thinking money earned elsewhere requires taxes in France is neither logical nor sustainable. But don't distort reality, please.

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Re:France on strike by jbo5112 · 2013-01-21 13:45 · Score: 1

For starters, internation aid by governments creates terrible, horrific corruption. Secondly, some countries are starving because armed thugs tear up farms for fun, but giving them a couple months of food will cause even more damage to the local farming because you can't price compete against free. Third, taking away the rewards for producing jobs (how people usually get extremely rich) causes those producers to spend their efforts elsewhere. Have so many people forgotten the example of the USSR when you put the government in charge of wealth?
Re:France on strike by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 21:24 · Score: 0

I'm not your guy, buddy...
Re:France on strike by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 03:53 · Score: 1

It's from a South Park episode.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

And then... by MikeRT · 2013-01-21 02:40 · Score: 2

When the companies decide to not collect data on French citizens, the French government will bitch them out for drying up a revenue stream.

Re:And then... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:17 · Score: 0

How do you tell if the data you've collected is from french citizens or not?
The bigger problem, is that once this becomes taxable, it also becomes legal. Right now, it's a gray area of different shades for every country, meaning, that to some degree everyone has a little protection, but once it's legal ...
Re:And then... by sribe · 2013-01-21 03:46 · Score: 1

When the companies decide to not collect data on French citizens, the French government will bitch them out for drying up a revenue stream.
Yep. That would no doubt be the cue for lots of articles about the "tax evasion" the companies were engaging in...

Who shall I say is calling? by RichMan · 2013-01-21 02:47 · Score: 1

Book keeping nightmare. Anytime anyone tells anyone in the company their name or any details it would have to be logged.

Also some information is required for tax record purposes. Are they going to tax things required for the tax system. Crazy system.

All moral and ethical considerations aside... by russotto · 2013-01-21 02:47 · Score: 1

...it seems like any such scheme would cost far, far, far, more to administer than it could realistically obtain in revenue. And that's on both the taxpayer side and the government side. Can you imagine trying to audit this?

Re:All moral and ethical considerations aside... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:56 · Score: 0

Can you imagine trying to audit this?
Yes: "Give us all the personal data about our citizens that you have collected, so we can calculate the appropriate tax. Oh, and of course we won't use that data for other purposes ... no, the copy to the secret service is only for backup purposes. They have the big disks, you know?"
Re:All moral and ethical considerations aside... by Virtucon · 2013-01-21 04:18 · Score: 1

if bureaucrats could figure out how to tax you for air, they'd do it.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

More taxes! by emho24 · 2013-01-21 02:47 · Score: 1

Those Frenchies sure love their taxes.

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.

Here's an idea ... by ubrgeek · 2013-01-21 02:48 · Score: 2

Instead of being "frustrated that American technology companies that dominate its digital economy are largely beyond the reach of French fiscal authorities" try kickstarter-type projects encouraging your own folks to create France-based sites that can compete and dominate your own digital economy. If they're good enough then citizens of other countries might come to _your_ sites and you can charge whatever the heck you want.

--
Bark less. Wag more.

Re:Here's an idea ... by Archon-X · 2013-01-21 03:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hah! Doesn't work like that in France.
I've been here for the better part of 7 or 8 years now.
Simply put, France stifles innovation and invention. There's heaps of smart people here, but pretty much all of them leave as quickly as possible. Here's (my understanding of) why:
The very nature of France.
France is a socialist country. There are so many laws weighted against employers that running business is a nightmare.
Sick of working, and fancy a paid holiday? Stop working! As long as you continue t show up physically to work, your employer can't actually fire you (without you taking him to the cleaners in the worker's courts), so you'll be fired with benefits.
What's fired with benefits? Up to two years getting 80% of your old salary.. Why on earth would you want to work?
Double dip salaries
Employers pay 100% of what they pay in salaries on social contribution taxes. If you pay someone $100k per year, you're $200k out of pocket. And then the fucker stops turning up to work, and you can't fire them.
The 35 hour work week
France still has a notion & law that no-one should work more than 35 hours per week. Evidently, you can't get anything done as such - even the french agree, and most work more than this limit. However, for each hour you work over the 35 hour limit - you get back in holidays or overtime. I know people that get at least 2 months holiday per year.
Then, on top of all of this, you have the 'normal' corporate taxes, and then personal income tax.
Until a year or so ago, you also had a Excessive wealth tax - this wasn't just for stupidly rich people - most people who had a few houses as investment or ran a company got nailed by this. Each year, in addition to all other taxes you'd pay a percentage on top of the taxes, just because you had 'too much stuff'. This never stopped (ie, you'd pay taxes on the same things over and over) until you were no longer considered 'rich'.
The upshot of this is a massive skew in the taxation gradients. In France, it's actually smarter to earn less. If you've got a salary for 50k - you'll take home more than someone running a company that turns over millions - you are actively punished for your success.
Naturally, with all of this, employers don't care nor dare to innovate - they simply go overseas - and no need to go far. Spain, Luxembourg, Ireland - all have better corporate tax laws.
Where did everyone go?
Life sucks for employees, too. Employers are so used to getting fucked, that they take as much care finding employees as possible - typically filtering by degrees. It's gotten to the stage now that you cannot get a decent career without at least a master's degree in the precise field. And 5 year's experience in the workforce. At the same time.
When you do get your position, there's no vertical evolution: you're stuck in that position for life. The best you can hope for is slightly adjusting your position by hopping from company to company, and finding great workmates. Then, embittered by this fact, you either leave france, or you decide to go on a two year's paid holiday (see above)
Finally - and I believe this is the biggest factor - is France's groupthink about capitalism. On whole, it's detested. Earning money is taboo in France. Running a company is seen to be incredibly bad. You're labelled 'rich', and people can't wait to see you come down.
The government, and Holland especially, campaign hard on this sentiment, and each year promise to tax business even harder. Holland promised to raise company taxes and upper bracket earners even more.
This makes sense to the masses, who hate the idea of rich, because they'll never get there. The guys who do have companies, who are taxed to oblivion, after years of tax rises, simply leave the country or evade tax, because they've got the means to do it - and the entire country suffers as a result - and you end up with this.
Re:Here's an idea ... by mjwalshe · 2013-01-21 04:09 · Score: 1

you know that France has a tradition of national champions who are the most favored sons when it comes to government spending Bull still make mainframes for goodness sake
Re:Here's an idea ... by chaynlynk · 2013-01-21 04:15 · Score: 1

It's interesting that you point out the views on capitalism. Voltaire's Letters Concerning the English Nation remarked on this same sentiment. That was back in 1733, and it seems that has never changed.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:36 · Score: 0

Basically this. I live in France because of my partner and he gets well over two months vacation a year. The rest of your post is spot on as well. Personally i'm self employed which isn't so bad taxes-wise, but I sure as shit wouldn't want to own a business here. I'm just waiting for my partner to get sick of this shit so we can go back stateside. As soon as the US has gay marriage, that's what i'm going to insist we do.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 12:25 · Score: 0

And our beloved leader, Obama, would have us go down that same path. Yes, that's his real goal whether the people who voted for him believe it or not. Or maybe they're in agreement; it's hard to tell. The U.S. is basically doomed if we follow that man.
Re:Here's an idea ... by euroq · 2013-01-21 12:54 · Score: 2

So, just curious, why do you think France one of the richest economies in the world? 5th according to many different measurements.
I'm serious and I'm not trolling. I hear the socialist arguments against France all the time - such as those you just listed. Why is it still doing so darn well?

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 13:11 · Score: 0

I don't know.
It sounds like the average French worker is getting a better deal than the American worker who has to work 40+ hours a week for less pay, sometimes no-overtime benefits because they are salaried, crapy health care benefits, fired for any reason or no reason, no vaction or sick time and are often only paid as much as they government forces the company to pay.
Sure France sucks for the rich and innovation, but being an average wroker, it seems like they are getting a better deal in my opinion.
If by fate one day you became poor and and your only means of living was a minimum wage job, I'd argue that you would agree.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 13:51 · Score: 0

Sounds pretty good to me, you asshole.
Stifling innovation and invention Hahahah! Yes the only two things that get me up in the morning! Quality of life is what people want
you idiot. Not kowtowing to corporate interests who, incidentally, hugely stifle innovation and invention thru draconian intellectual property
laws.
The french aren't stupid (like you), they know they like to live the good life, France is for the French as they say and good on them, they've put themselves
at the centre of things as a Nation should.
You would have us all jumping through the hoops of the rich!
You are a stupid little cunt!
Re:Here's an idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 13:52 · Score: 0

they arnt.
they are pilling up debt.
the average person is poorer than in germany with less purchasing power.
france is mostly running off enormous wealth that was generated years ago.
frence people actually work more than germans even though the law says 35. more parents work in france .
the main reason is because almost all buisness has the government as a customer. so they can keep going so long as they keep giving the money back to who they taxed it off in the first place.
Re:Here's an idea ... by EdgePenguin · 2013-01-21 20:12 · Score: 2

they arnt.
Citation?

they are pilling up debt.
Not really: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/774/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/ French government debt is comparable to that of the UK and Germany as a % of GDP, and is lower than that of the US and Japan

the average person is poorer than in germany with less purchasing power.
True, but that is also the the case for the UK - which has a neoliberal, fuck-the-poor kind of government. Seems to me France is in no worse a position than the UK - arguably a better one since 2008 - and certainly here much bashing of the French economy is ideologically motivated, in order to shore up our own failed system by discrediting even mild deviations in economic policy. I suspect the same is true in the US. Certainly France has its economic problems, but I am highly skeptical of the view that its an economic basket case on the verge of collapse, because I've heard that view for 20 years and in all that time, France has basically kept up with the UK in economic terms, but without far less vicious attacks on the public sector.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Archon-X · 2013-01-21 20:19 · Score: 1

Well, replying to AC seems like a waste of time... but:
1. Actually, the SMIC (minimum wage) in france is not far from RMI / RSA (Not unempoyment benefits - fixed payments if you don't work. You can get unemployment benefits on top of that)
2. At no point did I say that social support structures were bad. Social support structures are good things. Taxes are good things. Everything in moderation, applied intelligently, is a good thing.
The reality is, social supports come from somewhere: typically, taxes. If a country does not support business and innovation, there's no "Big Business" to tax, and everyone suffers. There's a balance to everything, and in France, the balance skews in one direction.
If by chance one day you became poor, and you only had a minimum wage job, but suddenly you were paying increased taxes because your government had forced all business out of the country, I'd argue that you'd agree.
Re:Here's an idea ... by Rising+Ape · 2013-01-22 06:34 · Score: 1

France still has a notion & law that no-one should work more than 35 hours per week. Evidently, you can't get anything done as such - even the french agree, and most work more than this limit.
I can get plenty done in my 37.5 hour (excluding lunches) week. In fact, I'm noticeably less efficient and reliable towards the end of the day, so 35 hours sounds pretty much ideal.
What's the point in an efficient industrial economy if you still have to work just as much?

A tax on personal data? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:48 · Score: 0

What percentage of the data do they want?

Collection ha? by GeekWithAKnife · 2013-01-21 02:49 · Score: 2

Forget agreeing or even having an opinion. How exactly will they enforce this?

I this is supposed to be a collection of royalties due to tax loopholes why not fix the loopholes?

Why doesn't Hollande spearhead a movement to fix the loopholes instead of pursue specific companies for being clever?

If the previous system to tax corporations did not really work and their clever folk found ways to avoid paying taxes why is this new system such a better idea??

/facepalm

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.

Re:Collection ha? by ConfusedVorlon · 2013-01-21 03:24 · Score: 1

There isn't really a loophole here.
The reason Google doesn't pay much tax in France is that Google isn't really in France.
I make iPhone apps. My company makes a profit. I pay corporation tax in the UK because that's where I'm based.
I sell plenty of apps in France, but they don't get any tax from me (other than VAT which is managed by apple).
This is actually quite interesting. The interweb has enabled a whole load more large companies to do business globally without having significant local presence.
Governments don't like it when they can't get their 'share' of these offshore companies' profits...

--
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Re:Collection ha? by DickBreath · 2013-01-21 04:44 · Score: 1

How would France enforce this you ask?

Simple. All exchange of personal data must go through a government proxy. See how easy? Now everyone is happy.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Collection ha? by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 04:56 · Score: 1

I would think a simple solution would be to move all taxes to sales taxes and reimburse the working poor for some amount monthly.
I can't see a way to avoid that.

Not in its possession by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 02:53 · Score: 0

Governments shouldn't try to tax what they don't possess or control. It's like passing a tax on the consumption of oxygen or sunlight exposure. What people in other countries do with data is far beyond the control of the government of France.

Re:Not in its possession by buck-yar · 2013-01-21 02:56 · Score: 0

Google and the likes brought it upon themselves with their shady money laundering.
Re:Not in its possession by vlm · 2013-01-21 03:04 · Score: 1

Governments shouldn't try to tax what they don't possess or control.
What about the substantial costs of identity theft? Obviously it costs .gov "something" every time a database of personal and/or financial data gets stolen. The amounts are exceeding what judgment proof skript kiddies could ever pay back. So a company in the business of gathering data which will cost various levels of .gov a substantial amount of money when the corporation system of security via obscurity or security via intimidation fails. The .gov should be able to collect some tax if corporate activity is creating a liability for them. No different than various road tax schemes or numerous environmental taxes/fees/permits. Cleanup costs money.
I would totally support this taxation idea WRT gathering "identity theft" grade data.
Most .gov have a very imperial view of what they possess and control anyway, regardless of whatever patriotic PR freedom campaign they indoctrinate their youth with. All people withing the borders are subjects to be used at the whim of the state. All property is owned by the state, go ahead and try not paying your taxes and see what happens to "your" property.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Not in its possession by DickBreath · 2013-01-21 04:45 · Score: 1

Interesting. Please, tell me more about this money laundering that Google does. And who are "the likes"?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

French seeking taxes on personal info collected. by Artsie_ladie · 2013-01-21 02:57 · Score: 1

The question is, are the French people going to receive such monies collected? Granted, these big social media giants are benefiting from collecting personal data from their users, but if the French government then capitalises on them collecting, isn't the French government then guilty of the same? ..And wouldn't the French government then be plausibly seen as just positioning themselves to also get a "piece of the pie" they're slicing? O.o

--
"A person's true worth is by what is in their heart." ~ Artsie_ladie Â©

Corporate Tax Avoidance by Luthair · 2013-01-21 03:03 · Score: 1

Focusing on Internet companies is stupid, all multi-nationals are avoiding paying appropriate taxes, close the loopholes that they're all using don't single out a particular industry.

Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by Virtucon · 2013-01-21 03:23 · Score: 1

Exactly. Corporations will establish whatever corporate presence is necessary to avoid taxation. Recently I came across this. It seems that United and American Airlines have been using an office park location as the receiving location for fuel, avoiding transit taxes that are imposed in Chicago. Presumably all of the fuel received here is used at Chicago O'Hare (ORD) airport. I doubt that the tankers will fit in the parking lot.
While I'm not on the tax the wealthy bandwagon, I find it difficult to imagine how convoluted some of these schemes that corporations (and wealthier individuals) have concocted just to avoid paying a few bucks in tax.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 03:29 · Score: 1

So you move your servers to where tax is lowest. Then you pay the appropriate tax in that country. Now what?
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:52 · Score: 0

Or, don't bother trying to tax corporations. Let them do whatever they need to do to grow and expand, because that's good for everyone.
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:31 · Score: 0

I find it difficult to imagine how convoluted some of these schemes that corporations (and wealthier individuals) have concocted just to avoid paying a few bucks in tax.
Oh no, Chicago loses out on some tax revenue and an outlying suburb gets more tax revenue (but not as much as Chicago would demand), the horror the horror.
Also, it's never "a few bucks in tax," if United and AA have decided to rent office space outside of Chicago to use as a fuel relay point for tax purposes, that means that the savings exceed the cost of the ofice location, local taxes, and any added transportation costs by more than the amount of additional taxes for taking it straight to Chicago. If you read that article, the 1.5% (of product value) tax difference is estimated at near half a million dollars annually.
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by tnk1 · 2013-01-21 06:28 · Score: 1

No, you can tax corporations, just keep the scheme simple and the rate reasonable. Just keeping taxes and regulations simple makes it possible for corporations to spend less on administrative tasks. Additionally, it allows smaller businesses to remain in business because they don't get regulated into oblivion.
A company I know of was recently acquired by another one. They were doing okay, but not profitable. Then the acquiring company came in and realized that the first company was a profitable company once they stripped off all of the regulatory BS that a public company has. Of course, the acquiring company is a public company as well, but since it already has the reporting and accounting, buying the first company and removing the regulatory BS and the executives instantly took the business they acquired profitable.
While I am not pretending that all regulation is bad, more regulation and more complex regulation does encourage larger and larger corporations. Those corporations, in turn, become large enough that they eventually are able to take alternatives like moving overseas.
Governments need to encourage smaller businesses for many reasons, firstly, because it evens out income disparities (more upper middle class, fewer mega-rich), and second, because they can keep smaller businesses local. Although there will always probably be megacorps with us, just de-complicating the tax codes would probably do more for income disparities than redistributive taxation ever could, because in the attempt to regulate the activity of large corporations, the government actually makes it harder to be a small corporation as well.
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by Luthair · 2013-01-21 12:50 · Score: 1

You're taxing the profits made in the country, what you're describing is the current situation: companies offshore their profits to post office boxes in tax havens like Ireland.
Re:Corporate Tax Avoidance by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 13:28 · Score: 1

So where are the profits made? Where the service is consumed, or where the servers are, or where the intellectual property is owed? Traditionally its been the first, where its consumed, that most of the tax has been paid. When it comes to IP, and virtual services, its one of the later two, or a combination there off. Now, those will move to where the taxes and the costs are cheaper. ie. Companies will try and maximise their profits. Countries will try and extract as much cash as possible out of consumers, or investors such as pensioners. Now I don't have a problem with maximising profits, I do have an issue with countries trying to squeeze until people are dry. It's not productive and it does more harm than good. However, what's going on now is that countries for these products can't squeeze, so they are squealing about how unfair it is. You won't give us lots of money so we can spend it. The game has changed. It's got benefits, but it also has problems. What it does is expose countries debts, all their debts. The hidden ones can't be paid, and for people reliant, either by choice or because they have been forced to be, on the state, to massive problems. The state can't pay them, and they will bear the brunt of taxation. It's not the companies fault, its people running Ponzi pensions that's the underlying cause of what's going to happen

Re:the french by lookatmyhorse · 2013-01-21 03:07 · Score: 1

I'm not fan of France, but let's be fair and blame the politician and her crew that proposed the law instead of the other 65 million french.

They Can Do It! by Greyfox · 2013-01-21 03:07 · Score: 1

If anyone can find a way to tax that, it'll be the French! They've been taxing my patience for years now!

I kid, because I love, France...

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:They Can Do It! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-01-21 09:06 · Score: 1

They've been taxing my patience for years now!
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a tax on patience would be Hollande's next Taxe du Jour. He can't raise the taxes of everyone all at once, because then everyone would be pissed off at him. So instead, he is targeting many small groups, with many different taxes.
Everybody like a tax that somebody else pays. Tax the rich? Sure, it only hits the rich! The "Nutella Tax"? No, I am not kidding, this is also a new one. Well, that depends on if you eat Nutella or not. Another targets people who rent apartments.
So the question is, how long will it take for the French to realize, that they are all paying more taxes in the long run . . . ?
American technology companies should not take it personally. Hollande is just doing to them, what he is doing to the rest of the folks in France.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

European data protection law by StripedCow · 2013-01-21 03:08 · Score: 1

Slightly offtopic, but I'm wondering. According to the European data protection law, every individual has the right to get a copy of all personal data a company holds about him or her. This was in the news some time ago regarding Facebook. Any user can order a CD with all information being stored about him or her. Does this law also apply to Google? And if so, has anybody yet attempted to retrieve this information?

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:European data protection law by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-01-21 03:41 · Score: 1

Slightly offtopic, but I'm wondering. According to the European data protection law, every individual has the right to get a copy of all personal data a company holds about him or her. This was in the news some time ago regarding Facebook. Any user can order a CD with all information being stored about him or her. Does this law also apply to Google? And if so, has anybody yet attempted to retrieve this information?
Yup, Facebook got so innudated with requests that they couldn't keep up. Apparently you get a CD with a PDF that typically weighs in at over 1000 pages and in excess of 100mb. Many people are shocked by the amount of data Facebook has collected which I find hard to understand since FB isn't even trying very hard to hide the extent of their surveillance.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:European data protection law by StripedCow · 2013-01-21 03:48 · Score: 1

Interesting. But actually, I was asking specifically about Google.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:the french by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:17 · Score: 1

Rational AND reasonable thought!?

you must be new here.

All governments are stupid by rossdee · 2013-01-21 03:22 · Score: 1

They can't tax data on the internet - because the internet extends beyond their jurisdiction.

Re:All governments are stupid by EmagGeek · 2013-01-21 03:57 · Score: 1

The US Government imposes an income tax on all of its citizens, even if they do not work within the legal jurisdiction of the United States.
So, clearly there is nothing jurisdictional preventing France imposing this tax. If the US can do it, so can everyone else.
Re:All governments are stupid by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 05:01 · Score: 1

No, it does not.
Only those whose income exceeds $91,400 for 2009, each following year has been higher.
This is to prevent rich folks from claiming their income in another nation as a tax dodge.
If you are in a nation with a tax treaty with the USA you may also deduct any tax you paid to that nation.
Re:All governments are stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 06:17 · Score: 0

Okay, so there's no real need to be a pedant and make a point that is irrelevant.
So yes, there is a small exemption to the rule, but the point was that the US reaches beyond its legal jurisdiction to impose a tax on people doing something that doesn't have anything to do with the United States.
What the fuck has happened to Slashdot that there can't be any rational discourse anymore? It's all a bunch of Internet warriors trying to look big and bad from mom's basement?
I'm sick of it.
Re:All governments are stupid by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 06:26 · Score: 1

An exemption that would make most people not pay any tax is a small one?
The US is not reaching past is legal jurisdiction if it require something of one of its own citizens. Nations due that all the time.
What I miss is people creating accounts and then replying with comments that make sense. Not bellyaching about being totally wrong.

Tax the citizens by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:23 · Score: 0

They're the ones getting on the internet and directing data streams out of country...

My experience with France by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-01-21 03:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to work in the US office of a French company. Our subsidiary was not well known in North America, but it was well known in Europe and some other places. I have a real love/hate relationship with the French. On one hand, there's a lot to like about the country and its culture. On the other hand, the bad stuff that makes you, as a foreigner, hate them is really bad. They are very difficult people to make meaningful friendships with. My experience is that they are really good actors and excel at pretending that you and your friendship is important to them, but in reality, not so much. Almost every American I know who moved over there to work in one of our 2 main offices in France got discouraged with the whole thing and eventually moved back pretty jaded about the experience. The French will look out for their countrymen above all others. They may not say it, but yes, they do think that everybody in the world who is not French is inferior to them. This is one of the reasons that they look to target foreign companies like this. In their heart of hearts, they just don't respect foreign companies.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in French politics, but they've had a lot of bad choices for leadership in recent years. Le Pen scared everybody by making it to the final round of the elections and basically everybody had to vote for Sarkozy. Sarkozy seems to be fairly smart, but he's got a huge ego and he kept making the news for things that had nothing to do with politics. Sarkozy pissed off just enough voters that coupled with Francois Hollande's campaign of "Let's tax the rich so everybody can retire early!", Hollande won. Hollande seems to be a bit out of touch with modern realities and he seems to think that he can simply tax the rich and they'll willingly pay and he can restore the old welfare state that made it impossible to fire French citizens and let people retire at age 60. A good number of French citizens are probably out of touch with reality too since they voted for him. So given that Hollande has an unrealistic goal that requires raising vast amounts of money and the French don't really respect foreigners anyway, going after foreign companies seems obvious. If I remember correctly, some years ago when Ebay got in trouble in France for not blocking listings of Nazi memorabilia, the original French government argument was that Ebay couldn't allow such items to be sold anywhere in the world before they backed down to only asking them to block such in France. So it's no surprise to me at all that France thinks they can tell Google, etc. to pay up and they'll do it.

Re:My experience with France by dkleinsc · 2013-01-21 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

They may not say it, but yes, they do think that everybody in the world who is not French is inferior to them.
See, that's the difference between the Americans and the French: The Americans think that they're better than everyone else, and say it loudly and proudly!
As far as dumb political choices go, the Americans elected and re-elected George W Bush. Enough said.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:My experience with France by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:52 · Score: 0

USA #1!
Re:My experience with France by NeutronCowboy · 2013-01-21 05:30 · Score: 1

hey are very difficult people to make meaningful friendships with. My experience is that they are really good actors and excel at pretending that you and your friendship is important to them, but in reality, not so much.

Conversely, coming to the US after having grown-up in France, I found that it's really easy to get to know Americans, but real friendship is very hard to come by, and very hard to identify. As an example, it took a while to understand that "come by any time you want!" means "double- and triple-check before you make any decisions involving us, because we'll probably flake on you."

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:My experience with France by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 06:11 · Score: 0

The object of voting is to elect the person most people was as President. By that measure, Americans did not elect George W. Bush the first time (in 2000). More people voted for Al Gore than George Bush, but the electoral college system gives more weight to votes in smaller states than large states, and thus Bush was declared the winner.
A presidential voter in California is worth around one fifth of a presidential voter in a small state like Wyoming, despite the fact that California has more electoral college representatives than any other state.
Re:My experience with France by mjr167 · 2013-01-21 06:41 · Score: 1

You are mistaken. The electoral college was created because the founding fathers did not trust the American people to elect the correct person for president. The objective is not and never has been to elect the person the most Americans want as president, but to elect the person the political elite feel should be president.
Re:My experience with France by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 10:10 · Score: 0

This isn't 1776. Whatever the reasons for selecting the electoral college were, it is an anachronism now.
We trust the people to vote and the object of any government election is to select the the person most people want to govern. Clearly the electoral college can distort the people's will. How different would the last 12 years have been if Al Gore had been allowed to take his rightfully earned place as president.
Re:My experience with France by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 13:58 · Score: 0

They are very difficult people to make meaningful friendships with. My experience is that they are really good actors and excel at pretending that you and your friendship is important to them, but in reality, not so much. Almost every American I know who moved over there to work in one of our 2 main offices in France got discouraged with the whole thing and eventually moved back pretty jaded about the experience.
It's much more likely that you are just an asshole and so are your friends.
Yes, let's not tax the rich, that's the old way. You know, the way that builds a wealthy successful society like America was in the 50's.
You're either igonorant or a selfish little prick that just wants low taxs for yourself and screw everyone else.
Re:My experience with France by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 15:48 · Score: 0

+1 as another French living in the US for 20+ years
Re:My experience with France by euroq · 2013-01-21 16:17 · Score: 1

That's a possibility. It's true that some of the founding fathers may have thought that - there were many debates about republics and direct democracies. But it also clearly a product of making a democracy work in a huge, rural land where it could take months for people to travel to Washington, D.C.
It's definitely an anachronism today, no matter the root causes.

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Re:My experience with France by mjr167 · 2013-01-22 01:08 · Score: 1

If we wanted a popular vote, after 200+ years, don't you think we would have abolished the electoral college by now?
It also becomes a question of if you think power should reside with the states or the federal government? Are we one country, or are we a federation of united states? Anywhere else in the world, the world "state" means an independent government. If you believe that the state should hold the power, not the federal government, then you want the electoral college so that each state can speak. If you see the states as little more than an address, then you want a popular vote.
Re:My experience with France by euroq · 2013-01-22 20:03 · Score: 1

If we wanted a popular vote, after 200+ years, don't you think we would have abolished the electoral college by now?
No, I don't. It's very hard to change, 50% of Americans don't even vote, and it would require a lot of people who benefit from it to decide to give it up.

It also becomes a question of if you think power should reside with the states or the federal government? Are we one country, or are we a federation of united states? Anywhere else in the world, the world "state" means an independent government. If you believe that the state should hold the power, not the federal government, then you want the electoral college so that each state can speak. If you see the states as little more than an address, then you want a popular vote.
This isn't a good metaphor. Even if you think 95% of the power should be with the states vs. 5% with the federal government - e.g. if you believe states should have all the power - that doesn't have anything to do with how the federal government is elected.
Here's another way of thinking of it. Imagine a small state with two counties. They are two completely separate counties with separate jurisdictions within the state. They both vote for their state government. There's two ways those counties could vote for their state government - by electoral college or by popular vote. Why should the voting power of one county be less than the other? Why shouldn't each person's vote count the same? This is an independent question of how they divide the laws and jurisdictions of their counties and of their state.

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.

whack-a-mole by Frankie70 · 2013-01-21 03:28 · Score: 1

What France and the rest of the European Union Countries have to do is enforce a change in Ireland tax laws.

What about the next country which then establishes the same tax laws as Ireland - it may not be in the EU? What then?

This will turn out to be a game of whack-a-mole.

Re:whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:31 · Score: 0

If that country is not in the EU you can designate it as a tax haven and impose all kinds of sanctions on them... unless that country turns out to be switzerland.
Re:whack-a-mole by IamTheRealMike · 2013-01-21 05:12 · Score: 1

So you're advocating economic warfare against any country that has different taxation policies to your own? How would you like to suddenly find you can't import iPhones because China decided to raise taxes above your countries own rates and decided the EU is a tax haven?

The New York Times experience by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 03:36 · Score: 0

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/gdgdv.png

Stupidity not required for politics, but it helps by markhahn · 2013-01-21 03:42 · Score: 1

These fuzzy-thinking idiots. The only law we should have about privacy is to create ASTRONOMICAL penalties for publishing false information about anyone.

My grocer knows I have a weak spot for, say, pistachios, good chocolate and broccoli (separately, please.) This is fact. Their sales records illustrate it. Of course, it might be my wife who is the broccoli fiend, but they might be able to figure it out one way or the other. If there is a strong secondary market of people willing to pay for information about nut/desert/vegetable preferences, I say: go ahead, sell my info. It IS NOT A PRIVACY THING - it is at best an anonymity thing. If you wanted, you could pay a PI to follow me around, and watch my grocery habits. That's legal and always has been, regardless of whether it's creepy and boring. The only problem is if you publish as a fact that I prefer cauliflower over broccoli, then you should be made to suffer for your lie. Once I start being inundated by offers for premium-grade cauliflower (or, I suppose cheap/bulk cauliflower), you might also get in trouble with your info broker, since they paid for cauliflower info that you lied about. (The invisible hand can provide you with incentive to keep your vege-lies within some bounds - otherwise, info brokers will no longer pay you. But the law should give me an even bigger stick to bop you on the nose with, since I care a may great deal about my vege-reputation...)

Quite the opposite by NotQuiteReal · 2013-01-21 03:43 · Score: 2

Services, which are basically delivered electronically, can't be taxed.? Of course services can be taxed. Take a look at your phone bill, water bill, cable bill or any other "service" you get. Oh, and what about that "sales tax" for downloading an MP3 from Amazon (in some jurisdictions).

Technically, these companies don't make money "collecting personal information", that is actually an expense they occur. They only make money if they sell something, and that is already taxed. However, the gist of the bulk of the nickleaton post is corrrect - this is about broke government casting about for money to throw at ill-conceived spending they have obligated themselves to.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 03:59 · Score: 2

It's both. You can't remove the motivation from the tax. The motivation is, we're desperate for money, primarily because they've been cooking the books. Pensions debts aren't recorded. Service taxes can always be avoided. I can buy from wherever I want in the EU. I can buy an MP3 from the USA if I want. It doesn't matter where I buy, location doesn't matter for these sorts of services. Quality doesn't change. So its just down to price. Phone bill - depends on local infrastructure, either fixed line or mobile. That can be taxed. Cable bill - ditto Water bill ditto. Software? Nope. MP3? nope. Web services? Nope. You're confusing goods which are what the economists call non-tradeable with goods and services that are. So going forward you're going to see taxes on the non-tradeable goods. Stuff that depends on infrastructure that's fixed, or things like property (mobile homes exempted), restuarants, that can't be moved. Likewise with the rich. They will move their assets, put them into companies, and you can only tax where the company is, not where the shareholders are. You can certainly tax the income part, but the rest you can't. So the rich will just pay themselves what they spend. ie. You only get taxed on spending. It's a trend and its happening. Taxes will move to consumption taxes. Taxes on capital, and taxes on income won't be effective. Now taxes on consumption hit the poor, and since the states can't support their current set up on current taxes, let alone their debts. its going to be very rough.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 04:48 · Score: 1

You can surely tax shareholders. A property tax applied on shares could do that.
The poor can be reimbursed for their consumption taxes, if reducing impact on them is desired.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Shares where? UK can tax UK shares. UK can't tax non uk companies So what happens when the company pays a dividend equal to the spending of the rich person. They pay tax on the dividend, which is their spending after tax. End result, they don't get taxed on their entire earnings, because the earnings are the companies. Now I can see your response. Ah, we tax share ownership. We make it penal to own shares. Not without considerable side effects, but the rich just put the ownship into trust, and its game over. That's the way the game has been played and will be played more and more. So countries are going to have to resort to taxing consumption, and non-tradeable goods. However, that won't substain current spending, or service the debts. So its defaults. How can the poor be reimbursed when they don't have the money to re-imburse them? Ah they can print it. Perhaps that's the plan. The problem is that the off the book debts that the poor are so dependent on, welfare and pensions, are inflation linked. You can't print your way out of inflation linked debt. So its going to be default, and that hits the poor. It's pretty dire, but the root cause is states running a Ponzi, rather than the people paying 50% plus of their income and then being denied services.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 05:55 · Score: 1

I was talking about taxing share ownership with a property tax. I was not suggesting their would be no repercussions only that it could be done. Why would trusts not be taxed?
I would imagine the money to reimburse the poor would come from the sales tax itself.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 06:54 · Score: 1

Trust A owns company B, registered in country C, Trust pays income to a person in country D. D can get the tax on the income. However D cannot tax the trust, because its not in the county. Neither can it tax B, the company for the same reason. It can't tax the person for the ownership of the shares, because they don't own the shares, the trust does. You might as well ask how can North Korea tax Apple for their profits in the USA.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:04 · Score: 1

I would imagine the money to reimburse the poor would come from the sales tax itself. ============= Well, take the UK, so its all in GBP 1.1 Trillion borrowing. 5.3 trillion off the books debts. Primarily pensions, and just for the pensions where people have paid up front, (not pensions resulting from future payments), or pensions associated with people who have worked for the government - deferred pay. The rest is PFI, which is debt deliberately maniplated off the books. Plus expected losses on guarantees, and nuclear decommissiong where the companies paid up front, for the government to undertake the work. About 7 trillion in total. Taxes at 550 bn a year. 0.55 trillion. Government spending at 0.7 trillion The current position is unsusbtainable. They are bust. So whose is going to lose. 1. People dependent on the state. That's the poor, who receive redistributions of money, primarily because they are taxed too much to live off what they are allowed to keep. 2. People forced to save with the state for their pensions. That's ex state workers, and the poor again. They haven't enough to live off, yet they are still taxed for that pension. It pays out about 20% of the value of payments. The rest has been redistributed, or spent on other things. Since that's a pretty unpleasant cocktail, the state will try and tax its way out. That won't work. The UK has lost 10,000 out of the 16,000 million a year earners in one year. France is haemoraging the wealthy because it said, we will tax you at 75% on income, then welfare on the rest, and a wealth tax to boot. Remember, the EU says freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. You would have to derogate from the treaties to prevent capital flight. ie. The politicians of the country would have to say, we won't allow you to leave unless you hand over your money. It can be done legally, but it reeks of the third reich.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 07:06 · Score: 1

You are not making much sense here.
Country D taxes the person based on the property they own via the ownership of the trust. That person is in their country.
If North Korea wants to it can tax Apple on profits made in the USA, if Apple wants to be able to operate in North Korea. That is the sort of things nations gets to do if you want to operate in their territory.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:18 · Score: 1

With a trust, they don't own the shares or the company. A trust is a completely separate legal entity. If a trust is set up in your favour, you don't own anything in it.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 07:20 · Score: 1

I was literally suggesting raising the tax to the point where that worked out. If that means crazy high sales tax, then that is fine if there is no other way.
Or you could get the rest of the EU to agree to this sort of tax structure.
Your options are basically at this point make the rich pay taxes or let the poor starve on the street.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:36 · Score: 1

No, its a bit more subtle. I'm saying that the payments that are going to have to be paid to pay out for past state debts, plus the existing spend exceeds GDP. What options do you have to solve that problem? It's going to be cuts, and tax rises. However, from the drop off in tax receipts, from the increases, I suspect even that won't work. Then people will take the Greek option. Greeks aren't paying taxes isn't the cause, its a symptom. Would you pay tax when you get no services? Would you pay tax when the people taxing you are the people responsible for the mess? The Greeks aren't paying because the state is mess, not vice versa. So I think its pretty dire. All because of a fraud hiding the debts off the books.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 07:38 · Score: 1

Who then owns the trust?
Would not the person it pays, be the owner?
If not, why not just tax the income?
Re:Quite the opposite by mosb1000 · 2013-01-21 07:41 · Score: 1

The poor can be reimbursed for their consumption taxes, if reducing impact on them is desired.
It's always better to simply not take their money in the first place.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 07:41 · Score: 1

When did the greeks every pay taxes?
I thought not paying them was a sport over there. They should never have been let into the EU to begin with.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:47 · Score: 1

Who owns the trust? It's pretty much the same question as saying, who owns you. A trust doesn't have owners. You don't have owners do you? You can tax the income that is given to the beneficiary. However, the trustees can have discression on how much to pay. So if the trust pays what the receipiant spends, and reinvests the rest, the reinvestment money is still the trusts. It's not going to be taxed, because its not the beneficiaries. Now if you think this is strange, this is how pension funds, investment trusts etc are set up. Invariable, they are in separate countries. The reason is that if the bank say goes bust, the liquidator can't go after the assets of the fund. It's happened in the past and people have lost out seriously. So the structure that gets used. Any problems there? What's the problem then with other people doing the same?
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 07:50 · Score: 1

Of course. Why would you play the game that says, pay your money, we will put it in our bank accounts, and you get nothing? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/9717973/George-Papandreous-mother-linked-to-550-million-Swiss-bank-account.html The 89-year-old mother of a former Greek prime minister has been reportedly linked to a Swiss bank account containing more €550 million (£446 million). =========== Yep, on a civil servants wages too.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 07:56 · Score: 1

I am a person a trust is not. That is like suggesting a company might not have an owner. Clearly this is some sort of legalized fraud.
Yeah, I do have a problem with this, not matter who does it.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 09:06 · Score: 1

Well, trusts are quite standard. Nothing to do with fraud. Almost all charities are set up as trusts. I presume you then think that they are bunch of fraudsters? Here's one. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ You could always accuse them of fraud. Pensions. Are the people saving in a pension a bunch of fraudsters? http://www.thepensionlawyer.com/pension_trusts.htm OK, remove the trust. Then as soon as someone has the misfortune to go on welfare, we can take their pensions. Someone goes bankrupt for whatever reason, say illness, you can take their pensions. Or they get into financial trouble, you can take their pensions and put them onto welfare. Lots of things can be legal entitities and not be a person. Companies can go to court, trusts can, people can. All can own things. What's the problem or is it that you want other people's money, or other companies money for your own purposes?
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 09:34 · Score: 1

Actually I am opposed to corporate personhood as well.
Who even has a pension anymore?
If I go bankrupt I am sure my 401k will be raided to pay my bills.
I want people to pay their fucking taxes, if they want to benefit from the society that creates. If you would rather not, feel free to move to Somalia.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 09:50 · Score: 1

The UK has a different set up. Unless you deliberately fund a pension, from the proceeds say of a fraud, creditors can't easily get access to a pension fund. It's because its in trust for the person's retirement. Likewise, when it comes to charities, in the UK and most of Europe, the money is put into trust. http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/documents/exempt_orgs.html gives a list of the sort of organisations in the US, that are analogous to trusts.
Re:Quite the opposite by h4rr4r · 2013-01-21 09:58 · Score: 1

So can they take that money when you cash it out?
If not, I would expect lots of bankruptcies the year before people retire.
Re:Quite the opposite by nickleaton · 2013-01-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Yes, It's a strategy, but I don't see many taking it. The reason being that if you've accumulated a significant pension, you've probably got other assets, property etc. So would you give up the property, just to get an asset you're going to realise anyway? However, there are people who drop money in, and then then go bust deliberately. In such cases the liquidator can go to a court in order to get the assets. It has some benefits for society. You can take a risk, knowing that you will be safe in retirement. Different from the US, but not outrageous.
Re:Quite the opposite by Alarash · 2013-01-21 20:20 · Score: 1

Google and Facebook don't make money "collecting personal information" ? Are you being serious ? That's their main goal. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all of the seemingly free features Google give me, but their goal is to make money by analyzing - and sell in some form or another - what I do with the said 'free services.'

Only a matter of time now by multicoregeneral · 2013-01-21 03:50 · Score: 1

For the last two years or so, the French have been extremely hostile, and Google has been tolerating it. But I think it's only fair to remember that Google does have its limit, and it has pulled out of countries before. China, for example, no longer has it's own Google. France is going exactly the opposite of what it needs to be doing. Rather than doing everything it can to try to get more money out of companies like Google, what it needs to be doing is incentivizing the development of local technology companies, which it's not doing. This whole fetish on taxing American innovation is harming the local technology ecosystem, and they're going to feel this one soon, when nobody in their right mind will want to do business in France.

--
This signature intentionally left blank.

Once it is taxed it is legal? by NotQuiteReal · 2013-01-21 03:52 · Score: 2

Not true, in the USA, you are taxed (among other things) on your "income", whether the source of that income is legal or not. If you fail to pay can go to jail if the IRS nails you for tax evasion, even if the criminal acts are not themselves prosecuted.

This is how a lot of organized crime is prosecuted - for the underlying money and tax crimes, not the drugs or activity that generated the money.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

C'est Formidable! by Jawnn · 2013-01-21 04:05 · Score: 1

This is genius, provided of course, that at least some of the revenues are funneled into the enforcement of privacy.

Stamps by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:16 · Score: 0

No don't tax it! The People-Things will throw English tea into the river! Make it so that you need a stamp and then not make the stamp, the last people that tried that never had any backlash! It's a perfect idea!

France violating it's own laws by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:33 · Score: 0

Any mechanism sufficiently obtrusive enough to determine whether a personal information transaction has occurred will, almost certainly, violate European Union privacy laws that France is a signatory to.

If you get too cold by rickb928 · 2013-01-21 04:34 · Score: 1

They'll tax the heat.

Taxman

Winning.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Advertising Gross Receipts Tax by aaarrrgggh · 2013-01-21 04:52 · Score: 1

Much more effective to impose a gross receipts tax on all advertising revenue.

This is quite surprising indeed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 04:55 · Score: 0

[...] the report described data as the "raw material" of the digital economy.

... I always thought the raw material was bad grammar and kittens.

Lighten up François. by Andy+Prough · 2013-01-21 05:11 · Score: 0

Somebody had to say it.

Facebook and google DO have business in france by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 05:34 · Score: 1

You all are saying that fabeook and co have no business in france and tehrefore cannot be taxed. WRONG. They sell their data on their user and advertising to french company. Therefore they have business in France. And will have to either pay or stop selling any data taken from french citizen to french firm. And the french firm WILL NOT BUY. they would make them liable to use illegal data, and you may not realize but the CNIL and other group would see that with a very bad eye. The french firm would have to literaly stop any business with google and facebook and whoever. Meaning google would literraly lose the french market. Would you lose a whole market out of principle to avoid to pay a tax smaller than the profit ? Maybe you would. But google and facebook have investor and stocks folk which would immedaitely kick them in the ass for forgoing benefit. Just sayin'.

Re:Facebook and google DO have business in france by euroq · 2013-01-21 16:35 · Score: 1

How exactly can you correlate the data transferred through the networks of France that is related to Google-specific data, to the point of sale of an advertising sale with AdSense? Think about it - a French business buys advertising services on Google for $100. What exactly do you tax that $100 when you "tax data"? What counts as data to be taxed? Only the data related to the advertising? That is probably a paltry amount of data compared to everything else. But then how do you count everything else if it's just done for free? How in the heck do you measure which data you're taxing - everything coming from www.google.fr?
It seems viable to tax the $100 service purchase based on something related to that service. But I don't see how the data going in and out of networks in France can be taxed without some illogical injustice such as "We know you're big, but we cannot know how much - give us $50!".

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.

FTFY by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-01-21 06:22 · Score: 1

As far as dumb political choices go, the American Supreme Court elected and rigged voting machines re-elected George W Bush.

FTFY

Re:FTFY by dkleinsc · 2013-01-21 07:29 · Score: 1

Yes, some stuff was almost definitely rigged. It shouldn't have been so close that the rigging mattered.
For example, if the voters in 2000 had weighed the answer to "Is this candidate an idiot?" as being more important than "Is this candidate running for the party I've supported for the last 30 years?", I'm reasonably certain the outcome would have been very different. You can see the reason why by making proper use of a Google fight.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 12:33 · Score: 0

And then they rigged it so Obama would win because many people would fall for the "hope and change" thing when, in fact, everybody ends up hoping for change instead. Different person in the big seat, same BS. And same clowns in congress too which makes it even worse...
God I love this country!!!!!!!!

Complete the Circle by Jetra · 2013-01-21 06:27 · Score: 1

While I'm wholeheartedly against paying for information on myself, I do, however, believe that the country needs to make money somehow. In high school, when I lost my ID, I paid $20 for a new one. I lost it again and paid another $20. Every time I lose my library card, they added a dollar to the next time it would cost me. Does it bother me? No, not at all because I'm giving back into the system.

So, when information becomes free, who gets to eat? You take money away from your country which pays for the farms for the food, you take money away from people who have made things like video games and music. Eventually, it comes back to bite us in the ass because the Circle of Economy somehow became a line with no end, heading downwards ever so slowly. So, maybe it's time we start closing these circles, possibly fixing the economy in several places.

France, just make the taxes reasonable and I'm sure it'd work out fine.

Standard Negative Externality Solution by Bob9113 · 2013-01-21 06:32 · Score: 1

Seems like they fell bass-ackwards into it, blind squirrel finding a nut with the wrong motive, but the answer itself is close to the theoretical ideal. Centralized silos of personal information are profitable and have a negative externality(*). Economic theory has an answer for that; taxation. You internalize the externality, the transactions become more efficient, and the system becomes more productive. I'm not saying they know what they're doing, but it is the textbook answer to maximizing the productivity of a system that includes externalities.

* There are others, but here is one quick example of the external cost: The network effect causes the value of social internet services (including social data mining) to increase faster than linear WRT quantity, making such services naturally anti-competitive.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Let's raise the level: Here is the reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 06:49 · Score: 0

I am french so as an arrogant son of a ... I know, it's in my genes.
The tax is to compensate on the lack of tax income on assault weapons and guns in general.

Come on people get real.
If facebook decided your data is worth so much, why not make some money from it (since they do after all)?
If Google can charge based on click (even when the mouse is in France), why not make money from it (the mouse is already taxed)?
Double Irish arrangement anyone?
That's the issue here.

Running out of "other people's money" to spend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 07:40 · Score: 0

Margaret Thatcher said it best, "Socialism has a problem, eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." The French are obviously desperate to tax everything the walks, flys, swims or crawls. I think it's laughable, because they are essentially doubling-down on a deeply flawed (and nearly bankrupt) system of laws and regulations.

Vive le liberte

That's not what money is. by mosb1000 · 2013-01-21 07:50 · Score: 2

currently the top 100 richest people have enough money to be able to solve world poverty four times.

No they don't. Poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Money is only representative of value. The richest 100 probably don't consume enough rice to feed the worlds starving (I certainly hope not, anyway). And even if they did, there is little reason to believe taking it from them would mean being able to give it to the poor.

If you were to take all the money from the richest 100, and give it to the poor, or spend it on the poor, or whatever, all you would get is rampant inflation.

Le Pen vs Sarko? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 10:38 · Score: 0

ROFL... that would be a race to see. It was Le Pen - Chirac.

Not even close by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 14:21 · Score: 0

If you took all the wealth of the world, it wouldn't pay the U.S. debt.

Why stop there? by accessbob · 2013-01-21 14:39 · Score: 1

Let's tax bad service too.

Just imagine, ISPs being billed for tax every time they fail to answer a call to tech support within a reasonable time. Or M$ being billed for their bugs.

We would either clear the national debt, or get the service we were promised. What's not to like?

France is losing its 5th world-power status... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 14:45 · Score: 0

By the end of Hollande's first presidential mandate France shall have lost its status of "world's 5th biggest power in the world" ("5e plus grande puissance du monde) to Brazil, which shall have a bigger GDP.

If Hollande is re-elected for another five years, France may be out of the G8! (that is losing three more spots in terms of GDP)

These numbers are very concerning. That is socialism for you. That is what socialism does to a country: when 56% of your GDP comes from the state, hardly anything good comes out of it.

People don't want to work there anymore: why work? Private companies are so taxed that they can't offer much more than the minimum legal wage. So why word when unemployment state benefits are nearly equal to the minimum wages?

And why try to create anything there? You're taxed like crazy and should you succeed you'd be regarded as a "traitor" and seen as "evil" for driving in a nice car, having a bigger house than your neighbours, etc.

It's really a pathetic mindset that socialist mindset.

So what's going on now? Well, what Tatcher noticed: "The problem of socialism is that at one point you run out of other people's money".

There's no more money and investors and entrepreneurs are demotivated. Some are even leaving the country to go create wealth in places where they'll be rewarded and highly regarded for doing so.

President Hollande said himself that he "hates the rich". And of course he hates Google. He hates everything that is seen as a form of power that is not socialist-state power.

And he badly wants to keep the nanny state alive so I'll do anything he can to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

The country is going to be bankrupt soon if he keeps on heading in this full-socialist direction. So he tries to find money wherever he can and tries to distract its public opinion from the fact that bankruptcy is looming.

Which better target than the "evil american private companies"?

It's sad. And it's sader that there are so many socialo-commies on /.

Re:Stupidity not required for politics, but it hel by euroq · 2013-01-21 16:20 · Score: 1

That's very insightful. But what is a "privacy thing" to you, then? Are you saying there's no such thing as a right to or expectation of privacy?

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Not so by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-21 17:51 · Score: 0

Facebook or Google deliver services to France people. The raw material is the data of a french. Irrespective of where their servers are, France has a right to collect tax on their digital raw material. If an Antarctic person access the Facebook, the digital information collected by Facebook can be purged by Facebook, if the company has no intention on serving the population of Antarctica & paying Antarctica's tax. BY the way Japan is taking iron ore from other countries & manufacturing cars & selling it to USA. But it is paying for the raw material.

Not a French Problem by AncalagonTotof · 2013-01-21 18:49 · Score: 1

OK, France is not perfect. I can tell, I'm French.
But this problem is not a French only problem. It's a problem of tax avoidance.
Few years ago, Sarkozy said "Tax heavens don't exist anymore". Seriously !?!?
So, why are Google, Amazon, etc, paying so little taxes ? In France only ?
Do you think they are paying these taxes in your magnificent United States of America ?
No, they're just paying a little as they can _everywhere_.

--
Totof

Not just France by japa · 2013-01-21 19:00 · Score: 1

You can pretty much say the same about Finland as you wrote on France. Envy is renewing energy which never runs out. I recall the days when Nokia was in its glory. Oh the envious talks about persons earning lot of money from their Nokia options or dividents. How that was most unjust thing on the world. Now Nokia is almost gone, I've yet to see any public comments how now things are better as there are no longer persons getting dividents or other bonuses from Nokia success. I only see the misery of X amount of tax money no more coming in and Y amount of jobs lost because Nokia is no longer successfull.

Besides, increasing taxes has never been a road to success. Soviet union tried 100% and see where they are now. Yes, they aren't.

Slashdot Mirror

France Proposes a Tax On Personal Information Collection

196 comments