Slashdot Mirror


Google France Being Raided For Unpaid Taxes (reuters.com)

jones_supa writes: Investigators in France have raided Google's Paris headquarters amid a probe over the company's tax payments, Reuters reports. The French Finance Ministry is investigating $1.8 billion in back taxes. According to a report in French daily Le Parisien, at least 100 investigators are part of the raid at Google's offices. A source close to the finance ministry said that the raid at Google's offices has been ongoing on Tuesday since 03:00 GMT. In February, a source at the French Finance Ministry told Reuters that the government was seeking the $1.8 billion from Google. At the time, official spokespeople for Google France and the Finance Ministry refused to comment on the situation. Google could face up to a $11.14 million fine if it is found guilty, or a fine of half of the value of the laundered amount involved. In April, the EU revealed plans to force multinationals such as Google, Amazon and Facebook to disclose exactly where and how much tax they pay across the continent. A new clause was added since the Panama Papers leak requiring the companies to report how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."

189 comments

  1. Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there some reason the EU and its constituent governments are asking Google how much it paid in taxes throughout the continent rather than checking their own records?

    1. Re:Check your own records by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU is changing the rules so that companies part tax on business they do in each state, regardless of where they funnel the profits too. Google tries stuff like claiming that all sales take place in Ireland, but their staff in other countries put things like "sales at Google" on their LinkedIn profiles. France is having none of it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Check your own records by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Because that is how every government in the world does taxes?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Check your own records by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 2

      Because they don't have coordinated tax systems, and doing that is a huge political issue, otherwise yes that is how you do it. This is the reasonably low bureaucratic route where the company reports all income and taxes, and spot checks can be used to make sure companies are telling the truth.

    4. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so they fire everyone in France, offer the staff lucrative relocation packages - most 'sales' for google is either info share or order taking.... then france doesn't get individual taxes. google isn't doing anything wrong.

      considering usual political support i'd suggest some mid tier .gov idiot made this decision - if i was google this would piss me off.

      as far as linkedin goes many people can't even choose the correct company they work for....

    5. Re:Check your own records by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      ...international treaties mean they'll be abrogating their agreements...

      [citation needed]

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Check your own records by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

      Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?

    7. Re:Check your own records by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhh... just think what happens when France decides that turnabout is fair game and invalidates any and all intellectual property within French borders.

      Hint: The internet doesn't give a fuck about borders, and IIRC a certain bay that isn't into selling stuff is interested in finding a place that doesn't give 2 shits about pesky little things like copyright.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Check your own records by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because the whole shit has taken up religious proportions. There is no intelligent discourse possible any more.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Check your own records by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      Because a Value Added Tax is not as easy to enforce as a retail sales tax. Use Google translate to read the gripes from employees of impots.gouv.fr

      --
      227-3517
    10. Re:Check your own records by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Hi! First day on the internets? You must be new here.

    11. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because slashdot died a long time ago.

    12. Re:Check your own records by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      If France tries to change the rules, it first needs to articulate a consistent set of alternative rules. France's new rules seem to boil down to treating the entire sales price of, say, a German-made Mercedes in France as profit and then taxing it at the corporate tax rate. That doesn't seem sensible, and it also seems like companies other than Google might have a problem with it.

      Of course, the EU is also shooting itself in the foot if it thinks that changing rules retroactively is a good idea. Legally, they may get away with it, but it will simply sour investors and entrepreneurs even more on investing in Europe; European stocks are performing poorly enough as is.

    13. Re:Check your own records by TroII · · Score: 0

      Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?

      There is no intelligent discourse when SJWs are involved, as discourse by definition requires that both sides are permitted to engage. Anytime an SJW says it's time to "have a conversation about $TOPIC," what they really mean is they're prepared to lecture you about $TOPIC. If you try to present any opposing viewpoints - you know, your side of the conversation they claimed to be interested in starting - they'll use whatever tools are at their disposal to suppress your opinions. If it's social media, they block you; if it's a discussion forum, they ban you from it; if it's a public venue, they petition to have you disinvited as a speaker. They call this "no-platforming," as it sounds a bit less insidious than "censorship." Once you've been muted from the supposed conversation, that's when the real fun begins. Coordinated harassment that you aren't able to respond to, doxing, attempts to get you fired from your job, in some cases even false criminal charges. All because you dared to disagree with someone on the internet.

      No, it's best not to attempt intelligent discourse with an SJW. The only winning move is not to play.

    14. Re: Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds an awful lot like a lecture on your viewpoint of SJWs.

    15. Re:Check your own records by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Funny

      Free men own guns. Slaves don't.

      I'm curious... I've never needed a gun for anything... if I were to buy a gun ... would that add me to another category... being a tool?

      What is the obsession with these metal objects which have many applications but are most often owned by people who seem to first buy one and then look for a reason to own one. I did this with a toy robot I have. He can now dance and sing and welcomes me when I walk into the office.

      I wonder... would a dildo have the same effect? In other words... if you didn't really need one but you bought one anyway, simply because you have the right to buy one of course. Would you run around wearing one in a holster? Would you fight for legal rights to have a vibrator on display, clipped safely to your belt while at Chuck'E Cheese during a children's birthday? Currently, so far as I know, you can be arrested for this type of behavior, though within the right context it's clear to me that a large enough or odd enough dildo or vibrator could be classified as baring arms.

      If you had one which was gigantic and shaped like a fist, I'm positive it would classify as "baring arms". So... would you fight for your legal right to carry a large object capable of stroking, fisting and otherwise just beating the shit out of someone with when used as a club? Would you carry it across your back? In your belt? Or would you insist that you be allowed to keep it "Cocked" at all times?

      You could suggest that a large fist shaped vibrating dildo would not be in the same category as a hand gun... I would disagree... I'm 100% convinced that it would have a far higher likelihood of scaring off the bad guys than a gun. If you break out a gun, most bad guys would likely respond violently. Break our a gigantic vibrating dildo and chase a guy with it, it's almost absolutely certain to cause the other guy to panic and run.

      I'm also pretty convinced that if you wanted to topple a tyrant... a creative person with such a fantastic dildo would have much more of a chance against armored soldiers with tanks and such than a redneck with a pile of guns. Paint it rainbow and you would conquer half of North Carolina with one swing.

      I think we both agree that like your guns, such amazing and versatile fist shaped, vibrating "massage items" are best kept locked away from children in your bedroom than on display for everyone to see. You can take them out when the time is appropriate. You can rub them and touch them and clean them and keep them oiled and shiny. I simply don't need to know your expertise level with such items... it's ok if you keep that to yourself.

      I honestly swear, I really really really don't want you using either your gun or your love toy around me even in extreme circumstances. I am perfectly ok with taking my risks and dieing instead.

    16. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one that brought up SJW and ended the intelligent discourse. Until your post nobody had mentioned "social justice" in this article.

      Fuckwit.

    17. Re:Check your own records by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?

      We can have it in addition to, not instead of. The problem is that those screeching about the evil commienazipaetoterrorists, or in modern parlance "SJW" have already indicated that they're incapable of engaging in intelligent discourse by resorting to cheap logical fallacies and invective off the bat.

      Think of it as a really effective bozo filter.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re: Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are my hero

    19. Re:Check your own records by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      considering usual political support i'd suggest some mid tier .gov idiot made this decision - if i was google this would piss me off.

      That's gouv.fr my little American friend.

      I suspect the French government is intensely relaxed about the idea of "pissing google off".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    20. Re:Check your own records by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      SJW, an insult used by someone who things fighting for social justice is a bad thing.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    21. Re: Check your own records by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr Anonymous Coward, you're replying to someone with the username "Troll".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    22. Re:Check your own records by gtall · · Score: 0

      You have hit the nail, guns to gun-nuts ARE love toys. They like to take them out and clean and caress them. They like the vibration and noise it makes when it goes off. The scent of gunpowder sends them into transports of delight. And they get to feel like Men, able to strut around knowing their piece is there to make them feel safe, and they keep it very close to their other piece in a holster.

      Of course in a real fight, they'll be the first one with their ass shot off because any terrorist or robber intent on killing opposition will see them reach for their piece and that will be the end of the gun-nut's love affair.

    23. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is used by someone who first was on the side of the fighters for social justice, only to find out that those fighting for social justice went too far once they achieved what they were fighting for.

    24. Re:Check your own records by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 1

      Literally incorrect, as AmiMoJo mentioned it first by all observational standards.

    25. Re:Check your own records by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While, what you are saying in the last line is true. Those that practice daily or even weekly, have a higher probability in making it out of the problem.

      Question is, how well do you react to pressure environments.
      taking a gun out quickly requires practice,
      Aiming at a target 30 feet away and hitting it requires even more ( center mass, even more )

      doing both successfully at the same time requires a lot of practice.

      after you can do all that, aim for a human and pull the trigger, ending a life is amazingly hard.

      Can't cite the sources, but I bet someone here can:

      A research report ( which was done after WWI ), shows that a large percentage of new
      soldiers first shot was over the head of the enemy on purpose.

      Another report in the 1980's about police officers nation wide showed that they (greater than 70%+) did not pull out their pistols.

      and just an observation: the phrase "cannon fodder": makes sense to me now after putting the above report into perspective.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    26. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then France also loses the income tax paid by all the employees...I assume they pay income tax in France?

    27. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because SJWs are fuckwits and are incapable of intelligent discourse...remember, they always project

      Says the guy using absolute statements

      Pot: kettle

    28. Re:Check your own records by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Signatures aren't visible until you log in.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    29. Re:Check your own records by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 1

      So to prevent being abused by SJWs, you suggest exiling myself?

    30. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's used by someone who is against the tactics used and - in some cases - thinks that what they're calling "social justice" isn't justice at all.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    31. Re:Check your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're a slave who likes dildos. Next.

    32. Re:Check your own records by Ulric · · Score: 1

      Free men own dildos. Slaves don't.

    33. Re:Check your own records by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      While I despise AmiMoJo as much or more than you do, he/she/ze/whatever the fuck this cunt wants to be called, is in the right here.
      It does you no good to discount an opinion just because you despise the person who holds that opinion.

    34. Re:Check your own records by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Cool, free book! Thanks for the link!

  2. How about going after everyone else when your done by Malenx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess you have to start somewhere, but this is pretty much how every international business in the world dodges taxes.

  3. Retaliatory much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How much of this is due to Google not bowing to French demands to censor the internet for the entire world I have to wonder.

    1. Re:Retaliatory much? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      Probably none of it.
      If there is something governments love more than surveillance and censorship, it's money. And Google happens to have a lot of it and do shady stuff with their taxes, that's a good opportunity.

    2. Re:Retaliatory much? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How is it shady when it is perfectly legal? If you buy a Mercedes, or buy something from Ikea, do you expect that either of those corporations pay taxes on the entire sale price, rather than just the profit? Why is it shady when Google has expenses that are deducted before the profit is figured? Why do they suddenly not get to deduct their expenses from their profit, while every other company around does?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Retaliatory much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coren22 nobody calls you shady. Only stupid. After all, you prove it for everyone constantly https://slashdot.org/comments.... & https://slashdot.org/comments....

  4. Get ready everyone with anything by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The State with a capital "S" has just run out of other people's money. Which means they will now go get money from anyone they can, screw legality or morals.

    If you have anything of value the state can reach, it will reach for it now. A small amount at first but you would be surprised how quickly it can snowball (ask the people of Venezuela or Argentina). Not quite time to make a run on the banks, but keep a weather eye on the availability of cash and perhaps start buying more durable goods with lasting value that are not so easily seized.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The State with a capital "S" has just run out of other people's money. Which means they will now go get money from anyone they can, screw legality or morals.

      If you have anything of value the state can reach, it will reach for it now. A small amount at first but you would be surprised how quickly it can snowball (ask the people of Venezuela or Argentina). Not quite time to make a run on the banks, but keep a weather eye on the availability of cash and perhaps start buying more durable goods with lasting value that are not so easily seized.

      Funny, my take is exactly the opposite.

      Big corporations have been playing a shell game with the tax man for a long time.

      The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services but yet skating out on the tax bill, has been handed to the rest of us to settle.

      Finally, "The State" figures it out: FOLLOW THE MONEY

    2. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Fragnet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, fewer companies would bother with the shell game and tax rules wouldn't need to be so utterly absurd? I mean look at the UK, 15,000 pages of tax law and regulation. It's insane.

    3. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      In France they use those pages to raid first and ask questions later.

    4. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of the opposite. Companies have been running away with peoples/the states money and this is trying to reverse that situation.

    5. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And if skirts weren't so short fewer women would be raped.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Dutchmaan · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a reason tax laws are so "utterly absurd"... it's called loop holes.. You know when a company says "It doesn't explicitly state that I CAN'T do this.." So you end up with 15000 pages of legalize because companies are ALWAYS trying to get out of taxes. Not that they shouldn't, but what do you expect. Simplifying the tax code is never as easy as it sounds.

    7. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by mccrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if taxes weren't so high...

      I don't think I buy this argument. Companies are ultimately driven by people, people are people, and human nature is human nature. A tiger who is plays shenanigans at a 35% or 28% tax rate does not magically change his stripes if the tax rate drops to 20% or 15%. It's still more than zero, so he will play jurisdictional arbitrage to try and make it so.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    8. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason tax laws are so "utterly absurd"... it's called loop holes.. You know when a company says "It doesn't explicitly state that I CAN'T do this.." So you end up with 15000 pages of legalize because companies are ALWAYS trying to get out of taxes. Not that they shouldn't, but what do you expect. Simplifying the tax code is never as easy as it sounds.

      So make it a 35% flat tax on gross income, no deductions. You know, what it works out to for regular people when you stack in VAT/sales tax, corporate fees passed off as taxes (USF, etc).

      And add a 10% wealth tax on accumulated wealth over 100x the lesser of mean/median/mode annual gross income.

      So if the average income is $20k and you made $1,000K, and now have $4M, your tax would be, roughly,
      350K on your new income, plus
      10% * [$4M-(100x$20k)] = $200k on your accumulated wealth.

      If you live in place that provides safety and security sufficient to keep peasant mobs and armed guerrillas from taking your millions, it is pretty clear you benefit a hell of a lot more from law and order than the commoners whom you have over 100x the property. This also lessons the utility of accumulating mass wealth at the expense of others, since unless you can continue to do so, you will lose it to the wealth tax. At the same time, it stabilizes society by reducing intergenerational dynasties while always maintaining positive utility to increased production. Indexing the levels to the least prosperous major group ensures that the standard of living for the least MUST rise in order for the elite to reach ever higher means as well.

      Now, after you are done shouting "COMMIE!", please point out, specifically, how your counter proposal is better in the face of the imminent automation of most human jobs.

    9. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      AFAIC any income or wealth related tax above 0 is theft and that is all it is. There is no such thing as a 'just' income or wealth based tax, it gives the power of oppression to the state and the rate is really irrelevant, it is arbitrary and can be changed at any moment in time. As long as the principle is: government can take away any portion of your income and savings, you are not a free individual. I don't agree with any of this for a moment, individuals (and companies, who are after all owned by individuals) must be able to enjoy fruits of their work without any form of oppression used against them. Just because somebody has money or makes money doesn't mean that any collective has the moral authority to take it away (any portion of it whatsoever). If the collective sets rules like this, it is obligation of the individual to fight it AFAIC. There is nothing at all on this planet that would make me see it in any other way: all government officials trying to steal from people and companies need to be put down like the rabid dogs that they are.

    10. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      So make it a 35% flat tax on gross income, no deductions
       
      I sell widgets.
       
      I buy the widgets at a wholesale price of $9 each and I retail them at my shop for $10 each.
       
      My gross income is $10 for each widget that I sell, but I'm really making only $1 less whatever the costs are to keep my shop open and the lights on.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    11. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      Big corporations have been playing a shell game with the tax man for a long time.

      No, they are simply complying with the law as written.

      The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services but yet skating out on the tax bill, has been handed to the rest of us to settle.

      Citation?

    12. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think there would be the same number of tax cheats at a 95% income tax rate, as there would at a 5% income tax rate?

    13. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > AFAIC any income or wealth related tax above 0 is theft and that is all it is. There is no such thing as a 'just' income or wealth based tax

      Now go tell your mommy that, and pay her back for all the taxes on her time and patience you've been collecting.

      It's so much fun to hear the Libertarian college fund boys in their soephomore year, before they have to buy their own booze.

    14. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show many any other crime of theft where the criminal allows you to negotiate, change the person who is robbing you or leave at anytime of your choosing and you can call it theft.

      It is not theft because...
        - You make the choice to live under that set of laws.
        - You are free to leave anytime you want.
        - You are free to elect other people to change the law to suit your point of view
        - You are free to file suit in a court if you believe your rights have been violated

      You don't enjoy the freedom to spend your capital without the government enforcing a rule of law. You are the one choosing the above and it is not theft if it is by your choice.

      If you don't like it, get the fuck out and don't let the door hit your stupid ass on the way out

    15. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what constitutes a "cost"?

      Is it the lease on your building? Yep
      Is it the power to run your shop's lights? Yep
      Is it the cost of attending a "widget" conference in Las Vegas for a week? Um...
      Is it the cost of the new Porsche you purchased which gets used for business use 5% of the time? Errr...
      Is it the boozy lunches you regularly hold for your "friends" in the widget industry? Hmm...

      Most of those 15,000 pages are probably to do with defining what constitutes an acceptable expense and what doesn't.

      The problem is immensely more complex than you might think -- which is why business gets away with "avoiding" tax so much more effectively than wage-slaves do.

    16. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no.

      A 95% income tax rate would just prevent any businesses at all from existing. All the incentives would be gone so nobody would even bother. There wouldn't be any tax-dodging at all in that case, because all businesses would be completely foreign.

      A 5% tax rate seems low now only because the current tax rate is higher than that. It will seem "ridiculously high" to stakeholders the moment the ink dries.

      The only deterrent to tax-dodging is the risk of getting caught. So long as they believe they can get away with it, they will attempt it. That is how humans actually work.

    17. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the law as written has fuzzy edges and whether they're obeying the law or not can only be decided in a court of law, something else that is fuzzy (look at many Supreme Court decisions where there is a split with some Judges ruling one way and others ruling the other way).

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    18. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the law as written has fuzzy edges and whether they're obeying the law or not can only be decided in a court of law

      I think the law is quite clear and Google is complying with it: these are well-defined companies engaging in well-defined, legal transactions that happen to greatly reduce tax liability.

      If France pushes ahead on this, Google will find other ways of reducing its tax liability, and those are likely going to be economically worse for France than not having collected these taxes in the first place.

      The real problem is that taxation is an intrinsically flawed concept: forcing people at gunpoint to give money to the state for goods and services they often don't want in the first place simply is not going to work well, ever. People are going to find ways of avoiding taxes if not for any other reason because they don't want to feel like fools. The only reliable way to pay for goods and services is to engage in voluntary exchanges in a free market.

    19. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      The Google / Double Irish equivalent for widgets would be making a subsidiary company in another country, that then licenses the design of your widgets to you. You then claim a large business cost and pay taxes on a lower profit, whilst your overseas subsidiary laughs all the way to the bank.

    20. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      $200k per year in taxes when you make $20k per year? Lol. GTO.

    21. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Solandri · · Score: 0

      The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services but yet skating out on the tax bill, has been handed to the rest of us to settle.

      Funny, that was exactly the rationale used by the British in the 1700s for why those uppity Colonials should pay British taxes. They were benefiting from British government services, so they should have to foot some of the bill by paying taxes.

      The Colonials saw it differently. If they were required to pay taxes, they should have a say in how those tax monies were to be spent. aka "No taxation without representation."

      So you want to tax corporations. Are you prepared to give corporations representation in government?

      What's that? They already have representation because their employees get to vote? Well, those employees are already paying taxes. What's your rationale for taxing them more just because they happen to work for a corporation instead of being self-employed?

    22. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what you think about the law being clear. I think the 1st Amendment is very clear (and simple) and yet people have been executed (the Rosenburgs (sp?) for telling how to make an atomic bomb) for speech due to some Judge deciding that the 1st doesn't cover some types of speech. The 2nd amendment is also pretty clear, people have the right to bear arms and yet Judges have ruled that laws that only allow some people can bear arms are legal.
      And if you don't want to pay taxes, don't. It's really easy, just don't take the benefits of those taxes just like any other economic transaction you don't want to do.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy sucks. It's the corporations that are getting raped here.

    24. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I think the 1st Amendment is very clear (and simple) and yet people have been executed (the Rosenburgs (sp?) for telling how to make an atomic bomb) for speech due to some Judge deciding that the 1st doesn't cover some types of speech.

      The fact that courts interpret laws differently from their plain meaning is not proof that the laws are unclear. (Nevertheless, your understanding of the First Amendment is faulty.)

      And if you don't want to pay taxes, don't. It's really easy, just don't take the benefits of those taxes just like any other economic transaction you don't want to do.

      Taxes are due whether you "take the benefits of those taxes" or not.

    25. Re: Get ready everyone with anything by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Corporations do have a representation in the government. Their representatition is called a lobby group. In fact, unfortunately they have more representation than people.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    26. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no tax rate above zero that someone will not scheme to avoid. In simple terms every cent paid in taxation or to an employee is a cent less to the owners of the business. The logic of capitalism is inexorable.

    27. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe you like "If copyright laws weren't so fucked up and prices for content so insane people wouldn't download shit" more?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      35%? That's huge. 5%.

    29. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I agree. However it's easier to actually enforce a much simpler tax code.

    30. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Informative

      You miss the point the parent poster is making. If, as was suggested by GPP, tax is a flat rate on gross income, what constitutes a cost doesn't matter.

      PP was making the point that if your business operates on smaller margins than the flat rate, it will not be able to pay its taxes, much less the shareholders.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    31. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by jeremyp · · Score: 0

      How does the government pay for your healthcare, children's education, law enforcement and defence if it doesn't collect taxes?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    32. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of course is that France is losing to Ireland (and not just on Google's turnover). A zero tax rate is not needed; Ireland doesn't levy 0% either. And France doesn't even have to beat Ireland in tax rates; moving turnover has an administrative overhead for Google as well. But when the tax rates are literally double or more, then such tax planning makes sense.

      And to clarify: this is perfectly legal in the EU, just as nobody is surprised when a US company declares its income in a single state. The problem for the EU is that their single market is working as intended, but they don't have a single federal tax system to tax that single market. There is in effect a competition between states, and France is acting as a sore loser. They need to trim some fat. The difference between Ireland and France isn't in the money spent on schools; it's in other things like airlines. RyanAir is a lucrative Irish company, Air France is a government-owned tax money sink.

    33. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Depends. Is the 5% tax rate more expensive than paying a few accountants and lawyers to make it look like less? If so the yes. Remember for the most part what we are talking about here is just smoke and mirrors (claiming sales occurred in different places). What you may get with a 95% tax rate is a different approach (bribery, corruption, or outright illegal tactics rather than dancing around the grey area).

      But thanks for taking the extremes which have little to nothing to do with the taxes that businesses pay which are already well below that of the normal population even if they didn't use any underhanded tactics to lower them further.

    34. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      The deficit caused by these big corporations

      Haha, nope. However much money politicians get, they'll outspend it, because they benefit politically from it, because they (still) can borrow on the taxpayers' back, and because they don't pay the consequences themselves.

      Also, french here, and it's pretty transparent that the Ministère des Finances going after Google is little more than maybe-legal attempted extortion. It's a mediatic coup destined mostly for french voters, in preparation for the coming presidential elections next year - Hollande has been spending a lot on taxis, journalists, students and more, to ensure their loyalty, and now he's pushing for this as a rally attempt on his own left. This is his strategy to eliminate all competition in advance of the election.

      But it's a compromise: it favors the national scene over the international. France has lots of tax agreements with other countries where Google pays its taxes, and going after putative billions like this is seriously endangering those agreements, risking a major disruption of international business. French companies which do a lot of their business abroad could be the eventual victims of this hubris. We have our own tax shelters and fiscal niches, enough to call France a "tax haven" for specific categories of businesses and people, and other coutnries ho'd rather see Google's millions go to their own Treasury might take a hint.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    35. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some European countries, including France, have an effective solution to loopholes. If there is any doubt or question, a court settles it based on an interpretation of the law that tries to maintain its spirit. If a company has a question they can ask the tax office for clarification, and even challenge their judgement in court, but if they decide to just start abusing that loophole and get found out later they are going to be on the hook for everything they owe.

      It's a fair and workable system. Occasionally there are still ambiguities that need fixing, but as Google has discovered just pretending your sales happen in Ireland for tax purposes doesn't work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has all been solved. Google is using a French company and through that French company it has representation. It has to pay taxes but can also benefit from the service delivered by he country. The quality of those services is of course debatable, but your only choice is to not sell products in France through a French company.

      The situation before the American revolution is quite different. Yes, there was something about taxes. But the problem was never paying taxes in the first place. The problem was having to pay large amounts of taxes because the British government decided to wage war on the biggest power in the world at that time: France. France was about to swallow up the southern Netherlands through inheritance. They just needed to win a war against a fairly weak Austria. The Brits didn't want France to become even more powerful. This succession war was a war fought all over the war and the end was just like the beginning: nothing changed. The only thing that happened were many bankrupt countries.

      France imploded and the french revolution happened. The Brits lost the American colonies, but somehow could prevent a revolution like in France. The Brits invented a new kind of loan where the rich could give money to the state and get a nice return on the money, and a class of rentiers was born. French got its brutal revolution which spread our modern ideas of liberty over the western world, they same values that were implemented in the young state of the US.

      It paved the way for the unification of Germany and Italy, the awakening of the pan-Arabian Islam empire, intellectual politic philosophers who invented things like socialism, communism, nationalism, democracy, etc....

      The independence of the US is not just not wanting to pay taxes. Too high taxes were the trigger of something that has been brewing for over a century. Half a century before the independence of the US there was a thing called the United States of Belgium. Which wanted to have a federal of con-federal country in the area that is now the Benelux. It was short lived because it was crushed by the Austrian empire, who easily played out the differences between the liberal and conservatives (=Christians). Many of the revolutionists fled to the American colonies. But not only in Belgium there were these kind of ideas of liberty. Also in France, Spain and especially Germany, there were many people who were convinced that liberalism was the way forward (instead of the Ancient regime where a handful of people had absolute power because they were born with that power). Many of those people moved to the American colonies.

      Because after the big succession wars Britain and France were bankrupt, they couldn't avoid losing the colonies in America. With the Napoleonic wars, the Brits were too busy avoiding liberalism to spread all over the world, and couldn't focus on reconquering the US. And that's why the US is the first liberal country that was a success (and last longer than just a decade). It has not much to do with paying taxes, but with an ideology that started a few centuries earlier. People who became richer and more powerful then the king, but didn't control that strong army.

      This is almost the same thing. Google thinks its bigger and more powerful then France, but it doesn't control the laws and just ignores it. When the countries go bankrupt, then those multinational companies have free reign. And if you believe in conspiracies, then you see what is happening in the world. The extreme rich sit at the table in international meetings, dictating every country to accept things like TIPP, globalization, 'free trade', intellectual property, ... while meanwhile letting the banks fail and force countries to safe the banks to safe the jobs and prevent a revolution and thus hastening the bankruptcy of the countries who have to cut spending in services given to the lowest classes who then start to strike, or fight like in the countries in the middle east. But that's just conspiracy of course. I don't believe

    37. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Forgefather · · Score: 2

      The thing is that at the scale Google and co operate at even a minute different in tax rates can make it economically viable to hide the money offshore. If you lower the tax rate to accommodate their demands you create a race to the bottom as every country trying to get those tax dollars lowers their tax rate to less than their "competitors." And who are the losers in this arrangement? We are. The people who have to foot the deficit created in the governments budget on account of lost tax revenue.

      As for the statistic about tax laws and regulation the US has over 660,000 pages. The UK should be weak sauce compared to that!

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    38. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you could sell them in a novel way, then you'd have to pay $1 for a patent to your company in [country with lowest tax rate], and you'd pay no tax at all in [country where you actually sell stuff].

    39. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      So make it a 35% flat tax on gross income, no deductions. You know, what it works out to for regular people when you stack in VAT/sales tax, corporate fees passed off as taxes (USF, etc).

      Say hello to a world where vertically integrated megacorps rule because their income is only taxed once while money flowing through a series of smaller less-integrated buisnesses is taxed multiple times.

      That is why for buisnesses we tax profits rather than income, so it is transparent to the tax system whether the value is created in one large megacorp or a chain of smaller buisnesses.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    40. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And add a 10% wealth tax on accumulated wealth over 100x the lesser of mean/median/mode annual gross income.

      Before I bought a house I was against this. Now I own a house (well, the bank owns it for me) I am strongly in favour of this. It will absolutely inflate the housing market to epic proportions as the wealthy look for useless tax havens to stuff their money into. If you thought the mansions of the wealthy were extravagant before this... Imagine what they will be after!

    41. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice sentiment, but false. It is easy to enforce a complicated and self-contradictory tax code, everyone is guilty. It is easier to obey a simple tax code, but that would mean that a nontrivial portion of the population and industries cannot be tried for tax evasion when they upset the government.

    42. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by plague911 · · Score: 1

      No. But I do think there would be roughly the same number at 10-50%. Just because there is a reaction does not mean it is a straight line .

    43. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debt, apparently.

    44. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those same wealthy english businessmen left to come to and rape, murder and displace the native american to start those colonies.

      So ironically, what your statement shows is that the same personal greed is alive and well today, nearly 250 years later.

    45. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      We used to have something called the serious fraud office. I think they closed it or something because the legal cases were so utterly complex no jury could ever possibly understand whether or not what was going on was legal or not. This is course partly a function of the complexity of the tax system I mentioned above.

    46. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I mentioned 5% part trolling, part making a point. I would (1) simplify the tax system to such an extent even a jury could understand whether or not the law was broken, (2) lower the rate of tax to such an extent that only the most determined criminals would try to avoid paying it, (3) enforce and strengthen the legal responsibilities of CEOs and company directors, including the penalties for non-compliance.

    47. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your question at all, why do you assume that government can pay for anything in the first place? Government shouldn't be 'paying' for anything, since it cannot pay for anything, to pay you have to have money, government steals money, so it doesn't pay, it steals. As to health care, education, law enforcement, these shouldn't be in the hands of any government. I would argue that even defence today shouldn't be in the hands of any government, it should be done privately, by private businesses hired to provide defence. All fighting should be paid for upfront, maybe then there wouldn't be as many wars, you see?

    48. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this was modded flamebait; it's clearly not.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    49. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You're taxed on the buck. If your business expenses plus taxes can't support you, then you're unsuccessful.

    50. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If we implemented your ideas, government would become privatized, and essentially feudal and dictatorial.

      So you sign an agreement with Joe's Police Force. Who's going to investigate your robbery when Fred's Police Force puts the kibosh on it, and they've got twice the gunmen? Joe decides that you aren't paying enough and your daughter is hot. Too bad there's no court to sue him or independent police to rescue your daughter. We degenerate into gang rule pretty darn fast.

      The next step is when some overlord moves in and crushes the gangs in a large area. If you like his policies, fine, I guess, but if you disagree with them, well, you know what happens to armed people who disagree with him, right?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:Get ready everyone with anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make it a 35% flat tax on gross income, no deductions. You know, what it works out to for regular people when you stack in VAT/sales tax, corporate fees passed off as taxes (USF, etc).

      Say hello to a world where vertically integrated megacorps rule because their income is only taxed once while money flowing through a series of smaller less-integrated buisnesses is taxed multiple times.

      That is why for buisnesses we tax profits rather than income, so it is transparent to the tax system whether the value is created in one large megacorp or a chain of smaller buisnesses.

      Finally, a reasonable, cogent rebuttal, and entirely fair if unincorporated individuals can deduct the cost of life, like food, housing, transportation to and from work as well. Otherwise it only encourages waste through 34% unproductive accounting shenanigans to avoid 35% productive taxes. If corporations were actually paying even 35% on profit we would not have the current budget deficit so the real gross rate for current spending, if uniformly enforced, would likely be lower. The 35% rate was chosen to approximate the real cost of taxes to a typical American human (including City/State/Federal taxes, sales, SSI/FICA/etc).

      To be clear, I don't fail to see flaws, I just disagree with scope and severity. You suggest vertically integrated megacorps as a flaw. I see those as already existent. To my advantage, in the gross tax model, they can not offload liability, ala BP/Haliburton/Assetless subcontractor #6272 to avoid judgement the way mass polluters and frauds currently do with relative ease. See below for more on that. Oh and the wealth tax on assets of over 100x average earnings would also lower the overall rate quite a bit.

      Another poster haphazardly suggests that low margin businesses would be unprofitable. Rephrased, that an X% margin cannot survive an X+n% tax (n>=0). My reply is... so what? I'll say you, but assume I refer to a mixed racial, non/gay, non/Muslim, SJW wanna be interpretive dancer in favor of Trump/Clinton/Bernie as you dislike most, so that we can all hate. You can't survive as a singer/dancer, even if you had 0% taxes. The government's job (aka society) is not to enable bad business models, it it to keep us from killing each other as quickly, hopefully with some other positive spill over effects too, like roads, a power grid and property rights, among others.

      Do something more profitable for your business, or work in a business that is more profitable. This will eliminate a lot of "middle man" businesses which are inefficient, but... the internet is already doing that - if I was brave/stupid I could buy crap directly from a factory in China off Alibaba. So does Uber (seen a boom in Taxi _Dispatcher_ hiring lately?) and the autonomous cars/trucks that are bearing down on us.

      Let's look at the flip side of the vertical megacorp. This is ultimately favors small businesses. Farmers for example. As in FARMERS, not AGRIBUSINESS. Farmers are the people whose hands get dirty in the soil and maybe working on a tractor. They can setup a stall, or drive to the farmers market and sell direct at $Y+35%. Safeways need to charge $Y+35%+35'%. The small farmer can now open a shop more profitably. You may say that Safeway would instead buy farms and sell direct... If that was more profitable though, they would ALREADY be doing that. It's cheaper to treat farmers as serfs, the same way minimum wage folk get subsidized by food stamps.

      The gross revenue tax way, we would skip the deduction BS, empower local communities and businesses, or aggressively root out inefficiency in the market by adding tax avoidance as a productivity boost ( true, non-sub-contracted vertical integration) vs an accounting trick double dutch Irish sandwich BS.

      I'm fine with a net profit tax too, but only if I can deduct my Rice a Roni, Kraft Mac n Cheese of Filet Mignon too. And then we end up in Hollywood Accounting land anyway.

      Agree, Disagree? Either wa

  5. Better to ask nicely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the data the investigators want is sitting on US servers and all there is in the Paris office are computers with the users logged out?

    1. Re:Better to ask nicely? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      No kidding....if they set up their branch offices like we do, then Google can then just cut the network connections. Just a bunch of thin clients on the other end that can no longer talk back to home base.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    2. Re:Better to ask nicely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding....if they set up their branch offices like we do, then Google can then just cut the network connections. Just a bunch of thin clients on the other end that can no longer talk back to home base.

      The Google can be charged with destruction of evidence, interfering with an investigation and every other charge a sovereign government wants to impose. Google can then either comply with the law, or cease doing business in that jurisdiction, of any sort, and in any jurisdiction with a treaty with that impacted government. In France's case, that means Google executives can be criminally charged, warrants issued and the extradition process invoked from any other EU country, the US, Canada and pretty much any other English speaking and, dare I say "comfortably" inhabitable place on earth. You can tell most South American, African and Asian countries to FOAD with little economic loss at first. France isn't in any of those groups.

      Long term, if you ignore their laws, they can ignore yours. For an IP company, much less an IP economy like the US, the rest of the country will be leveraged against it. The RIAA/MPAA/BSA members won't sit back and let Google invalidate all of their protections in the EU. The Dems would use it as a rally point in the next election cycle, and so would the "Trumpeteers" screeching protectionism slogans from the WW era.

  6. Google as a verb by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 2

    I can't be the only one who read the title, went to Google, and searched for "France Being Raided For Unpaid Taxes".

    1. Re:Google as a verb by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      I think you were, because that is not what I thought.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  7. Re:So much for "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Absolutely. Not paying every euro in taxes that some bureaucrat somewhere thinks you ought to pay (regardless of the law) is twice as evil as Hitler.

  8. Time to close Google France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With France right to be forgotten and this, why stay in France?

  9. Headlines, again by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Google France Being Raided For Unpaid Taxes

    That makes it sound like debt collectors are checking down the back of the couches in the lobby and repossessing luxury office items to pay the bill.

    They're not being raided for unpaid taxes. They're being raided for information relating to the possibility of unpaid taxes.

    Google could face up to a $11.14 million fine if it is found guilty.

    There you go. Not yet found guilty.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Headlines, again by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of mining businesses for tax money as some kind of economic fix is ludicrous anyway.

      I've been facepalming At Cupertino--that is, Cupertino "Apple is abusing us" California, where $2 billion of world-wide money gets funneled to 13,000 Apple HQ employees, taxed as local income (8% fuck) and sales tax (just as high), and spent in the local economy (local job creation). Cupertino is abusing the world and complaining Apple might owe them $90 million or so from global sales they're not reporting as in-Cupertino sales.

      Compared to Apple's $10 billion net, Google is pulling a $16 billion net *globally*. Google France is claiming Google owes France over 11% of its entire worldwide net operating profits from all markets in all countries everywhere. I doubt Google France has the same draw as Cupertino--France is a country, Cupertino is a city, and Google has 19,000 non-US employees whereas Apple has 13,000 *just* in Cupertino; it's not like Google's salaries are drawing a lopsided amount of money into the French economy. That means France is less ridiculous than Cupertino--but still ridiculous.

      This thing where you mine the businesses for income is stupid. I've dropped business income taxes in my plan (39.6% to 35.1%, computed before the raise to 40% in the US), and shuffled around the income taxes such that the top bracket is 43% (that's some $116,000 additional taxes if you make $10,000,000/year--I want to phase that in *slowly*, and then phase it back out; more a paragraph down), minimum wage households at $8.25/hr (MD rate) are taking home $6k (1 adult) or $14.6k (2 adult, 1 earner) more, and the after-tax take-home of a married-filing-joint at $84,290 is $84,290.

      That means the after-tax take-home of a $15,047 married-filing-jointly, 1-adult household is $21k; the after-tax take-home of a married-filing-jointly, 2 adult household is $30k; and the middle class is steadily more-advantaged until becoming steadily less-advantaged at $84,290. That 43% bump at the top we can phase in by *not* advantaging the middle-class so much at first; over time, the tax increase becomes unnecessary, so we likely won't even hit 43% before rolling back down to below 40%. I like 40% as a stable number (our effective flat income tax rate is 30%; 40% is 10% more): as wealth grows, the income gap spreads, and we can leave that 40% rate as-is while lowering the taxes on the lower and middle classes.

      That kind of tax restructuring gives consumers a higher dollar take-home per wage-labor dollar paid by businesses. My plan moves the payroll tax for OASDI onto an income tax to increase this; and I strongly suggest eliminating sales taxes in favor of progressive income tax. All of these things mean the take-home wage is a smaller proportion of the cost of producing anything, and so consumers can buy more things, thus creating a need for more jobs to produce said things. This usually goes over peoples's heads because they're convinced inflation means products getting more expensive, rather than realizing product X getting more expensive in the absence of more income-per-capita means some other product must sell less (thus reducing the number of jobs)--inflation is more *income* per *consumer*. I've left the income alone but reduced costs, creating more *buying power* per consumer.

      That's all accomplished by reducing the public aid system to provide aid to children and low-income naturalized American families, replacing the general-fund tax (the portion of income tax) funding welfare with an earmarked 17% flat tax diverted to Social Security as a Dividend fund. It provides enough to create a profitable opportunity providing low-income housing and a food market for the unemployed (I accounted for huge risk reserves--e.g. rental prices in low-income areas were at or below $1/sqft in 2013, but I used $1.33 as my budget model); and I worked around the bootstrapping problem (you have no friends, no money, and no credit; how do you buy pots, pans, and dishes in your first month?) by lumpi

    2. Re:Headlines, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a simple question for you. If I somehow accumulate an extra $2 billion, over some number of years, let's say 1 for easy math, how much do you think I should owe in taxes? Is it $0? Because is seems like you think $0 is the right amount because of "reasons". If $0 which is 0% is right, why should anyone who accumulates less than $2 billion pay a higher percentage than 0%?

      In this world you have imagined, let's further pretend social Darwinism and basic indifference to human life, so no social programs need to be budgeted for. Let's ignore the national debt too. In your dystopia , who pays for the army? Who pays for the health care of the army? Who administers and prices the healthcare for the army? Is that all privatized too? Because I think we generally agreed that under the heel of god-kings' whims weren't the way we all wanted to live.

    3. Re:Headlines, again by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      It should be zero. Accumulation of wealth, earning of income, should never be taxed. Tax consumption, not earning. Right now we penalize wealth, we penalize savings and earnings. We encourage spending (via deductions for a variety of expenses). Reverse it, and you'll have a stronger financial foundation. Instead, we have about 2/3rds of households one paycheck away from being destitute. Consumerism, folks - it's a great thing! Spend spend spend, and don't save!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Headlines, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxing Consumption stops working once your dealing with people who earn millions. Yet, Those people earning that much money are the bulk of your tax base.

    5. Re:Headlines, again by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, because rich people don't by big expensive mansions, or really expensive cars, or expensive watches, tailored clothes, etc

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re: Headlines, again by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      Some do, but you don't get rich by constantly spending big amounts...

    7. Re:Headlines, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Reverse it, and you'll have a stronger financial foundation

      Nope. You'll end up with a stagnant economy because everyone saves as much as they can instead of buying shit. There's a balance between "spend all the money!" And "never buy anything you don't need" and your plan utterly fails to account for that.

    8. Re:Headlines, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thought. It sounded like they expected to find the 1.8B in cash in a safe somewhere.

    9. Re: Headlines, again by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Correct! You get rich by accumulating wealth. Which is exactly what a progressive income tax is used to prevent. Why do we not want more rich people? Why don't we want everyone to get ahead?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: Headlines, again by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      Because everyone can't get ahead, simple as that....

    11. Re: Headlines, again by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So we keep everyone from getting ahead. Rather than "unequal division of success" we have "equal division of misery".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re: Headlines, again by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      How would that keep everyone from getting ahead? The wealthy accumulate wealth slightly slower while the poor gets very low or no tax, thus everyone can accumulate some wealth, ideally...

  10. Well know stereotype by Trachman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is a well know stereotype that tax authorities around the world are employing certain type of people. They are know for (or are requited to have) intimidation.

    However French tax authorities met a formidable oponent.

    Companies like Google have enough funds to hire very good specialists. Logical thinking and knowledge of the tax laws is one of the criteria.

    Eventually it will be the fight between the two: intimidation vs legal logic.

    I am betting that Google will win. All french authorities are doing, are sending armed masked swat as if google was some sort of illegal business. Imagination is not their thing...

    1. Re:Well know stereotype by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      All french authorities are doing, are sending armed masked swat as if google was some sort of illegal business. Imagination is not their thing...

      Imagination is clearly your thing, if you suppose that a swat team would be used for a white collar raid.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Well know stereotype by hjf · · Score: 1

      If you think "legal logic" works like in TV, or debate class, where you can claim "OH, BUT TECHINICALLY..." and win the case, you're in for a surprise.

  11. This is not France, or Europe, vs US companies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is World vs Multinationals. All countries, including the US, are slowly getting smart about taxing large companies.
    Everyone is realizing that countries competing on tax conditions for large companies does not benefit anyone, except the large companies.
    Expect to see much more counties to demand corporations pay tax on gains obtained in their specific country, regardless of the corporations internal financial structure and organization and tax deals with other countries.

  12. Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators". How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?

    And to those that say these companies are not doing anything illegal: try claiming to the tax man that you have to pay no income tax because you have no income, because all you earn you have to pay to a company based in Panama called John Doe, inc., as this company owns your name and lets you use it for the exact amount of taxable income that you earn each month.

    The tax man will skin you alive if you try this. But this is exactly the kind of shit Google, Apple, Amazon, and your favourite megacorp get away with.

    --
    entropy happens
    1. Re:Cue the shills by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Companies wanted to be treated like people, well, so they're treated like people.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Cue the shills by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax

      Not only should Google not have to pay any tax, no corporation should, because corporate taxes are evil and harm the people. The dynamics of markets mean that in the long run corporations never actually pay any tax regardless of the checks they write to the government. That's because regardless of whether or not they have tax expenses, their after-tax profits are determined by market forces, and their before-tax profits adapt to generate that net profit level regardless of taxation, because either they generate the returns expected by the market or their capital gets sent to others who will. They do this adaptation by pushing the cost of the taxes off on employees and customers. Mostly customers.

      In short: corporations inevitably pass taxes onto customers in the form of higher prices and employees in the form of lower wages. Those that don't get squeezed out entirely.

      So, only people pay taxes. Sometimes we pay them directly and know about it, sometimes we pay them indirectly, hidden in other costs. The latter situation is evil and corporate taxes create exactly that situation. It's evil because while taxes are necessary, in a properly-functioning democracy (of whatever form) it's critical that taxpayers know what they pay so they can act as informed voters. Lawmakers love corporate taxes because as far as the voters can see, the taxes fund the government at no cost to the voters themselves... but they're wrong. The voters do pay all of those taxes, every penny. And the taxes aren't allocated according to a nice, progressive scale, they are allocated however the corporations and their competitors decide.

      Corporate taxes are evil and we should abolish them.

    3. Re:Cue the shills by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators".

      How dare you?! Google doesn't need to pay any tax! They are not doing anything illegal! This is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from wealth creators!

      How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?

      I'll tell you when I get the check. Do you know how long it takes to arrive? ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.

      --
      entropy happens
    5. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      And to those that say these companies are not doing anything illegal: try claiming to the tax man that you have to pay no income tax because you have no income, because all you earn you have to pay to a company based in Panama called John Doe, inc., as this company owns your name and lets you use it for the exact amount of taxable income that you earn each month.

      Wealthy individuals in Europe do this all the time: they move to Monaco or Switzerland or the Bahamas and transfer their assets to trusts and not-for-profit companies. It's only the European lower and middle classes that can't escape Europe's massive taxation legally; of course, regular Europeans just lie and cheat on their taxes at much higher rates than Americans.

    6. Re:Cue the shills by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.

      Meh.

      My point is the more important one. If Google hasn't paid the taxes owed under the law, investigation will find that and the taxes will be demanded, and paid. If Google actually has followed the letter of the law, then the French government is just engaging in some obnoxious (and probably illegal) intimidation tactics. Either way, it'll be resolved.

      But the whole question is wrong-headed because corporate taxes are a very bad idea and should be eliminated.

    7. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      They do this indeed, it is one of the main sources of income of Switzerland. However, this is not what I described, as they still need to actually move to Switzerland to pay tax there. The tax man does not accept you simply setting up a trust there. And it kinda sucks living in Switzerland if all your family and friends are in Spain.

      --
      entropy happens
    8. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Wow, we have got ourselves an Ayn Rand true believer here! Are you for real or are you just trolling?

      --
      entropy happens
    9. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      My point is the more important one.

      Some courtesy goes a long way in raising the level of discussion. But I'll let that pass and reply to the content of your post: yes, obviously who pays Google's corporate tax is people who pay for Google's services, in terms of higher prices (in a non-monopolistic market, that is. I'll ignore that Google is a monopoly for the sake of argument). I'm perfectly okay with people who use Google's services paying tax for that privilege. It is similar to sales tax, if you think about it. The difference is that sales tax applies only to specific goods being sold, whereas corporate tax applies to any complicated business structure the company might have.

      --
      entropy happens
    10. Re:Cue the shills by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As of today, they aren't doing anything illegal. There's been no charge, nothing filed in court, no judgment made. But that's OK, go ahead and jump to conclusions...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Cue the shills by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read my other comments and blog here before throwing nonsense around. I don't need Ayn Rand to know what is right and what is wrong, I held my views for over 30 years now and I only read her stuff about 3 years ago. I as well could have written those books but I did enjoy reading them.

    12. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      as they still need to actually move to Switzerland to pay tax there

      Capital gains are tax-free in Switzerland, and the top federal income tax bracket is 11.5%. Cantonal income tax varies between about 2% and 10%.

      The tax man does not accept you simply setting up a trust there

      You misunderstood. Wealthy Europeans can avoid paying taxes in their own home countries without even the trouble of moving by putting their wealth into trusts.

      And it kinda sucks living in Switzerland if all your family and friends are in Spain.

      They live in Switzerland, have a trust-owned estate in Spain, and go back and forth by private jet or chauffeur. Sounds pretty sweet to me. And it's all legal. Besides, wealthy Spaniards have closer tax havens than Switzerland.

    13. Re:Cue the shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words I could kill someone and it would be completely legal as long as nobody had evidence of a crime, even if it was plainly obvious that you disappeard. As opposed to it being illegal to kill someone even if I did not get caught in the act? Think about it.

      Now it is painfully obvious that large corporations are avoiding taxes and nobody is denying it, they just use some convoluted procedures to traverse a labyrinth of loopholes and technicalities. Their only defense is basically: "Your honor I did not technically kill him according to an obscure interaction of these 5 laws, even thought my actions were carefully laid out to lead to his demise and worked out as I expected them to".

    14. Re:Cue the shills by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's not how the law works. You are considered innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law at this very moment. Otherwise there would be no crime.

      The French tax authorities told them more than once that their little scheme isn't legal. They ignored them and tried to argue it, and refused to cooperate, until the only option left was a raid.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      They paid 180 million pounds to the British because of the same shenanigans. That counts as admitting guilt in my book. Oh, I did nothing wrong, but I'll give you a couple hundred million pounds just to make you happy.

      The question is not whether Google France committed fraud, but how much they scammed out of the tax man.

      --
      entropy happens
    16. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I see. So you are seriously advocating the murder of people who work for the French tax authorities. This is a crime in most countries, and I hope the police pays you a visit and teaches you to behave in a civilized society.

      --
      entropy happens
    17. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we are even disagreeing on any facts. I'm arguing that most rich Europeans do pay their income tax (in fact, the vast majority that does not live in Switzerland). A proof of this is that thousands of celebrities have moved to Switzerland to avoid paying tax.

      The situation I was describing is someone setting up a trust overseas to avoid paying income tax. It does not work. The rich set up trusts to manage their fortunes overseas and avoid wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.

      --
      entropy happens
    18. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I'm arguing that most rich Europeans do pay their income tax (in fact, the vast majority that does not live in Switzerland).

      You're missing the point. You originally said that "The tax man will skin you alive if you try this." But, in fact, individuals have plenty of ways of avoiding paying income and capital gains taxes quite legally. So your notion that corporations are somehow privileged in being able to do this is false.

      The situation I was describing is someone setting up a trust overseas to avoid paying income tax. It does not work

      No, but what does work (and what I was referring to) is setting up trusts and non-profits at home.

    19. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Tell me, how are you going to avoid income tax without moving out of your country? All rich Europeans are desperate to hear your answer. I proposed a specific scheme for avoiding income tax that does not work. The tax man will skin you alive if you try that.

      --
      entropy happens
    20. Re:Cue the shills by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      As of today, they aren't doing anything illegal. There's been no charge, nothing filed in court, no judgment made. But that's OK, go ahead and jump to conclusions...

      No and yes.

      They haven't been charged so far but that doesn't mean that what they've been doing is legal, thus the investigation to determine if what they've done is legal or not.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    21. Re:Cue the shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What stops people from creating corporations/companies and stop paying any tax?
      Write every expense of their life as a corporate expense so they don't need any personal money?

    22. Re:Cue the shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read my other comments and blog here before throwing nonsense around. I don't need Ayn Rand to know what is right and what is wrong, I held my views for over 30 years now and I only read her stuff about 3 years ago. I as well could have written those books but I did enjoy reading them.

      You only read Ayn Rand 3 years ago? That speaks poorly for your level of information, since you could have been much more up to date even 20 years sooner.

      I suggest you read more, and speak less.

    23. Re:Cue the shills by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      I am advocating destruction of all governments, not just the French.

    24. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I proposed a specific scheme for avoiding income tax that does not work.

      You're right: your specific proposal doesn't work, but your specific proposal is bullshit, starting with the fact that corporate profits aren't like income tax. It didn't seem worth pointing that out.

      What I was saying is that wealthy individuals have many ways of tax avoidance in Europe for capital gains and other "profits", namely by changing their formal place of residence, by creating trusts, and by moving their investments around.

      If you earn a regular income from an employer, it is very hard for you to avoid income tax in both Europe and the US. That's how European welfare states are financed: by bleeding their middle class dry because they can't do anything about it.

    25. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      My specific proposal is a very close analogue to what Google does. And my point is precisely that it is bullshit, that you need to work a lot harder to avoid taxes as an individual.

      And if you think it is so easy to avoid tax by changing your formal place of residence and assorted tricks, could you please explain to me why thousands of celebrities have actually moved to Switzerland for the sole purpose of avoiding tax? Mind you, these are not people who earn regular income from an employer. I'm talking about Phil Collins, David Bowie, Gérard Depardieu, Cat Stevens, Jenson Button, Felix Baumgartner, the whole fucking bands Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones... Do I need to continue?

      --
      entropy happens
    26. Re:Cue the shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman gets his randian thought by way of the cult that he spends most of his time recruiting for. he still thinks that the leader of his cult is the original source of this thought (even though said leader named his own son rand in honor of ayn).

      roman's follow up bit about "destruction of government" is bull as well, or at best a half truth. sure, he wants to see the us government overthrown, but then he wants it replaced with a government of one - lead by his cult leader, for all eternity.

    27. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No, income from employment is not equivalent to profits. Reducing income taxes is very hard because income is reported by your employer; there is little ambiguity about it, and it's easy to place limits on allowable deductions.

      As for celebrities having"actually"moved to Switzerland, how do you know? Obviously, they need to own property in Switzerland and spend a little time there, but you have no idea how they spend their time otherwise. From personal experience, I can tell you that it is easy to have your primary residence in a country while actually spending most of your time elsewhere. There is nothing unusual or illegal about that.

    28. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I think you need to research how Google's tax scheme works.

      --
      entropy happens
    29. Re:Cue the shills by iris-n · · Score: 1

      If you ever get out of your basement and actually do something about destructing governments you are going to have a nasty surprise.

      --
      entropy happens
    30. Re:Cue the shills by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I think you need to research how Google's tax scheme works.

      No, you need to realize that personal income is just very different from business profits. Personal income tax is probably the hardest tax to avoid among all the taxes we face day to day. That's why your analogy doesn't work at all.

    31. Re:Cue the shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points for you. :(

  13. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or shall I say
                Gooooooooooooood!

  14. New Google motto by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    "Don't get busted". You heard it here first.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  15. If they had any sense.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google had any sense, they'd close down all French operations, quit serving searches/email/youtube or ANYthing they do to any french IP address.. Then watch how damn fast those fuckin' frogs would beg Google to come back.

    1. Re:If they had any sense.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google had any sense, they'd close down all French operations, quit serving searches/email/youtube or ANYthing they do to any french IP address.. Then watch how damn fast those fuckin' frogs would beg Google to come back.

      A brilliant solution, fellow AC. Except Google can't just leave France - France has agreements with the EU and the US, among other countries. Those countries have agreements stating what can and can not be done. Even if Google leaves now, they may still owe back taxes if they haven't paid them properly. Extradition is a thing so if Google wants to refuse to obey the law, then they need to leave the rest of the EU too. And the USA. And every other developed economy, really. Google is free to do so, to buy a spaceship and try to get out off planet and out of all jurisdictions they can be reached in.

      If they can't, well, they gotta pay the piper, Mr. Dumas.

    2. Re:If they had any sense.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google had any sense, they'd close down all French operations, quit serving searches/email/youtube or ANYthing they do to any french IP address.. Then watch how damn fast those fuckin' frogs would beg Google to come back.

      They would just reboot Minitel.

      What network was the general public using in your country back in 1978?

  16. They came for the , and I said nothing... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny, my take is exactly the opposite.

    I think you misspelled "tragic".

    Big corporations have been playing a shell game with the tax man for a long time.

    You mean playing by the rules the states have set in place for taxes, and now being robbed by way of thanks for complying.

    The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services

    Is nothing compared to the vast windfall the governments are about to take for themselves.

    What "government services" are these companies stealing exactly? They already pay shipping companies who in turn pay taxes for roads. They already pay employment taxes for all of the workers they employ, and those employees in turn pay income tax and VAT and so on.

    The only question on taxes involving large companies is if the LAWS THE COMPANIES ARE FOLLOWING LEGALLY collect "too little" in sales tax (last year for example Apple paid Australia 193 million in taxes), but sales tax has zilch to do with "government services", it just says how much off the top the government gets to skim from your earnings for which the government has not put forth the slightest effort beyond existing.

    Why should the government get larger and larger sums just to grow organizations that exist mostly to hamper productive people?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "government services" are these companies stealing exactly? They already pay shipping companies who in turn pay taxes for roads. They already pay employment taxes for all of the workers they employ, and those employees in turn pay income tax and VAT and so on.

      If a company is not paying taxes, then the primary service they are stealing is police protection for me not killing them, stealing their stuff and then burning the place down to obscure my tracks. Poor people who don't have stuff to steal or property to burn down don't benefit from police or fire protection. The serfs in the old days didn't really care which King ruled them, they got trampled into the mud no matter which Lord charged across the field they worked. So the poor don't really benefit much from military spending either. Taxes pay for those services, so if a poor person isn't paying much, its not a big deal, really. But if a wealthy person, who disproportionately benefits from those services is NOT paying, that is doubly damning. That's the services being stolen (freeloaded) by the wealthy who do not pay a proportionate share of taxes.

      As for your other zombie lies: Employers do not pay employment taxes - the employees do. The employer merely collects half, and deducts the other half from the pay check of the employee. The employer doesn't magically "pay" VAT on behalf of the employee. I can't take all my grocery and other household receipts, tally up the VAT and submit it to my employer on an expense report expecting to get paid. Any other interpretation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of economics, willful deception, or usually a mix of both.

    2. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "government services" are these companies stealing exactly? They already pay shipping companies who in turn pay taxes for roads.

      Funny, in my country, fuel taxes don't pay for all of the roads. So we have to collect elsewhere, since nobody will agree to the increase on the fuel taxes. Which have remained the same for over 2 decades now.

      They already pay employment taxes for all of the workers they employ, and those employees in turn pay income tax and VAT and so on.

      Funny, in my country, the employment taxes are for dedicated services, not for the services companies receive, as they don't retire or go on disability.

      But no, employee taxes don't cover all the services that companies utilize, if they did, 100% of revenue would have to go to salaries.

      And VAT doesn't register at all.

      The only question on taxes involving large companies is if the LAWS THE COMPANIES ARE FOLLOWING LEGALLY collect "too little" in sales tax (last year for example Apple paid Australia 193 million in taxes), but sales tax has zilch to do with "government services", it just says how much off the top the government gets to skim from your earnings for which the government has not put forth the slightest effort beyond existing.

      Nope. Sales taxes are on purchases, not earnings. That's why they are called sales taxes, or use taxes, not income taxes. Doesn't come off the top either, but the bottom, which is why sales taxes are so regressive.

      Of course, if you think your government isn't serving your interests, you have a right to object, but the idea that they are not doing anything? That is, of course, a foolish and childish argument that apparently neglects to note that the spending on government is often directed to many goals and objectives, which it accomplishes to varying degrees. If you are not satisfied, that's a separate problem, which you can address through a variety of means, however I am unable to give you advice on that since I don't know what ails you, as your hyperbole has only accomplished in making your objection meaningless as it is implausible to say the least.

      Why should the government get larger and larger sums just to grow organizations that exist mostly to hamper productive people?

      Again, if you have a problem with the way your government operates, that's on you to resolve, though I will differ on some of the things that my government organizations do as hampering productive people. I mean, really, I get that Pimp Daddy is trolling lots of ho's, but it's not like any of them are even making a free decision to be there, and then there's the guys who have been dumping shit on my property, which may seem productive, if you think getting me to clean up after you is a good idea.

      I don't. So sorry, but I want some people to be hampered, even if you think they're productive, for whatever reason you may hold.

      I'd also like them to hold the roofer, the plumber, the insurer, and a few dozen others to the wall.

    3. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally, I'd say that "don't hate the playa, hate the game" is a stupid phrase, because not everyone plays. But in the world of paying taxes, you can't not play. If you think Google, or Microsoft, or Apple, or any other company is paying too little, fix your damn tax laws.

    4. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      You mean playing by the rules the states have set in place for taxes, and now being robbed by way of thanks for complying.

      How do you know they have been playing by the rules? This is a raid, next they'll investigate whether this is true or not.

    5. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      In the context of my message earnings are the same purchases, though I know they mean something different in traditional business terms. That is plain by referencing skimming which is what sales tax does, skim from sales (or what I called earnings because I think of each sale as "earned" by the company).

      I agree it's too confusing to overlap terms like that though, so I will not do that again...

      Funny, in my country, the employment taxes are for dedicated services, not for the services companies receive.

      In your country people pay no income tax? Because if they do they are contributing to any services the company receives.

      What were those services the company receives form the government again exactly? It's not electricity (which the company pays for) nor property maintenance (which property taxes or rent pay for) nor even sewer (which again is paid for by each location to the city). What exactly is the massive thing the companies are getting for free they are not contributing towards in any way?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about taking care of the less fortunate people in the world? you may be lucky and be in good health, not everyone is.
      you either help them or you give them the cripple horse treatment.

      i don't want international corporations dodging taxes and then with the profits buy the whole god damn world, the rich getting richer, you and me paying for the rest

      you're either part of society and contribute your fair share or you are a parasite

    7. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the context of my message earnings are the same purchases, though I know they mean something different in traditional business terms. That is plain by referencing skimming which is what sales tax does, skim from sales (or what I called earnings because I think of each sale as "earned" by the company).

      I agree it's too confusing to overlap terms like that though, so I will not do that again...

      Well, you make the point moot, but no, that's not what sales taxes do, no. Even the collection of sales taxes? Companies are compensated for that cost-burden upon them. At least, where I am. I can't speak for where you are.

      Funny, in my country, the employment taxes are for dedicated services, not for the services companies receive.

      In your country people pay no income tax?

      I said employment taxes, didn't I? But actually, where I am, income taxes don't apply to salaries (or wages if you term them that way, I understand some places make a distinction), where I am, though, no.

      I'm not entirely sure what those income taxes fund though.

      Because if they do they are contributing to any services the company receives.

      Whether or not the companies involved are paying enough for any services they receive, that is a separate problem, but like I mentioned, you can't rely on things like fuel taxes to assert that they paid for their share of the roads.

      Or anything else.

      What were those services the company receives form the government again exactly? It's not electricity (which the company pays for) nor property maintenance (which property taxes or rent pay for) nor even sewer (which again is paid for by each location to the city).

      Actually, in my experience, those services are also managed with supervisory administrations that are not maintained by the fees you discuss. Of course, if you DO wish to increase those, you can do so, with your representatives. Then you can make it work that way.

      But in the meantime, where I live, like for the roads, the fuel taxes don't begin to cover everything. So the electrical fees don't cover all the aspects of grid management (my utility got some money for that recently), or environmental controls (also an issue for sewer systems, my city is on a river, and the upstream/downstream issues are managed by an environmental agency that isn't funded from sewer fees).

      I assume this is similar where you are, but I don't know.

      What exactly is the massive thing the companies are getting for free they are not contributing towards in any way?

      You should check your government's budget processes for its various undertakings and see how they fund themselves on your own. I am unwilling to provide you with a breakdown since I don't know what your government is, let alone about a hypothetical company and what services it utilizes. I could tell you what my government does with its various tax collections, but it might not be applicable to your situation at all.

      However, as I said above, you could rework your taxes so they're directly applied at the point of service, I'm not committed to an income tax, by any means.

      You're welcome to address how your government works and seek to revise it, I've got no problem with that. You have the right to seek to modify it.

      My problem has been with the character of your presentation, namely how you seem to believe your government is somehow doing nothing. If you truly live in such a parasitical regime, that's quite unfortunate for you, but I live somewhere that has a functioning government that endeavors to serve the needs of its people, so I really find your portrayal to be quite inaccurate and inapplicable to me.

      I suggest you change your approach, instead of your negative fashion, perhaps articulate your ideas in a more positive manner?

    8. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, my take is exactly the opposite.

      I think you misspelled "tragic".

      Big corporations have been playing a shell game with the tax man for a long time.

      You mean playing by the rules the states have set in place for taxes, and now being robbed by way of thanks for complying.

      The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services

      Is nothing compared to the vast windfall the governments are about to take for themselves.

      What "government services" are these companies stealing exactly? They already pay shipping companies who in turn pay taxes for roads. They already pay employment taxes for all of the workers they employ, and those employees in turn pay income tax and VAT and so on.

      The only question on taxes involving large companies is if the LAWS THE COMPANIES ARE FOLLOWING LEGALLY collect "too little" in sales tax (last year for example Apple paid Australia 193 million in taxes), but sales tax has zilch to do with "government services", it just says how much off the top the government gets to skim from your earnings for which the government has not put forth the slightest effort beyond existing.

      Why should the government get larger and larger sums just to grow organizations that exist mostly to hamper productive people?

      If that is GST then it isn't Apple paying that at all, it is the consumers who are paying it. Apple is just collecting it on the behalf of the government so the people don't have to deal with the crap that people in certain states of the USA have to deal with (i.e. having to add taxes on to ticket price of an item). It has nothing to do with any profits that Apple makes, it is a flat 10% on goods and services (other then certain exempt items like fresh fruit and vegetables and toiletries). It could cost Apple twice the ticket price of an item to make and sell yet they would still be required to collect that 10% tax on the sale of the item and remit it to the government.

    9. Re:They came for the , and I said nothing... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      The moment I hear the term "fair share", I know the argument is false.

  17. Dear France: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More of this, less of the IP-protectionist and search-censoring bullshit.

    Maybe your willingness to take these behemoths to task on their tax dodges will give US legislators some balls (yeah right...)

  18. LOL by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    I love how France raids American businesses, but ignores French and European Businesses.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:LOL by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Oh no it doesn't. It is just that it doesn't make it to the news when some local business gets raided.

    2. Re:LOL by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      They raid French businesses all the same. With SWAT teams. Used to work for one that got raided.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:LOL by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I love how you just make shit up to support your "viewpoint".

      What's interesting is that I doubt that there are any number of contrary facts which will make you change your opinion.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S., on the other hand, does seem to raid foreign-owned companies much more often than US companies.

    5. Re:LOL by Tukz · · Score: 1

      So you read a lot of local French news?

      This happens all the time, but it's not global news worthy.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    6. Re:LOL by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      no, actually, I DO read French news and the only ones that the gov goes after are the small ones. Total, Areva, Orange and Sanofi are all companies that owe money to the french gov, but your gov is doing little to NOTHING.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. France is just hoping to find sales activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google does all their sales for all of their European operations out of the Google Office in Northern Ireland, which is kind of a tax haven. The Paris office is a technical one and does not do sales.

      If it did, France could get significant tax revenue. France were hoping to justify their 1.3 billion tax bill it levied against Google but have yet to prove those sales originated in France. They did not, so the French Finance minister tried to find some. It didn't.

    C'est la vie!

  20. Re:How about going after everyone else when your d by jandersen · · Score: 2

    I guess you have to start somewhere, but this is pretty much how every international business in the world dodges taxes.

    Indeed - and Google isn't the first corporation to be put through the EU wringer either; remember Microsoft? It is the right thing to do, and once they are on a roll, more and more countries will follow suit.

  21. Re:How about going after everyone else when your d by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess you have to start somewhere

    If you don't have a solid case then you go mafia style after the small guys who can't afford to defend themselves.
    If you do have a solid case then you go straight after the biggest fish to prove the point and set the precedence. The idea is if they go after Google they won't need to go after anyone else, just send them the bill.

  22. OK, I'm confused. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . this has segued from international taxation to SJWs to guns. Although, I would argue that apparently the original SJW comment was aimed at a specific user.

    But the jump to guns, where did THAT come from ??

    I realize this is /., but geeze, people , at least TRY to stay on topic. . . .

    1. Re:OK, I'm confused. . . by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it came from someones hatred for ncc74656('s) sig. In fact it is pretty blatant if you look at it. You may need to expand your comment view since the bootlicker somehow got a +5 funny when the comment the bootlicker was responding to got modded down to 0 by other bootlickers or sjw's.

  23. Go figure by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators". How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?

    Huh. I stated the exact same sentiment in a story yesterday about off-shored US corporate lucre avoiding taxes... and got rated down to a zero.

    1. Re:Go figure by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Huh. And I got up to 5. I guess I got lucky with the mods (a shill gave me a -1, though).

      But reading your post I see that you got quite lyrical, while my post is barely grammaticaly correct. I guess keeping it simple helps people understand your point.

      --
      entropy happens
  24. One Half ? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    this is a case of laws designed to fail. Instead of a fine of 50% of the laundered sums why woulds any government not always fine much more than the violation harvested? For example if a company cheats and steals $1,000 dollars why not fine them $10,000 ? I would love a situation where I could go out and rob banks and be punished by paying back one half of my loot. Microsoft has created so many violations over the last 20 years that a RICCO Act could be used to seize the entire corporation. I believe that Microsoft has paid at least two billion in fines for various violations. They probably made 20 billion by those violations. Sometimes corruption can be built into a law.

    1. Re:One Half ? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      It's one half ON TOP OF the unpaid taxes. So, if you're found to have evaded $1 million in taxes, you have to pay the $1 million, plus $500k in penalties.

  25. Roasting people's signatures by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

    I see we have completely derailed.

    If I rush out quickly and find a sig, could we roast me next?

    Cheers.

  26. Re:How about going after everyone else when your d by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    FYI, precedent, not precedence.

    http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
    http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

    Not meaning to be an ass, just hoping to help you improve your language usage. I would expect the same when I make a mistake.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  27. Re:How about going after everyone else when your d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 you made big mistakes against apk and you acted like an ass(hole) as he tore your incompetent ass up https://slashdot.org/comments....

  28. Ask Coren22 to spell "incompetent", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this regarding his bullshit giving you guff on spelling/grammar (courtesy of "yours truly") https://slashdot.org/comments....

    APK

    P.S.=> Then there's my other post in reply to that scumbag weasel Coren22 putting him in his place on computing technicals (of which he's NOTHING more than a punk playing 'expert' in, yet he's so LIMITED he has to depend on coders like myself to make his tools he merely 'uses' - creating NOTHING of his own...)