Slashdot Mirror
France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay. France apparently has no interest in striking the same 'sweetheart tax' deal that put the UK into a critical light when it revealed that the search giant would pay only 130 million pounds of tax, a $181.18 million settlement, for over 10 years in multi-billion dollar trade in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I really do hope they get their money. These corporations play all manner of shell company games, offshore trickery, you name it just to avoid paying taxes. If you owe it, pay it. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars. I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion. More and more companies are doing this. I realize companies are beholden to the shareholders (sadly), but pay what you really owe. Stop with the tax tricks which are basically legal fraud.
Silicon Valley should try finding customers in Silicon Valley instead of just being a leech on France.
As usual, bad summary. The United Kingdom did not agree to pay anything. Google agreed to pay back taxes to the UK. The summary basically is saying that the UK agreed to pay back taxes to France. Way to go submitter and editor. That is clearly NOT what was meant.
in this case silicon valley has been a leech on many of the world's societies. Perhaps silicon valley should actually try paying what it legitimately owes instead of trying to use tax havens to leech off society.
France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google
According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google
Blimey. If it's slid that far between headline and summary, it'll be down to 0 by the morning.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I know the site has a pretty staunch libertarian lean, but its important to rememember: Google rakes in around 17 billion dollars per quarter.
france wants backtaxes for multiple years totalling ~2% of an entire years revenue.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
Your numbers are out more than just a little.... Google took in 74.15 billion in revenue in 2015. France isn't looking for 10% of Google's revenue. They are looking for back taxes over the period in which Google operated in France which looks to have averaged 1.2 billion euro over the past 5 years.
How much does it add up to, when you include late fees, compound interest, inflation, punitive damages, and the megacorp discount?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay.
The UK owed France taxes? What's that got to do with Google?
... it's converting to metric system.
Please tell me you are joking.
2025, boardroom of a start-up company looking on where to invest, where to find customers, and where to set up offices:
Chris: Hey Jo, I've been looking at our European customer base. We haven't really been targeting them but there seems to be a lot of interest. You think we should look into setting up offices there?
Jo: Really, we should have been doing it earlier. If we don't get a significant percentage of the worlds population using our system we can be too easily displaced.
Chris: You know tax rates are higher there don't you?
Jo: Yeah they are. But if we don't try to avoid taxes in those regions we can easily budget for them. Of course we could do what Google did and walk the grey line and then negotiate hard when they come after us.
Chris: Hmmmm I'll give that some thought. It could be good to have the extra cash early but we will need to budget for settlements and the risk associated with that.
There is NO WAY that an international company will ignore the second largest consumer population block in the world. None. Not a chance. Christ companies bend over backwards to operate in China and the Eurozone is bigger financially in total.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
As someone who grew up around a family member who parachuted into Normandy I certainly understand the sentiment. However how many of those deaths were due to the incompetence of English generals?
A joke I learned from the old paratrooper:
At the start of a mission briefing an officer asks his men what is the number one killer of paratroopers?
One of the men responds, "sir, its generals, usually your own."
The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?
First they want to be treated like people and now that they are...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Careful, ponder who you're dealing with. Governments tend to already HAVE hitmen. And they even operate legally within their borders.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait, what? Every businessman left France?
Wow, talk about an opportunity! No matter what market I want, I'd have a monopoly! Sure, tax is high, but hey, pass it on to the customer, who gives a shit about taxes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls.
Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?
Just as an aside, my Father was at Dunkirk in 1940 in the BEF and had nothing but praise for the French. Americans joke about them being "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", but if the French 2nd Army hadn't fought on alone and unsupported for 2 days, my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there.
They war almost certainly wouldn't have been lost if you're father had been captured. The war wouldn't have even been lost if *all* of them had been captured. They were the ground soldiers. I guess you could say that the captured wouldn't have been in N. Africa but there were still plenty of troops if you look at the numbers.
To put N. Africa into scale and WWII numbers, the surrendering Germans were something like 225,000 - in pretty much one go. Would it have been tougher? Maybe, but probably not a hell of a lot. The folks from Dunkirk only made up something like 1/8 of the N. African soldiers.
Also, any American who holds such views about France is an idiot. We have our country because of France and some might say that gift cost the leader's heads. If they hold those views, they have no idea about WWII. If they hold those views, they sure as hell know nothing of the French Foreign Legion. I am American, by the way.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
"IF" companies like this payed their fair share of tax the stock market wouldn't look as bloated plus that money would be injected into each countries economies, meaning better education, roads, welfare (not corporate welfare), health care, etc. There really is no excuse for "laws" that allow this type of tax avoidance and is the best thing for any country.
So can individual corporations that try to sidestep governmental demands. Google is a big player, no doubt about that, but in none of its business areas it holds a monopoly. Not even a de facto one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)
What they said, including the violence, is in-line with their beliefs. If nothing else, they're consistent and you've gotta respect that. They're sincere held beliefs which is a lot better than many have. Don't get me wrong, I think they're insane (but probably not retarded or stupid) and I think that anarchy will never reach the plateau that is assumed. I also think that capitalism doesn't reach a state of equilibrium on its own, much like all pure political or economic ideologies. (Government, like life, finds a way and there will be governance, even if just at the end of a barrel.)
So, yes... Yes I think they're horribly misguided and don't realize the horrible failure their ideology will result in - if implemented (we've seen it on small scales, it seldom works well). But... I do respect their consistency and that they're truly held beliefs - and that they're willing to take the guff that comes along with holding those beliefs. However, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm with you on the double taxation, and for many small businesses some of the money is even triple-taxed, after this owner spends WAY too much time dealing with way too much paperwork for many different kinds of taxes.
This part doesn't make sense to me, though:
> would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit
Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way.
Moreoever, with one company, they franchise tax and sales tax on the $100 in sales. By splitting, company A pays sales and franchise taxes on their $100 of sales AND company B has $80 of sales (to company A), which company B would then have to pay franchise and sales tax on. Splitting the company means they would pay MORE taxes, because they've created more taxable transactions.
"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was a one-off joke about an uneducated *Scottish* character's opinion of France when he was forced into the position of substitute French teacher. It was an obvious over-the-top exaggeration of the thousand year long cross-channel rivalry and, to my recollection, was not repeated on the show.
Imagine all the people...
Frenchmen, when led be either a female or non-frenchmen, make perfectly good soldiers. Their is something about the french male however, that when given authority at the rank of General or higher, turns their brains into swiss cheese.
You may think it is plenty. The rest of the world has had a gutful of large companies hiding profits in tax havens to leech money out of countries. The taxes they pay are a tiny fraction of what they should be paying and no this isn't just a google problem.
"The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?" - politicians!
it was the professional backbone of the army that made that force. My grand father who also fought in the rear guard at Dunkirk had nothing but praise for the French troops. The French farmers however a different story - he said they would rather spill the milk churns than allow the troops a drink.
(waits)
Fines won't help you
Praying won't do you no good
Fines won't stop them
Paying won't avoid further theft
When the Google steals, you must jail them now
Oh oh woah
Come back when you're serious.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Funny isn't it. For years Slashdot has been bashing the 1%ers and their parasitic ways, but when now it's one of theirs, suddenly it's everyone else's fault.
Fuck Apple, Google, Facebook etc. These leeches need to start contributing like the rest of us.
Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.
Maybe, but it gets constantly repeated by Americans because they enjoy making fun of French people (an inheritance of the French-English rivalry I suppose).
The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)
I'm afraid you're still wrong. You're right that roman - in spite of his claims to the contrary - is absolutely not a libertarian. However, he isn't an anarchist, either. In reality, he is actually a closet fascist.
He shared a little more of his inner views on Saturday, when he came out plainly in favor of slavery:
Black slaves were slaves because under law they could be owned not because capitalism somehow allowed some people to own others. It is a rational decision to put signs like that out if most of your profits come from a class of people that have much more money and power. Catering to the laws (implicit and explicit) and to the sentiment of the majority makes business sense.
slaves who only work enough not to be beaten and killed and who will not participate in the business, will not offer creativity and any particular interest (nor should they) vs free work force, free as in liberty
There is no anarchy in slavery. What is in slavery is fascism. Roman is a big fan of fascism, just not smart enough to realize that it will lead to his own destruction.
Americans just place far too much emphasis on WW II. Prior to that war France was seen as great power you didn't want to mess with. But while it's true individual French soldiers and units fought bravely and effectively, as a whole the French army did not live up to expectations in 1940.
France has serious economic problems This kind of stupidity on the part of the French government will only discourage investment in the country further and hurt them even more.
Obviously the Royal Navy could still have controlled the Channel, but a negotiated surrender would almost certainly have happened.
That still doesn't explain why more than half of American voters selected George W. Bush having already experienced four years of his presidency, nor why so many Republicans are currently choosing Donal Trump.
of course people all around the world prefer to buy from them, They can undercut all the local companies driving them out of business as they don't pay taxes and hence have a competitive advantage. yep I am sure that is what is best for everyone, a few rich companies collecting money without paying tax while all the local companies go broke putting everyone out of work. Your short sighted view of the world is sad, I am sure we would all be better off if none of us payed any tax and I am sure the governments would still be able to provide all the esential services.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
Only cos' there were less people back then.
Maybe Osborne did give Google money and then claim to the press that they had paid a "substantial" value in back taxes to the treasury.
I guess the Eton curriculum doesn't cover the correct use of "substantial".
It's not the only thing that factors in, but Google profits from using French infrastructures, that cost money to be in the state they are.
There's nothing like $HOME
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through real estate, sales, and income tax.
Google is paying plenty of local taxes, including sales tax. That pays for the infrastructure and essential services that Google actually relies on. That is, France already gets billions in taxes from Google. Their remaining profit, however, is largely derived from stuff that France has no part in creating, namely the software and inventions that actually run Google. France is trying to take money that doesn't belong to them, and they are lying to do so.
And the companies can't operate in France without all the infrastructure and civilisation paid for by taxes. If France stops getting taxes from companies which operate there, then those companies can't continue to operate, and France falls apart. This is the same for every single country on the face of the planet which collects taxes. That's how it works. It's amazing this has to be explained to you.
And France is already falling apart. French civilization? Don't make me laugh.
I think it has more to do with WW1 (somewhat), WW2 (mostly) and Vietnam rather than then the English-French rivalry. Remember the French helped during the revolution and Napoleon sold us Louisiana and more.
not really sure what thay has to do with anything. I mean how do we explain people voting for obama a second time?? I get the hopey changey thing in 08 but in 12???
again, this has nothing to do with anything, mod me and OP off topic
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All that proves is that the half of the population that didn't vote was just as stupid as the half that voted for GWB -- so 75% of Americans are idiots by your reckoning.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The alternative was Romney. Even if you think Obama was no great shakes, at least he wasn't Mitt.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And odd, because traditionally Scotland was an ally of France. The "thousand year long cross-channel rivalry" was between England and France, not Scotland and France.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.
Uh, there are hundreds of thousands of French people in the UK -- London is France's sixth biggest city.
(Written by an Englishman who moved to France).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
There is NO WAY that an international company will ignore the second largest consumer population block in the world.
Bugger the population (330 million in the eurozone), you're talking about 21% of the world economy!
Think about that. What idiot would ignore 1 dollar (pound, Euro) in every 5!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
To be fair, some Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, Most Americans don't know why they're joking about the French except as blind us versus them prejudice ingrained by the popular culture. I spoke to my dad that I was going on a trip to Paris and he and his friends said you couldn't pay them to go to Paris, yet they had no reason beyond "because, freedom fries" for why they harbor such. Even then, our "jokes" about WW2 are usually just taking cheap shots due to political reasons caused post war by De Gaulle and following administrations in pissing over the US, Britain, and NATO in an attempt to prove to the world they were still a greater power than Britain, followed more recently by lack of support in American adventurism in the middle east since the point was to pretty much kick out their oil companies so we could put ours into place in Iraq.
The very point of the process is that Google has avoided paying the equivalent of its income tax.
There's nothing like $HOME
Perhaps France should pay back the US for protecting them under the US nuclear umbrella during the Cold War while they were eating crepes.
There were plenty of badly organized and equipped troops in Britain while the BEF was in France, training and equipping. Combine that with the naval defenses, and the fact that the ports that were threatened were rigged for demolition, and the Germans could not have successfully invaded Britain.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's worth noting that the French army adopted new and better tactics during the six-week battle, which is not something armies resigned to defeat do. The French defeat was because of a single gross miscalculation on the part of the French high command, although there were other weaknesses that contributed also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you sure?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
I couldn't find any reliable figures, but appears to be similar both ways (around 200k). Perhaps more interesting is that there are 1.2million!!! Brits in Australia.
thats like saying, well I got aids...but at least I still got both legs
sorry voting against someone is retarded. write someone in, dont keep voting for the status quo
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yup... We Davids know. *nods*
Even if they'd taken the entire group prisoner, Germany would still have not invaded the UK. Also, the Expeditionary Force was *not* almost all of the Army. They were still very much an empire at that point. Saying that the BEF was the entirety of the army is, well... Let's just say that it's rather disrespectful to the many, many others from India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As I recall, they were a part of the "UK" at the time.
I'm really not sure what to say... That's a rarity... However, it's rather disrespectful unless I'm missing something. I'm also pretty sure that there were troops, from Britain - and the Isles in general, all over the place. As in, all over the place - the Sun never set on the UK at that point. The colonies (or whatever they were calling them then) were still in existence and some of those people dedicated a lot of lives to WWII.
I really don't know what to say...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Google has already paid the equivalent of its income tax, namely in sales tax. In any case, you argued that Google "profits from French infrastructure", and you have failed to justify that assertion. All the infrastructure Google uses in France is more than paid off by other taxes besides corporate income tax.
In fact, Google's high profits are due to Google's software and innovation, and France has done nothing to contribute to that. Objectively, the French government is already stealing from Americans and Google's investors (and that means largely people's retirement funds).
Google payed sales tax? Weird, sales tax is ultimately paid by consumers, not companies.
There's nothing like $HOME
Granted, Google's customers (sorry for the mistake) can be companies, but it's still not Google paying the tax. That's simply not how sales tax works.
There's nothing like $HOME
Were all the independents a bunch of crackpots? Why do so many Americans only feel like they can vote for candidates from the two biggest parties?
The OP said "We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen". This isn't true if you live in a democracy and vote for those people, because they don't just miraculously get those jobs.
And incidentally, as one of the other replies points out: that statement is also wholly inaccurate. I've lived in the US (before that whole stupid, ignorant freedom fries thing that soured relations for a while) and heard American's joking about and bashing the French in ways that border on bigotry. How many times did I hear an American describe the French as smelly for instance? Baseless and normally uttered by people who've never known somebody from France or even been to France.
200k is hundreds of thousands.
Yes, it's possible the "6th biggest city" thing is bollocks, and you can argue endlessly about whether there are more brits outside the UK or frogs outside France but the initial claim "not many [French] going the other way [from France to the UK]" is obvious rubbish. Like I say, I say this as a Brit who moved (permanently) to France.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Randall Munroe did a What If? recently, and concluded that the Sun still doesn't set on the British Empire, but there's times when the only sunshine is on one small and (IIRC) fairly desolate place.
The Dominions had somewhat uncertain status as part of the UK. Australia didn't declare war on Germany, figuring that the British declaration covered them. Australia did declare war separately on Japan. I think the loss of Australian troops in the fall of Tobruk had something to do with that. The worse the Dominions felt treated, the more they wanted independence, apparently.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"...my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there."
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That's why I wrote:
I wrote that before you tried to hijack this discussion by turning it into an irrelevant semantic debate whether corporate tax is the equivalent of income tax or not. I repeat: Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
If we look at this objectively in terms of rights, duties, and responsibilities, the French government is taking money away from the people who actually paid for the infrastructure that allowed Google to make these profits, namely the American people and Google's investors. Don't try to dress up French greed, arrogance, and selfishness as anything other than what it is. France can get away with this, just like they could get away with raping their colonies, but that doesn't mean other people need to buy in to the fiction that it is morally justified.
Yeah, it was kind of odd. I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not. I recall that India did not, they were covered as they were still in the UK. There were a few other (I can't help but call 'em this) colonies that fell into the same line. I want to say that Canada did not declare war on their own either?
As an aside, I'm sure you know this but someone else might come across our conversation, it's impressive to see what was done by Canada and Canadians during WWI and WWII. They're often overlooked in the books and movies. They've really contributed so much. I've had the opportunity to train and serve with them in joint activities. I don't normally have many bad things to say about anyone but I've got nothing bad to say about my experiences in having done so.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
However, in 1939 the New Zealand Army consisted of about 300 men.
I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not.
I'm sure, (I'm a Kiwi). New Zealand declared war on Germany, and there has always been this legend that we actually declared war before Britain, which would have been embarrassing if they'd backed out, but no
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
Yeah, might have phrased that badly.
He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.
To be fair, I think the population of NZ was only like 320 men at that time. ;-) They're not really covered in a lot of media and my memory is pretty fuzzy. So, I'll see what I can remember...
The ANZAC forces were a phenomenal asset. It must have been tough, emotionally, as many of them were brought away from their home soil at the same time Japan was heading their direction. Many people don't know how close Japan got to landing on Oz. Had Japan landed on Oz, things would have been bad. I want to say that Oz had some reservists who fought a rear-guard action off on Papua New Guinea?
Fortunately, the USMC was on the way. They and the USN, depleted though they were, managed to fend them off with a bit of help from some of the island folks who helped keep the Japanese busy. Quite a few Marines ended up in Oz for training and then they did some R&R and some hurry up and wait on Oz later in the war. The first (maybe) island that the Marines landed on was just north of Oz. I don't remember the name of that one either and I'm way too lazy to look.
But, what little there was for ANZAC troops got pulled away to North Africa, India, Hong Kong, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, and even to sit idle (for a spell) in in the British Isles. It was probably a good choice. They were lacking equipment and training. The US was already on the way by the time Japan was really speeding down towards that direction.
It was fairly well known that Japan was starting to spread themselves thin. It was also a bit of a risk that they took because if Japan had managed to land troops on Australia it would have been a pain in the ass to get them out of there and, worse, they'd have continued their abhorrent behaviors. The soldiers were a despicable group of people and it's odd that people try to make excuses for them. (As an aside, my own country and some citizens have done plenty of despicable things and I'm offended by their behavior and call it out when I can.)
Another thing that lots of people don't seem to know is really how close Japan came... I know I already mentioned it but they actually bombed a port and a town in N. Oz. (I forget the name, I think it might begin with the letter M? Port M.?) The citizens had about a dozen rifles or something like that between them. They had few vehicles. They were ordered to run away, as I recall. They'd already dug a bunch of holes and made bomb shelters but they were told to run away - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at least one documentary that mentions strafing but I might be conflating it with another attack.
Meh, I'm too lazy to Google. If you're unaware and are curious, I'm sure Google knows the rest of the story and can fix any mistakes in my memory. That should be fairly close to accurate. In all probability, someone knows the rest of the details.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Thanks. Did they declare war officially on Japan and Italy? And yes, yes it would have been rather unfortunate if the UK hadn't decided to go to war with them. I do think that might have been a history changer - but I've never actually given it any thought as to how that might have played out. Hmm... That's gonna take some pondering.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yes, I think your right and it was Darwin. I actually did think that and then I was pretty sure it was wrong because it was too easy and the only town I can remember off the top of my head from that area of Australia. I think the Aussies were doing a retreat from Port Moresby or ended up doing one? I seem to recall that there weren't a whole lot of them and that some of them were particularly heroic.
I watch a lot of documentaries. It's pretty much all I watch and I've been watching them for many, many years. I don't really watch regular television very often - I don't even have it hooked up at my home. Which means that they're for entertainment. It's not a scholarly pursuit. Any learning is incidental and a bonus. I can usually remember the general idea, like geographic region, approximate dates, who was involved, maybe some names. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not a walking trivia book. I do admire the people who can do that. I can not. I am not even a historian.
So, yes... I think you're right. I'm way too lazy to go look. ;-) There's a good series called War in the Pacific. I imagine that goes over it. There are a few, not many, documentaries about the ANZAC involvement in WWII and *just* about their involvement. I've only come across a few of them in my travels. I'd like to see some more about the ANZAC, Indians, Polish, and Canada.
Tangentially related...
My current series is "The First World War." That's actually really good. I've seen it a bunch of times. The good thing about not remembering all the dates, names, times, and places? I can watch that series a dozen times and enjoy it and learn something new every time I watch it. If I knew everything, I'd have nothing left to live for. More or less, learning really isn't the goal. Yeah, I try to learn a little but it's really just to entertain myself. I also read a lot so I do learn quite a bit and I retain some of it.
Which leads me to this: If you're curious, I'm sure there's some documentaries on the subject at YouTube. I've bumped into a few of them but not many. There are probably more out there and I've just not found them. They changed the format in TV when the laws changed, sometime around 1986 or 87. I was never big on it before but they went to something like 12 minutes of commercials per hour long program. These days, even a trimmed PBS documentary is only 52 minutes.
Anyhow, I stopped watching much TV around that time (not a hipster, not on a moral crusade - kids still watched it. So, the internet has been a virtual cornucopia of goodness for me. I can find documentaries and even just pick one and let YouTube pick the next one for me and automatically play it. I can search and tick the playlist filter and get a bunch of playlists with similar content. That's something that I really appreciate. I pay for both Netflix and Hulu+ but I've seen all the good ones at Netflix, I only pay for Hulu+ because I keep forgetting to cancel it, and I'm almost always just happy with YouTube.
So, if you're curious about more of the history, just hit YouTube to find a good documentary. I put the subject in and then filter it for long results. That usually will find me something. I often just take that title name, search for that, and then filter the results for playlists. So, first long and then name and then playlist. *nods* There's bound to be something out there. I should probably do the same. I'll put it on my mental list, I've got to finish this series before I move on to the next one.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
Yeah, might have phrased that badly.
He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.
Not easy, I'm sure. I think we can all agree that it would have been better all around if the Germans had stayed home to start with.
As I'm sure your Dad knew, sometimes we do what needs to be done because there is no reasonable choice.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
Nope. You'll have to back that up with credible figures for me to consider it. My statement stands: the taxes due by Google based on the profit it makes through its French customer base has to be paid in France following French tax laws. There's absolutely no getting out of it. It's not even a matter of morals, it's a matter of equality before the law. Google decides to do business in France, following French tax laws is part of doing the business. Doing otherwise would be a attack on free market.
There's nothing like $HOME
What we are talking about is whether French taxes are justified. Your argument was that Google receives infrastructure in France that it needs to do business, I'm saying that is bullshit. The only infrastructure Google is using in France for its business is infrastructure that France already taxes other people to provide or that are paid for privately: roads for employees, Internet access for its employees and customers.
If you want to make an argument that taxing Google beyond that is reasonable, you have to explain what that money is supposed to be for. Right now, France is just behaving like highway robbers: they try to take money because they can.
We weren't, at any point, discussing if French taxes are justified. If you want to discuss the workings of French taxation, how fair it is, and such things, I'm open for that. For example, I tend to think French taxation is excessively heavy on small businesses and too lenient towards big companies, while being weirdly quirky in between - and is overall exceedingly complicated. But that doesn't change much about the matter at hand because, guess what? Google doesn't fall into the "small business" category.
Ultimately, though, the question at hand, relevant to the subject matter, is if Google is entitled to exempt itself from tax laws that apply to other companies. And the answer is clearly "no". The answer will be the same regardless of country.
By the way, I'm not trying to make an argument that taxing Google beyond "that" is reasonable, because I don't understand what you mean by "that".
There's nothing like $HOME
That is exactly what we are discussing:
You're getting it backwards: other companies with the same relationships to each other as Google's subsidiaries do not have to pay these taxes. The French government going after Google is politically motivated. Furthermore, it's penny wise and pound foolish, because this kind of arbitrary government sends companies packing (France already isn't a very desirable place for international corporations to begin with due to the language and the culture).