Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Urges Global Minimum Tax For Digital Giants (yahoo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the one-for-all dept.

Germany is backing a global minimum tax rate as Europe looks to levy tax notably on U.S. tech giants. "Europe is trying to devise a strategy to tax profits from the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and digital platforms such as YouTube and Airbnb which currently manage to keep fiscal exposure to a bare minimum," reports Yahoo News. From the report: "We need a minimum tax rate valid globally which no state can get out of (applying)," Scholz, a social democrat in conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government, told the "Welt am Sonntag" weekly. Digital platforms "aggravate a problem which we know well from globalization and which we are trying to counter -- the shifting of profits to fiscally beneficial regions," said Scholz. Scholz explained he had launched an initiative designed to help states react to so-called fiscal dumping in support of embryonic OECD plans designed to fight tax transparency and cross-border tax evasion. "We require coordinated mechanisms which prevent the displacement of revenues to tax havens," said Scholz. A March proposal by the Commission includes introducing a tax as a bridge measure until such time as the OECD can roll out a measure which can be applied globally.

157 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. The US will never agree to this by magzteel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can go pound sand

    1. Re:The US will never agree to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Luckily what the US wants or doesn't want is irrelevant in this matter.

      Much like the country itself is becoming more and more irrelevant on the world stage.

    2. Re:The US will never agree to this by LtUoNXizqxawTj4ofx7t · · Score: 1

      Lol, EU does not need to ask permissions how to tax countries selling to their consumers.

    3. Re:The US will never agree to this by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      They can go pound sand

      Actually Germany pounds lignite.

    4. Re:The US will never agree to this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      EU does not need to ask permissions how to tax countries selling to their consumers.

      Yes they do. It is a blatant violation of WTO rules to tax American products differently based on their origin. So they have to craft this carefully so that only American companies pay the tax and no European companies are inadvertently snagged, without explicitly saying that is their goal. One way to do this is to penalize "bigness", but that is clearly a contrived distinction, so expect this to be vigorously challenged by the US in the WTO courts.

      Scholz's words will come back to haunt him. He is basically admitting to designing an illegal tax policy. It is hard to claim you are not intentionally targeting Americans when you have already clearly stated that you are.

    5. Re: The US will never agree to this by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 2

      Your comment isn't based in reality. The Iran treaty meant there were limits on Iran along with inspections to verify them, just like with the Soviet Union. Now there is no limit and no inspections. Other countries still trade with them - how is it better now? That money was already theirs, we'd kept it since their revolution.

    6. Re: The US will never agree to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you call 30 day notice an inspection then you are a complete moron.

    7. Re:The US will never agree to this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't read the first sentence of the summary, huh?

      It doesn't matter if the US agrees or not. What Germany is proposing is that the EU implements a minimum global tax rate for companies that do business in the EU. So if the minimum global rate is say 10% and the US levies 15% all is well. If the US only levies 5% then the EU will collect the other 5%. Numbers made up.

      This has nothing to do with the US though. This is about tax havens and companies funnelling profits out of the EU. They use bullshit like ridiculous licencing fees to a holding company in the Cayman Islands to claim that their EU operation is making no profit and only has to pay a tiny bit of tax there, but the EU will just tax them based on global income instead.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:The US will never agree to this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't about products. This is about companies that operate in the EU. For example Apple has subsidiaries in most EU countries and a holding company in Ireland where it sends all its global profits to.

      Those subsidiaries will be forced to pay the global tax rate. Apple can either pay to close them down and leave the EU, which it won't do because the EU is an incredibly lucrative market.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:The US will never agree to this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, he is talking about a tax on revenue (sales), not profits.

    10. Re:The US will never agree to this by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      lol, nope they don't need to ask permission, they don't get to. Period.
      Unless there is a physical presence within their country, they've got zero ability to tax.
      Sending electrons over another company's communications channel does not constitute a physical presence.

      Ever heard of tarriffs? Donald Trump certainly has.

      If anybody outside of country X sells something to the residents of country X, then the government of country X can impose a tarriff on it. And the residents of country X pay that tarriff when they buy whatever the 'something' is.

      Tax, tarriff? Tomayto, tomahto.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:The US will never agree to this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The exact implementation details might focus on sales because if companies hide their profits with ridiculous licencing fees then what else can you go on? And it might as well be punitive, to encourage them to work with the proper tax system and pay the right amount instead of getting an inflated estimate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:The US will never agree to this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      like ridiculous licencing fees to a holding company in the Cayman Islands to claim that their EU operation is making no profit

      "Ridiculous" is no more than an opinion here -- it's no more ridiculous than the franchising fees McDonalds charges all its restaurant owners for the rights to use its name and sell food - the vast majority of the individual restaurants owners' profits have to paid away to the parent company that licenses their franchise, after subtracting that and expenses and sales, there's about $100K or so profit per year left for the individual McDonalds owner or about 5 to 10% of the profit versus a few million $$ for the parent company.

      The parent company is licensing the right to valuable branding, resource access, and intellectual property to their franchisee, though at the cost of most of the German subsidiary's profits (for example), what's being licensed is obviously extremely valuable.

      So you could say it's quite reasonable, although there is also a deliberate structure here to minimize the collective taxes for the parent company; the German company is, after all a different company that pays a heft premium for the ability to do business using a name like "Google" or "Apple", etc

    13. Re:The US will never agree to this by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "This has nothing to do with the US though."
      Just the US brands and US innovation parts.
      Once all the EU starts to demand more tax, US brands have the freedom to find better nations with better tax laws.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:The US will never agree to this by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      expect this to be vigorously challenged by the US in the WTO courts.

      Since when does the US believe in the WTO?

    15. Re: The US will never agree to this by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      What, because Germany wants a piece of the action without fostering any of the environment that lead to it's creation?

      But it's not fair!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:The US will never agree to this by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Ireland a part of the EU will fell the loss as US brands move to other parts of the world.
      Then add that nation wide feeling of the EU telling Ireland what to do.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:The US will never agree to this by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the US agrees or not. What Germany is proposing is that the EU implements a minimum global tax rate for companies that do business in the EU. So if the minimum global rate is say 10% and the US levies 15% all is well. If the US only levies 5% then the EU will collect the other 5%. Numbers made up.

      How would it change anything then? The US already collects taxes on overseas operations for all US-based corporations, effectively instituting exactly this sort of minimum tax. Any taxes paid overseas can be deducted from the taxes that are owed to the US. If enough taxes are paid overseas, no taxes are owed to the US for those overseas operations.

      I think where the US system goes off the rails is that it allows US corporations to avoid paying those taxes by keeping the money overseas more or less indefinitely. The US corporations can't repatriate that money to the US without incurring the taxes owed on it—so they keep it overseas as long as they can in the hope that the US will vote in a President and Congress that will offer them a tax holiday—but keeping it over there in the meantime means that they get to go years with an effective tax rate that's near 0%, thus rightfully pissing off all of the locals.

      Close the loophole by compelling them to repatriate the money and they'll quickly become more amenable to higher tax rates elsewhere, since they'd face them at home anyway.

  2. The EU is a scam by Samhain138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to keep in mind Germany's long history of wanting money from *other* countries, and I do mean WWII.
    The EU is no different; it's controlled by Germans, their banks are in Germany.
    Fair taxes my ass.
    They drained Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain out of money.

    The EU (at least monetary union) suffers from a similar problem as the US, a large geographic region using the same currency.
    But when the European Parliament discussed a tax equivalent to the US tax, Germany who controls the EU and would've been the highest tax payer given such tax, refused immediately.

    Meanwhile Germany is doing great while a lot of countries in Europe are struggling.
    But expecting anything ethical from Germany is nonsense, from WWII to the EU through the VW diesel scandal.
    They just love free money

    1. Re:The EU is a scam by Samhain138 · · Score: 1

      I mean US state tax, oops!

    2. Re:The EU is a scam by gtall · · Score: 1

      Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain got into trouble by not managing their own economies and spending very well.

    3. Re: The EU is a scam by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      German and other banks loaned those countries money they couldn't pay for spending they couldn't afford. What should those banks have done?

    4. Re: The EU is a scam by Samhain138 · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like it's black and white.
      It's not.
      Sure, but also, they are forced to export X% of their produce at a fixed price, both determined entirely by the EU.
      If they had a fair chance at free market economics, you'd have a point.
      It's no coincidence the money was mismanaged after joining the EU.
      The UK understand just that, and that's where Brexit originates from, although it's poorly understood by the British...

    5. Re:The EU is a scam by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It's not like Ireland said no to the EU and then was dragged in by the scruff of its neck or anything.

  3. In this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Arrogant Americans who think the world still revolves around them. The tech giants of the world (and the Starbucks types too) need to pay a fair share of their profits back to the nations in which they do business. I would't care so much but none of these businesses are squeaky clean either - Starbucks with their litter and attendant ecological costs, Facebook with their data harvesting, Apple with their unrepairable ewaste. And so on. Now I know some Slashtard (every cunt on here is oh so clever) will be along to label me as some sort of liberal/communist but I'm actually right of centre. That said, these companies must start paying their way.

    1. Re: In this thread by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I was actually going to go with "entitled douche simpleton" instead of communist. Don't like these companies behavior? Don't use their products. Oh, I know, you don't have a choice, right? Then start your own free services that pay the bills without doing any of the stuff you don't like.

      Here's a tip: if you aren't the paying customer, you are the product. Don't expect free shit and private enterprise to be charities.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by magarity · · Score: 1

    Income tax, inheritance tax, even VAT, all that crap is subject to waaaay to many loopholes. But it doesn't matter if Joe is a billionaire or a pauper, he buys something at the register or gets it delivered, tax that sale and it's much simpler to audit and enforce than all the other tax methods combined.

    1. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by PPH · · Score: 1

      We have just such a loophole in place already. Food (groceries) is exempt from sales tax. Gas taxes? Poor people don't drive that much. Take the bus (subsidized).

      If I put a tax of $15 on $100 of groceries

      Then the rich people will have to cough up $115. The poor won't 'not eat'. They will be able to spend 85% of whatever they have in their pockets for food. Maybe shop at Safeway or Walmart instead of Metropolitan Market.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by magarity · · Score: 1

      Because rich people never spend money on anything other than small items $100 or so at a time?

    3. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yet the 100% of their income that poor people spend have an onerous amount of corporate income tax built into the prices of everything they buy.

    4. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Income tax, inheritance tax, even VAT, all that crap is subject to waaaay to many loopholes. But it doesn't matter if Joe is a billionaire or a pauper, he buys something at the register or gets it delivered, tax that sale and it's much simpler to audit and enforce than all the other tax methods combined.

      This does nothing for the digital giants. There is no point of sale for Google or Facebook. There is no physical good or even digital good to tax this way as they are even giving their "digital goods" away for free. Google and Facebook need to be taxed in Germany on the amount of revenue they receive from German citizens.

    5. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      it doesn't really affect the rich at all. But it can be the difference between eating or not for the poor.

      Most state sales taxes in the USA are set up such that groceries and medicine are not taxed for this very reason. However, if you want that million dollar yacht, you can expect to be taxed on it. Is it still a loophole if it only benefits the poor? Either way, regressive it isn't.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    6. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by PPH · · Score: 1

      Food banks. You can make the 'Muh poor people' argument all the way down to not having the money plus 15% tax for a stick of gum.

      Where I live, we don't tax food anyway. So if you don't have enough money for food, tax policy isn't a solution anyway.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      So mandate that the credit card companies/paypal report all transactions to the govt(oh wait they do that) and have the govt go after the people in the country for not paying VAT et al. Oh wait, that would place more burden on the banks and credit card companies and Germany can't have that.

    8. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      So mandate that the credit card companies/paypal report all transactions to the govt(oh wait they do that) and have the govt go after the people in the country for not paying VAT et al.

      What transaction? If Apple pays Facebook to display ads in Germany, there isn't a transaction in Germany to tax even though Facebook just sold something of value to Apple which originated in Germany (German eyeballs).

    9. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Maybe shop at Safeway or Walmart instead of Metropolitan Market.

      And they have to be able to get there, which can cost money they don't have. Hence they tend to shop locally in small amounts which is less cost efficient than driving to a store if you already have a car

      .

    10. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      They sell add space to advertisers. They sell data to third parties. Can't we tax these sales? preferably out of existence?

      If course you can but Germany can tax it at 100% and it doesn't really matter if the transaction is taking place elsewhere. Apple can buy ads from Facebook in the USA, Cayman Islands, or some random 3rd world country. Facebook is selling a German product (eyeballs) but the transaction doesn't exist in Germany to tax.

    11. Re: Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Troll

      So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?

      There's no rational way to justify it. The only reason they can give is "because we want that money". They can try to dress it up by talking about tax shelters and "big business" and shit, but at the end of the day it just boils down to the fact that they see someone out there in the world with money, and they want to take it for themselves. Just like bandits have always done.

    12. Re: Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?

      There's no rational way to justify it.

      Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing. Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource. This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end. Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.

    13. Re:Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by PPH · · Score: 1

      Maybe poor people do without - I mean, f*ck you, I got mine!

      Maybe they do. But the problem with taking 'regressive' taxes off of people and placing them on corporations is that the 15% you thought you would be collecting from them just gets tacked onto the cost of those products that the poor people need. And it ends up being the same number of dollars (or Euros, or whatever) that come out of their pockets.

      The only viable way to help poor people is to hand out the essentials.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    14. Re: Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what welfare programs are for? And those are paid for by what? Oh, taxes paid by people that can afford to.

      Stop oversimplifying stuff to create already-solved problems. Yes I understand there are people that want to eliminate welfare programs behind ridiculous fantasies of "fraud" and "waste" but that's all bluster and cheap applause lines to win elections. There is a reason that we haven't seen freeware reform in years - the pols are all talk and no action because they want the issue.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re: Tax on the final sale is the only way to do it by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Those sales happen on the Internet, so Google can say they happen in California.

      Does Germany get some taxing authority over California now? Good luck enforcing that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. First you need to understand what is going on by OMG · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please, do understand what "Double Irish" means concerning taxes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Double Irish:

            Adobe Systems
            Airbnb
            Apple Inc.
            Facebook
            General Electric
            Google
            IBM
            Microsoft
            Oracle Corp.
            Pfizer Inc.
            Starbucks
            Yahoo! ...

  6. Re:I wonder (((who))) is proposing this tax? by nnet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Crab people?

  7. Great Firewall of EU by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 2

    When they run out of "creative" ways to collect tax revenue expect them to fall back to simple technical means of controlling data flow to foreign countries. In the name of preserving equality, naturally.

    1. Re:Great Firewall of EU by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the great EU firewall that enforces our GDPR rights... Oh, wait, we just force companies that do business in the EU to comply with our laws. And strangely even though the EU is an authoritarian hell-hole on the verge of fascism/communism and being overrun by Muslims we still find that a lot of companies want to be here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Hello average dumb American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corporations and the state are NOT in an adversarial relationship.
    The corporo-state and the workers ARE in an adversarial relationship.

    If you understood that, you'd stand up for your class interests instead of undermining them, and support socialism.

    1. Re: Hello average dumb American by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Such revolts are never led by the poor; they're generally organized and led by some upper class cunts who wants to put themselves on top.

      Yes, people with means can sometimes rouse up the dissatisfied rabble in order to overthrow the existing power structure. This is much easier in nations which are actually impoverished. In other places - like the USA - where you dont have any real poverty, you have to come up with different ways of dividing the people when you want a civil war. Things like race, politics, and religion are usually good for that.

    2. Re: Hello average dumb American by strikethree · · Score: 2

      In other places - like the USA - where you dont have any real poverty

      *cough* * cough*

      Living a sheltered life in America are we? There are pockets of poverty in America as abysmal as anywhere else in the world. I would even add that the percentage of Americans feeling economic stress (not poverty, but being threatened with instant poverty) is very high. Much higher than any casual look at financials would reveal. Hell, 90+% of Americans are threatened just by getting sick.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  9. there is a better way by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is time to have taxes collected for goods that cross borders. At this time, we do not do that, but that needs to change.
    The fact is, that we can have the delivery trucks collect the tax. Ideallly, all nations/states would put a simple agreed upon tax. So, for many nations, they have a VAT of typically 20%. We can all collect 20%. If a business is caught NOT paying the taxes, or lying about the goods, they will be blocked from shipping to other nations. IOW, it really is not worth it to cheat.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  10. Oh Americans... We don't. Not like you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have to realize that our "being religious" has nothing to do with your "being religious".
    It's only on paper. And only because we have no separation of church and state, and so if you are born, you 1. automatically default to the religion of your parents, and 2. the Catholic and evangelical churches, and *only* them, *literally* have a state tax, that is deducted from your salary, unless you actively opt out.

    Literally nobody, but a few very old people and a couple of nutjobs, goes to church.
    Very often, not ever for marriage.
    Look at how people in Germany reacted, when "popular YouTubers" Silas Nacita and Conner Sullivan came out as a "child rapist" (quote from the comments)... err, "religitard" (another quote from the comments). They ripped him apart in the comments.

    To us, you Americans and the Saudis/IS are in one category: Religious nutjobs.
    No offense. Just describing how it's seen over here.

    So no, the only people in Germany, that would qualify as religious, according to the US definition, are the radical Muslims, and the radical Christians. It's always funny, to see how long a Muslim immigrant lasts in Germany, before he succumbs to that delicious, delicious pork. :)

    1. Re: Oh Americans... We don't. Not like you. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      We've been hearing the same song in the UK for nearly 20 years. So far the Muslims have totally failed to ban pork, Christmas or poppies. It's not happening here and it's not happening in Germany either.

    2. Re: Oh Americans... We don't. Not like you. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes yes practically the same words as here and yet nothing has actually happened. Pork will not be banned, Christmas markets will still go ahead and you'll still be able to drink beer.

  11. Re:"Global" ... yeah, riiight. Typical EU. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    PROTIP: The purpose of tax is only and exclusively, to finance the services that our state provides us.

    Maybe in your world. In the US there are political parties who view taxes as a means to redistribute wealth (they call it solving "income inequality"). Taxes are seen as a means of social engineering - not about services.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. Re:In other words, "We can't compete." by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nations, provinces, counties, and cities all have to compete with each other to get people to live, work, visit, or operate a business there. If you are incapable of offering an attractive proposition of benefits vs. costs, then they won't come to you.

    The solution is to make yourself more attractive, not to require all your competitors to place the same onerous burden on the people or businesses you aren't attracting.

    This is a race to the bottom at best but it's really worse than that. Global companies aren't creating shell companies in obscure countries because these countries are out competing other countries with quality but rather because they managed to find a country that is willing to look the other way because they are getting 1% of a bunch of cash that they wouldn't get otherwise.

    The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country. We already do this with physical goods in the form of either sales tax or import taxes. If Germany wants to tax the iphone or facebook it should tax the company based on the amount of revenue that company is receiving from its citizens.

  13. "No, thank you," he said politely. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    No. People need to be able to vote with their feet as a last resort. Escaping even the sweet-talking charismatic overlords who rise to power in a democracy is a necessary right. Democracy is a means to an end, and is not the end itself, which is the freedom to pursue your own dreams and make your own life better.

    There should never be a world government (Sorry, my fellow Star Trek nerds) because then there is nowhere to flee to when (not if) it goes bad. And that means not beginning to internationalize forced tax rates.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:"No, thank you," he said politely. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Technically, your incorrect about the Star Trek reference. The Federation is not a specific planetary government, but an agreement between semi-autonomous high-tech worlds. It's far more like the ancient Greek "polis" or the modern EU than the US and it's "states".

      Even then, people can still leave since warp drive FTL has been an existing tech for at least 150 years before the Federation was even founded and was already in widespread civilian use. There are still many worlds that are not under UFP control. And, even with the UFP, a world must have a "stable planetary political unity, demonstrating a resolution of social and political differences and a respect of the rights of the individual"...therefore, a world that has a charismatic overlord would automatically be disqualified from entering the Federation. By the time of ST:NG warp-drive had been around for at least 300 years.

      Other than that, I totally agree that a world-wide single government right now (or even in the foreseeable future) would be a horrible idea for most of humanity; until we have a viable choice to "not participate" by leaving the planet, or somehow manage to overcome our issues of racism, hated of "the other", and have some place to go to satisfy the instinctual urge to "move and explore".

  14. Forget digital by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that just targets US companies. Make it a global minimum for _all_ corporations and end this race to the bottom.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Re:The best part: The EU *is* neoliberal. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Liberal, of course meaning, what Americans call "neocon-libertarian"

    Nonsense. A neoconservative believes in "left" big government domestic policies combined with "right" hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of libertarianism. So "neocon-libertarian" is a completely meaningless term.

  16. Re:In other words, "We can't compete." by gtall · · Score: 1

    At least for goods, there is no escaping the VAT on imports into the EU. I'm unsure about services but I doubt they'd leave that piggy bank unbled.

  17. Re: "Global" ... yeah, riiight. Typical EU. by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

    Republicans use taxes to prop up industries they like, such as defense related. Republicans right now raised spending on the military, cut taxes, and now want old and poor people to die if they get sick, but cutting social security and Medicare via cutting benefits. Ie they used tax policy to take away services for people and give them to the rich.

  18. Re: "Global" ... yeah, riiight. Typical EU. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    What taxes were selectively set based upon industries? Who didn't get a tax cut last year? And how do you solve the issue of Social Security (which is deep in deficit spending), or Medicare? Do you realize that about 70% of all Federal spending is on social welfare and pensions?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. the concept of competion by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    "the shifting of profits to fiscally beneficial regions" ... in other domains, know as "competition". It's a notion that is familiar to those who provide goods and services to people who want them (read "useful" goods and services). Governments, unbound by this natural constraint, naturally hate this concept.

    Merkel's idea to create a Worldwide Government Monopoly might be considered an anti-competitive practice, if it had come from one of these evil global corporations.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  20. Wasn't that the point of the EU by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to make a large enough organization to tell the US to go fuck themselves? Funny how there's this campaign backed by billionaires who make liberal use of tax shelters to kill the EU...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Wasn't that the point of the EU by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      ...and people claim the EU isn't a foe. Fuck you USA, what a wonderful founding principle. Not a foe indeed.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Wasn't that the point of the EU by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      At the end of WW2 to make everyone feel happy again. To move coal around what was to be the EU.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Wasn't that the point of the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it was to prevent another major European war by ensuring that the major European powers would be too economically dependent on each other to risk fighting each other.

  21. Re:In other words, "We can't compete." by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    At least for goods, there is no escaping the VAT on imports into the EU. I'm unsure about services but I doubt they'd leave that piggy bank unbled.

    Google and Facebook give their "services" away for free as do many digital giants. I'm assuming they do charge a VAT on stuff like Netflix and it's possible that they charge a VAT for a European company buying ads on Facebook/Google but if Coke is buying ads on Facebook in the USA (or some obscure country) and displaying them in Europe then there is no transaction in Europe to even tax. The money is going from a USA company to another USA company even though they are buying something in Europe (eyeballs). The revenue might originate and terminate in the USA but they are still conducting business with and profiting off the people of Europe even though no money actually flows thru Europe.

  22. There is more to understand going on here by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try bumping your thinking up one more abstraction level. Who pays corporate taxes? Corporate taxes are taken out of profits. Profits are distributed to shareholders. Shareholders wishing larger distributions (higher profits) insist on lower employee wages and higher prices for products. So corporate taxes are paid for via (1) higher product prices, (2) lower employee wages, and (3) lower shareholder distribution.

    There's no need for corporate taxes if you just tax those three directly. (1) can be replaced by a sales tax. (2) can be replaced by an earned income tax. (3) can be replaced by a unearned income tax (interest on savings, distributions). None of these can be thwarted by the Double Irish. (1) yields tax revenue in the country where the sale occurred. (2) yields tax revenue in the country where the company is operating (has employees). (3) yields tax revenue in the country where the owners reside. All bases are covered. The only difference is in the bookkeeping.

    The only reason the Double Irish works is because corporations can exist simultaneously in multiple countries. People can only exist in one country at a time, so they can't pull off a Double Irish. So it's easy to eliminate this problem - eliminate corporate taxes and shift them to sales, earned income, and unearned income taxes. The only problem is that a large number of people mistakenly think that corporate taxes have no impact on people, and so feel taxing corporations is preferable to taxing people.

    There is no difference - no matter what you tax, in the end a person somewhere pays for it. Taxes are an assignment of a percentage of the country's productivity to the government coffers. And since the only source of productivity is people (everything a company does is done by its employees), in the end all taxes are paid for by people. Get yourself over the notion that corporate taxes are necessary and the Double Irish problem vanishes. Corporate taxes accomplish nothing which cannot be accomplished with different taxes.

    1. Re:There is more to understand going on here by Tom · · Score: 1

      Who pays corporate taxes?

      Corporations.

      Now, you can apply some circular logic to show that somehow, in the end, it is always people who pay taxes. Not that I couldn't re-apply the same kind of logic to show that people, in turn, will respond by a) buying less, b) buying cheaper things (which usually have a lower profit margin) or c) turning to other alternatives such as self-made, neighbour-help, etc. -- and voila, I can now prove that any tax on people in the end is paid by corporate profits.

      So it's easy to eliminate this problem - eliminate corporate taxes and shift them to

      Now that is a kind of logic people need to be paid for having or brainwashed into having. Yes, certainly the solution to tax evasion is to eliminate taxes. How could anyone think that eliminating the intentionally placed loopholes in the tax laws would somehow accomplish the same?

      There is no difference - no matter what you tax, in the end a person somewhere pays for it.

      Only if you follow the money and stop at the point where a person is involved. You could, of course, follow the money further and end up somewhere else, if you wanted.

      The economy is circular. Money moves around. That is why your logic works - you will always sooner or later find a human person somewhere in the loop. But that is also why your logic fails - you are never at the end, because there is no end, so the "in the end" part is the wrong assumption that makes your whole argument false.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re: There is more to understand going on here by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm disappointed. Saw "modest proposal" and found no mention of eating orphans.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  23. Re:Authoritarian crap by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    Tell us again how leftist aren't authoritarian.

    Germany has a right of centre government.

  24. US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Germany is complaining about countries with LOW corporate tax rates. The US has HIGH corporate tax rates.

    Germany's corporate tax rate is about 15%.

    The US corporate tax rate was 35% federal plus average 5% state = 40%, among the highest in the developed world. That's why most large "American" companies have their official tax headquarters and much of their operations in Europe - they'd rather pay 15% tax rather than 40%.

    The tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the U.S. rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Plus 5% state, so now it's 26%, still almost double the German rate.

    The target of this is Ireland. Though their nominal rate is 12.5%, they allow BER that results in an effective rate around 1%.

    The US would LOVE for Europe to have higher rates, similar to the US, so that "American" companies like Dell, Apple and Amazon would have less incentive to pay their taxes in Ireland, instead paying them in (and to) the US.

    The problem is, most every country other than the US recognizes that receiving tax revenue is a good thing, and having people invest in factories, fabs, etc is good for your country. As Barak Obama said "if you want people to do less of something, tax it". The US taxes investment. They have high taxes on factories, fabs, development centers - companies - because apparently they want people to do less building of companies in the US. Other countries aren't so stupid. They WANT companies like Dell, Google, and Apple to put their operations in their countries, so they don't tax the hell of that like the US does.

    1. Re:US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The target of this is Ireland. Though their nominal rate is 12.5%, they allow BER that results in an effective rate around 1%.

      OK... But what happens when Ireland responds to this act by setting the corporate tax equal to the minimum BUT simultaneously creates a "Corporate Incentive" or "Tax Grandfathering" program that financially rewards companies by how much $$$ they paid in taxes, So meets the letter of the law "A minimum tax", However, essentially pays companies back the entire dollar amount in tax increases: to incentivize them staying in Ireland..
       
      And if Ireland doesn't do it, then someone else will. Because of governments' ability to create corporate incentives -- there's literally no way to ban tax havens, even if you set a minimum tax rate, unless you block the entire idea of shifting revenues away from the country that generated them.

    2. Re:US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and having people invest in factories, fabs, etc is good for your country

      That's why the Cayman Islands are full of factories, fabs, etc...

      Tax havens don't work by attracting actual companies with actual headquarters and actual production. Many years ago a journalist went to the Cayman Islands to find all those corporate headquarters. He found one building where a hundred or so international corporations share one office. The kind of corporations that have their own streets named after them in their actual corporate locations.

      This is all about money and nothing else. Pure money. Not money tied to any productivity, but the same kind of money you use in speculative derivate finance products. Money completely removed from any economic effect.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by jemmyw · · Score: 2

      Ireland can't do this because the EU has rules around state sponsorship. And Germany complaining is quite effective - they made Ireland collect those back taxes from Apple even though they really didn't want to.

    4. Re:US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The problem is, most every country other than the US recognizes that receiving tax revenue is a good thing, and having people invest in factories, fabs, etc is good for your country. As Barak Obama said "if you want people to do less of something, tax it". The US taxes investment. They have high taxes on factories, fabs, development centers - companies - because apparently they want people to do less building of companies in the US. Other countries aren't so stupid. They WANT companies like Dell, Google, and Apple to put their operations in their countries, so they don't tax the hell of that like the US does.

      Aren't taxes on profits ?

    5. Re:US is a high tax country. Ireland is the target by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      Though their nominal rate is 12.5%, they allow BER that results in an effective rate around 1%.

      So right here you acknowledge that effective rate is different from nominal rate, and then you just go right on with this bullshit acting as though the US rate was 35%, and is now 21%. This is too transparent. I usually try to give people the benefit of a doubt, but you don't deserve it - you're clearly just trying to deceive people here.

      The thing that really gets me is that this post is now three days old, and no one called you on this.

  25. I love it, Government always tries this by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    "susbstantial digital revenue in Europe, based on overall revenue in Europe and not just profits."
    They want to tax gross revenue (before expenses) instead of net revenue (after expenses). To add a tax component as if it is a true expense.
    The second issue is who would do this? The cost and overhead of implementation would overwhelm any ability to monitor the system. Each and every layer of every government involved would be skimming extra off the top for themselves. Much of the funds would just disappear in most countries. Heck in the US now no one in government can really tell anyone what the budget is and where funds flow to and from. Everything is just a poor guess designed to protect/cover who ever is currently in power.
    Next, how would they share it? Based on population? So the western economies would be sending a wad of cash to India and China?
    Last, they are just talking about the big tech companies now. But the real goal is all businesses/employee pay checks in every country. Well western countries/economies! But I am not to concerned because this will never happen. The only thing any group of counties can agree on is which country to stick the tab for dinner on.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:I love it, Government always tries this by larkost · · Score: 1

      The (legitimate) problem they are trying to solve is that large companies have been playing games with where they recognize revenue and costs in order to make the balance low in high-tax areas, and high in low (or no) tax areas. Largely with no correspondence with where the work or sales actually take place. Two examples (which many other companies do in one form or another):
      1. Apple sells a lot of hardware in Germany, but the hold a lot of licensing rights in a company chartered out of Ireland. The Irish subsidiary charges the German subsidiary (both wholly owned by Apple Inc.) whatever it decides to charge for the rights to sell Apple hardware. Suddenly all of the actual profits involved in sales in Germany suddenly actually happened in Ireland (despite no work for those sales having been done there). Additionally, Apple argued for a long time that the company in Ireland was not actually an Irish company (only chartered there), and negotiated a really low tax rate with the government there. Germany (and a number of other European companies) were not happy with this (reasonably). Note that this last part has been declared "illegal state aid", and Apple has had to pay a lot of back taxes to Ireland, but nothing to, say Germany where the sales were made.

      2. Google sold a lot of AdWords advertisements to French customers (nee. French companies) using salespeople in France. Despite all of there correspondence being with Google France, when it came time to pay taxes on those sales, they were reported as sales from an Irish subsidiary of Google (one that does not employ those sales people). So the French subsidiary is now almost all cost, and no revenue.

    2. Re:I love it, Government always tries this by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Sure seems like an inter EU taxing issue to me. But I see that it is complicated so your point is made.
      But wasn't the article about global taxes? And one thing I do know I don't want a bunch of other countries deciding how much of my income they get and I have nothing to say about it. And mark my words they say big tech now, but the real goal is all businesses/employee pay checks.

    3. Re:I love it, Government always tries this by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Also to really frame your example properly maybe we change
      "Germany Urges Global Minimum Tax For Digital Giants"
      should be
      "Germany Urges EU Wide Minimum Tax For Digital Giants"

      Interesting sounds like the US Federal Taxes my businesses pay along with FICA, State, Sales, Gas, County and Local taxes here in the US. It is also interesting none of the layers ever look at the total all the taxing entities take from private businesses and individuals. It is always our tax is just this small amount which is totally reasonable.

  26. Re: In other words, "We can't compete." by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Because this idea that you can't really tax a corporation is a fallacy based on the false assumption that there is perfectly inelastic demand for all products.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. Time for pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation? by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So far everything I have seen in this discussion (both above and below this 'insertion point' for this comment') has been mindless regurgitation of stupid lies and complaints about the lies. Just the place for an appeal to first principles in search of a well reasoned debate. ROFLMAO.

    What we have now are tax systems that reward corporate cancers for becoming as huge and cancerous as possible. Insofar as there is any pretense of justification, it always comes down to "bigger is better", so the profits MUST increase.

    I regard that as an insane anti-solution in search of a real problem. There will NEVER be any profit that "solves" the fake problem because there is always a larger number. Cancers always kill their hosts. In this case, corporate cancers will eventually kill the societies that are hosting them. Or maybe they already have, and we're just walking dead and about to discover that our extinction is the natural resolution of the Fermi Paradox.

    Strangely enough, I think there is a solution, and the Germans seem to be on the right track. However I think it is better if your think in terms of pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation. As market share increases, so should the tax rate on your profits. This is NOT a penalty for success, but rather an incentive to split the company into competing companies that will take the good ideas into different directions, while simultaneously giving us MORE choices and MORE freedom. The basic objective (per my sig) should be to make sure there are around 3 to 7 choices in play for each shopping decision, not the 1 or 2 choices that the profit maximizers demand.

    What we have now is a pro-greedom taxation system. America just has the greediest and most dysfunctional version of it.

    Time's up, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re: Time for pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1, Troll

      So the better a company does, the higher a rate of taxes they pay on that success? And if they are barely above water, the tax rate is less?

      How is that not punishing success again?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:Time for pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      As market share increases, so should the tax rate on your profits. This is NOT a penalty for success, but rather an incentive to split the company into competing companies that will take the good ideas into different directions, while simultaneously giving us MORE choices and MORE freedom.

      I proposed the exact same thing in previous stories about huge market caps and splitting companies up. It seems like regulators have a very hard time deciding how and when to break a company up and even when they do, like the phone companies, it only takes a few years for them to be a problem again.

      It seems like the best solution is not to break companies up but to just increase the tax rate as their market cap increases and let the company/market decide how best to split the company up. Companies would also no longer gobble up competitors and even unrelated companies if they knew it was going to increase their tax rate and decrease their profits. Like any regulation, it would have side effects, once disney isn't able to gobble up starwars and pixar, and you would likely have to keep a closer watch out for collusion but overall should help prevent the megacorporations of today (and of many dystopias)

    3. Re:Time for pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation? by shanen · · Score: 1

      I don't think it should be based on market cap, but rather based on how much the size of the company is limiting freedom. It may help if I include a less constrained form of my sig:

      #1 Freedom = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)

      The locus of choice is ~5 because that's about how many things you can hold in short-term memory while you are trying to be free. The research often reports 3 to 7 items.

      The pro-greedom approach says two choices is already getting unreasonable, on the theory that no profit-maximizing company should even compete in a market unless the company can be #1 or #2. Under that sick theory, the only legitimate reason for being for #2 is because the company "thinks" it can eventually become #1. At the other extreme, you have fake options, such as the mobile phone market, where you often get 20 choices from the same carrier and you can't figure it out so you're easily manipulated into taking the phone the carrier wanted to sell you in the first place--based on the same insane goal of maximizing the corporation's profits without limit.

      Actually I think it would require fairly detailed accounting to figure out how to do it properly. You'd need to break the profits down by where they come from. If a particular part of the profit comes from dominating a particular market, then that part would get taxed at a high rate, whereas the parts of the profits that were derived from sectors with normal competition would be taxed at lower rates. It should be a good thing that computers are good at that sort of math, eh?

      If you look at it from a shareholders' perspective, the shareholders would actually benefit from splitting their shares between the new companies that are each taxed at the lower rate. To simplify it, imagine that the company only produces one product and that it totally dominates its market and gets taxed at the highest rate. After cutting the company into three pieces and giving all the shareholders equal shares in the new competing ( = freedom-increasing) companies, they would now own companies that are producing the same products and the same profits, but with competition between them, and all of the profits would be taxed at the lower rate. (Though you might well have to do it again later on if one of the new companies turns out to be a much better competitor than the others.)

      My chief problem with your market-cap based approach is that it's based on a lie. The stock price has become a fantasy. There is no perfect information, so the stock prices are never accurate. What we actually have now is a computerized casino where one program buys the shares whenever it "thinks" some other program will buy them at a higher price later on. Why? The programs are NOT actually thinking and have NO idea what is going on in the actual world.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  28. Re: In other words, "We can't compete." by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Corporations benefit from society's existence, in fact they utterly depend on it. As such, they are required to pay to maintain it. This notion that they should be able to avoid paying as a "right", is unacceptable, and every society should be up in arms over it.

    You speak about corporations as if they were living beings. They are not. Corporations don't benefit; people benefit. A corporation is just a bunch of people getting together, pooling resources, and working together. You are already taxing all of those people, some of them multiple times. You tax the employes with income tax. You tax the shareholders with capital gains taxes. You tax each purchase and sale with sales taxes and/or "value added" taxes. The idea that you need to have a second tax on top of those taxes is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as the idea that, after all of those other taxes have been collected, these groupings of people are still somehow "parasites" who aren't paying their fair share.

  29. Re:Right, b/c lawmakers crave power. DE will compl by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Then they'd be shocked to find that production moves to their country, and they end up with higher tax revenue as the end result of lower tax rates - something Ireland figured out a long time ago.

    Merely moving production into Germany is not sufficient for that outcome.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  30. Well, Duh by lfp98 · · Score: 1

    Loss of the ability to tax economic activity is fast becoming the world's #2 problem, after climate. The US exerts vast effort trying to punish Iran, Russia, Cuba and others for alleged bad behavior and cajoles others to do the same, when the countries that really should be targeted are tax havens like Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Panama and Ireland.

  31. Re: Authoritarian crap by Colourspace · · Score: 1

    'Snake their way out of paltry taxes' was a typo. Remove the word 'paltry' before you shit your pants and have a stroke.

  32. Re: Authoritarian crap by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Citation needed, because what I see is 15% on pre-tax profits, not on gross revenues.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  33. Re:I wonder (((who))) is proposing this tax? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Germany has a tax system that needs more cash to support its growing social welfare costs.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  34. Tearing down the giga factory doesn't encourage by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > I also propose a 5% gross wealth tax on accrued resources to incentivize reinvestment. This will also prevent the own a billion in stock but never sold

    So suppose you wanted to invest $100 milion to build a next-generation battery development complex and factory, and perhaps a factory to build electric cars. You get some other investors together and would set up an electric car company; perhaps you'd call it Alset.

      You'd all own the company, each having a certain amount of stock. If the company spends your $100 million on equipment, for the first few years the company is worth about $100 million. If it has four equal investors, each has stock worth about $25 million as you try to develop the product and establish the company.

    You propose to tax that $100 million of accrued resources at 5% per year, so every year the new company needs to sell off 5% of their equipment, building, and furniture, in order to pay the tax. You've proposed an orderly method of deconstructing a nation, of unbuilding civilization and returning to the stone age over a period of 100 years or so.

    Ideally, what you want people to do with their resources (money) is two major things. First, you want them to feed themselves, to provide for their own family's needs. A nation of cannibals soon starves, obviously. That may seem obvious, and perhaps it is, but there's one thing some people forget - that's still true over age 60 - you want people living off their own savings, not cannibalizing their children's production. Second, you want them to put any extra resources to work producing more resources. You want any extra money to buy tractors, factories, laboratories, and semiconductor fabs, not lattes and other things that dissapear. Investment, not consumption.

    So your ideal situation is for people to first take care of their family's needs. Then invest resources so your country can have things like fabs and labs, leaving that investment out producing more until they retire, then using the gains to continue to take care of their needs and not cannibalize the production of current workers.

    Economists call this the "savings rate" and it's one of the best predictors of success for a country. Countries where people save and invest do well. Countries where people consume rather than save go broke.

    Every developed nation in the world, save one, recognizes this and strongly encourages investment. One developed nation used to strongly recognize it and to some extent still does, but also has a large group of uneducated populace currently being fed a bunch of recycled Lenin propaganda and starting to believe that the United States should follow the path that worked out so well for the Soviet Union.

    1. Re:Tearing down the giga factory doesn't encourage by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      You propose to tax that $100 million of accrued resources at 5% per year, so every year the new company needs to sell off 5% of their equipment, building, and furniture, in order to pay the tax. You've proposed an orderly method of deconstructing a nation, of unbuilding civilization and returning to the stone age over a period of 100 years or so.

      This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits. The OP might be off on his percentages but the concept is sound. I think the percentage should probably be more like 1% per 100 million so a billion dollar company should have to pay a 10% per year asset tax (obviously phased in over time to allow companies to self split). Also like the OP suggested, you could do the greater of the asset tax or the profit tax so they aren't double taxed.

  35. Or check the box that says "401k" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    While I agree with the basic facts of your overall argument, I believe this particular sentence could stand to be expanded:

    > Because to own the "means of production", you have to fucking TAKE it from the current owners - which requires an authoritarian state to accomplish.

    The current owners, the people who own the means of production, are primarily all the people who checked the box saying yes, they do want to participate in their employer 's 401k. Together they own about $4 trillion of "means of production".

    If you want to own the means of production, you CAN get a machine gun and go join up with your local copy of Juan Bautista Fuenmayor to fight in the revolution. A much easier, and generally more effective, way is to simply email HR and ask them how to sign up for the 401k plan. You can start with 3% of your pay and set it to increase by 1% each year - less than the raise you'll probably get. Bonus here is that you're aquiring the measurements of production using *pretax* money - basically the for every $3 you use, the government buys you another $1 of ownership, free. The revolutionary machine gun has to be bought with whatever money is left after taxes, so the 401K is cheaper overall.

    I really wish people would stop spending so much time *arguing* with socialists and communists and instead try to understand what they want, then help them get it. They want "the people", everyone, to own the means of production. Okay, Lenin aside, that's a reasonable thing to want. They just don't realize that about half of "the people" already DOES own the means of production, but it's a voluntary choice in the US. You get to decide whether you'd rather own the means of production, or own another latte.

    A long time ago, really rich guys owned companies. That was individual ownership. Now, big companies are owned by a collective of thousands or millions of people. Your co-workers actually own companies. One antonym (opposite) of "individual" is "corporate". It means "a bunch of people, together". A corporation is a company owned by a bunch of people, by whoever wants to be part of it. All you gotta do is choose to join by checking the yes box for the 401k.

  36. Re: Authoritarian crap by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    So would the stroke be a result of the pants-shitting, or will the stroke beget the loading of the pants?

    Your statement is unclear on this incredibly important sequence of events.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  37. Re: To me there is a simple solution. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Elon, is that you?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  38. Re:In other words, "We can't compete." by Tom · · Score: 1

    The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country.

    This. The whole problem only exists because tricky account tricks can move profits around. The more complicated the tax system, the easier it is to find loopholes.

    Which is why any additional complication, like the ones proposed in the past decade, will only make the problem worse. Of course, politicians not being idiots (simply corrupt criminals) know this very well. Proposals like this one (of a failed prime minister candidate, i.e. in political terms: The right person to propose something that just might get you a lot of flak, because he has nothing to lose anymore) make the public believe more fairnes is being added, while tax lawyers and corporate heads know that new loopholes are being added to their benefit. Everyone is happy.

    If Germany wants to tax the iphone or facebook it should tax the company based on the amount of revenue that company is receiving from its citizens.

    It is such a simple solution - if you make your business here, pay your taxes here - that you really wonder how much money changes hands to keep politicians from spotting it.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  39. Others Money by shaksys · · Score: 1

    They need more of other people money to sustain their socialist paradise.

  40. movement of money by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    Tax the movement of money, not profits.
    Tax both sides of all transactions - buying and selling, transferring money overseas or account to account.
    no tax deductions.
    cash gets taxed when it is withdrawn or deposited,
    how to tax circulated cash, I dunno, maybe a high tax on cash to cover projected recirculation.

    --
    Go well
  41. Non-Digital companies by stooo · · Score: 1

    The companies dodging the most tax are not the "digital companies" but the old style hardware companies.
    Germany thus also subsidizes this way Siemens, Daimler, etc...
    This problem has to be solved first.

    https://www.industryweek.com/c...

    --
    aaaaaaa
  42. Re:Revenue is production times rate, so yeah by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    More production means more tax revenue only if the relative change of production is greater than the relative change of tax rate. It's not sufficient for the relative change of production to be positive.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  43. Public masterbation of 516741 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-1

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Public masterbation of 516741 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      People must love when you walk into a room, my guess is everyone quiets down and shuffles away?

    2. Re:Public masterbation of 516741 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-2

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:Public masterbation of 516741 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You sure do talk about public masturbation a lot. you should probably consult a therapist about that, and a lot of the time your responses are incoherent. Should also discuss that with him.

    4. Re:Public masterbation of 516741 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-4

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:Public masterbation of 516741 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Reeeeeeeeeee

  44. There are two kinds of income by raymorris · · Score: 1

    There are two types of income. There's income produced by labor, and income produced by investment.

    Income gained by labor is called wages.
    Income gained by re-investing the fruits of your labor is called profit.

    A tax on profit is a tax on investment.

    It's almost universally recognized, by every developed nation, that investment is key to a country's success, so heavy taxes on it are a bad idea.

    There are two or three other major categories of things a country can tax. When people get money, they can either use it for investment or for consumption - either spend it on things that continue to bring value (houses, businesses), or on things that dissapear within a few years (lattes, Halloween costumes). Investment increases a nation's wealth, consumption decreases a nation's wealth, so most tax consumption, in order to encourage investment. A particular type of consumption tax is the sin tax - taxing particularly unhealthy consumption such as alcohol and tobacco.

    Occasionally those who have been exposed to too much Lenin propaganda propose taxing wealth itself. This is not only on indirect tax on investment (wealth comes from investment), but worse, when the primary goal is to build a wealthy nation, directly taxing (discouraging) the goal is insane.

    * For simplicity we'll momentarily ignore cases where the two are blended together, ie doctors invest in medical school, then labor.

    ** Another topic is non-tax revenue sources, which don't generally bring in enough revenue to matter much. Yesterday I saw a scratch-off lottery ticket that cost $50/ticket. This has been called "a tax on people who can't do math", but it is of course completely voluntary, so not actually a tax. Just a very sad thing.

    1. Re: There are two kinds of income by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      LOL.

      Boring propaganda is boring.

      âoeInvestmentsâ come out of revenue before it is taxed. You donâ(TM)t get taxed âoeinvestingâ in your business.

  45. The competition is basically mathematical. 0 x A=0 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    What you said is true.

    Also, we know that businesses make these decisions largely based on accountants and other nerds doing the math, to maximize after-tax profit. We're not comparing Germany with Cambodia, but rather two EU nation's. When Apple does $50 billion in EU sales each year, a ten percent difference in tax rates between two EU countries is probably going to be enough make the decision for them.

    The way the math works out, until the tax rate of country A is close to the tax rate of similar competing country B, country A will have a net benefit by moving toward a competitive tax rate.

    If you're competing on something OTHER THAN tax rate, the optimal revenue-generating tax rate can be very different. Germany can attract businesses in preference to Afghanistan in ways other than tax rate. Versus Ireland, they have to come close to matching the tax rate or else MOST or ALL multinationals will choose Ireland over Germany. You're guaranteed to lose the multi-national game when most or all multi-nationals stay away.

    Am I explaining that where it makes sense? You have to fine tune up or down for maximum revenue when you're balancing "how many* multinationals your country has vs the rate they pay. When the rate is so high that you don't attract ANY large multi-nationals, revenue from them is zero and you need to reduce your rate until you attract some. In the case of an EU country, the rate which will attract some will be near the rate of the competing country which currently attracts some.

    Similarly for the US and Canada. The two countries are similar enough that if one of them had a tax rate four times as high as the other, approximately all multinationals would choose the lower rate country. Therefore in order to attract any significant amount, the rates must be competitive.

  46. To beat Dallas Cowboys, you have to outscore them by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if my explanation was clear, so let me mention a conversation I heard yesterday.

    If you're trying to calculate the revenue-optimum sales tax on big screen televisions, it's not easy. Too high and you'll hurt revenue by drastically reducing how many people buy new large TVs. Too low and you've left potential revenue on the table. That's the concept you mentioned.

    Some things are less murky, more clear.
    Last night I was at a friend's house and on the television was the Dallas Cowboys football game. One guy made rhe comment "to beat the Cowboys, the Redskins will have to outscore them".* That drew some laughter because duh, you win football games by outscoring the opponent. That's always the case, it's a competition.

    Same here - Germany is competing, on the numbers, with other EU countries. The *precise* optimum rate is debatable within a few percentage points, but clearly if they aren't close to their competition, they will lose.

    One can guess how many points will be needed to win a football game, but you can't argue the fact that scoring much worse than your opponent will lose.

    * What he meant was defense wouldn't win the game, the Cowboys would put up significant points, so the Redskins would need a high score, as opposed to trying to limit thr Cowboys to a low score.

  47. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-3

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  48. You're thinking of NATO by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The EU was after that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  49. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    8===D~`,'`,'

    Just for you buddy.

  50. Re:Majority of Germans follow (((Jesus))) by tepples · · Score: 1

    Echo brackets are used around names of people with Jewish background. Jesus would certainly qualify.

  51. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-5

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  52. Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Just had to come back to this thread to see what the trolls were so riled up about. Perhaps I should have spent more time "studying" their bits of drivel in search of some actual meaning buried in the BS. Deeply buried.

    Easier to just step back and look at one of the (many) higher level problems of Slashdot.

    If you're visiting Slashdot in search of a thoughtful and rational discussion of ANY of the deep issues at hand, then it certainly seems that you've come to the wrong place.

    Perhaps you'll have better luck if you try again with one of those time machines Stephen Hawking wrote about? I haven't read that piece yet, but based on his other writings that I have read, I supposed its another multiverse thing where you avoid the infinite loop with the theory that some of the spawned new universes never develop the time machines. (But is it necessary to assume that the "some" has an upper bound before things go critical? No such thing as too many universes?)

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  53. Re:In other words, "We can't compete." by shanen · · Score: 1

    Just reviewing the comments moderated insightful. Yours stood out as the one that started in the right direction and then turned farthest in the wrong direction. I'm trying to figure out if what that indicates about the broken state of Slashdot's moderation system.

    Then again, this topic is a fundamentally complicated one. Perhaps it was simply impossible to hope for a meaningful discussion within the constraints imposed by the tool?

    Short response to your actual comment: I think you started in the right direction but missed a key constraint on the problem and wound up in a no-solution part of the solution space. Trapped in a local minimum, as the joke goes? If you want to pursue the basis of my disagreement, my alternative solution is mentioned in a comment that only attracted a lot of attention from the trolls, a wild mix of moderation, and no thoughtful discussion at all. You can search for "pro-freedom" as the key term.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  54. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Eeeeeeeee!

  55. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-6

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  56. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-7

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  57. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    X^7

  58. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    reeeeeeeeee lol this is kind of fun. its like when you visit your grandpa at the home, and you see old people do and say some weird shit. im not so normal myself so ill probably end up old and senile like you too. gl gramps.

  59. You realize 15 years in, Telsa isn't profitable by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits.

    You realize Tesla isn't profitable, right? It's been in operation for fifteen years trying to build a car company. 5% per year for 15% years = 75%. OP's proposal is that Tesla would have sold off 75% of their equipment and other assets so far in order to pay taxes on "having equipment".

    1. Re:You realize 15 years in, Telsa isn't profitable by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      > This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits.

      You realize Tesla isn't profitable, right? It's been in operation for fifteen years trying to build a car company. 5% per year for 15% years = 75%. OP's proposal is that Tesla would have sold off 75% of their equipment and other assets so far in order to pay taxes on "having equipment".

      A tax of 5% per year is probably excessive, it should probably be closer to 1% per year but the fact that Tesla isn't profitable after 15 years isn't a good argument against this. It's pretty easy to make 5% per year at close to 0% risk and the goal of most investments (and the historic average of the stock market) is around 15% per year. If you are making less than 5-15 percent a year, you are better off using that capital for something else. Now you could argue that new companies should have some sort of grace period but at this point, Tesla not being profitable for 15 years has a lot of catching up to do to get back the 5-15 percent per year they could have made with a passive investment.

    2. Re:You realize 15 years in, Telsa isn't profitable by raymorris · · Score: 1

      A ten year treasury note is 3.12%. That's a very low risk investment. The difference between 3% and the 9%-10% long term average return of the stock market is risk. Essentially, you get paid 3% for investing (waiting), and 6% for risking.

      Minus the long term average inflation rate of 3.22%, the real risk-free investment return is negative 0.10%. With a very low risk risk investment you will, on average, lose 0.1% annually. Making it so that you lose 1.1% or 5.1% every year doesn't encourage more investment.

  60. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-8

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  61. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-9

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  62. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Can I get to 20!

  63. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-10

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  64. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    moron

  65. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    reeeeeeee~~!

  66. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-11

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  67. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-12

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  68. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    do i get a prize at 20 or does it go to 100
    ?

  69. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Im feelin lucky!

  70. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-13

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  71. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-14

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  72. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    lol

  73. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I wonder which one of us is having more fun

  74. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-15

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  75. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-16

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  76. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    skeet skeet

  77. Re: Tax on the final sale is the only way to do i by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing.

    It's not an assumption, it's a fact.

    Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource.

    The idea that your eyeballs are a resource belonging to your country is absolutely retarded. And more than a little creepy.

    This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end.

    Again, not an assumption.

    Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.

    If this were true you could get authors to pay you to read their books instead of the other way around.

    The fact of the matter is that YOUR attention and privacy aren't valuable in the slightest. You obviously don't value them since you are giving them away. Nobody else really values them either or they would offer to buy them from you directly. The only time they become at all valuable is as an aggregate of the attention and privacy of millions of other nobodies like you. As a group you become valuable because I know that if I hit you all with an advertisement, some of you will buy my shit. And yet despite this greater whole having value to advertisers, it still costs you nothing to use an ad supported platform.

  78. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-17

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  79. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    aww you missed one. pansy.

  80. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-18

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  81. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Yay you got it. +1 persistence.

  82. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-19

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  83. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Z^+SKEET

  84. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-20

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  85. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Z^+20

  86. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-21

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  87. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Z^+22

  88. Re:Public masterbation of 4456913 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-22

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.