France Considers Raising Taxes on Internet Giants (reuters.com)

France's Finance Minister has drafted a new law to tax internet giants, reports Reuters: A three percent tax on the French revenue of large internet companies could yield 500 million euros [$568 million U.S. dollars or £429 million] per year, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said on Sunday. Le Maire told Le Parisien newspaper the tax is aimed at companies with worldwide digital revenue of at least 750 million and French revenue of more than 25 million euros.

He said the tax would target some 30 companies, mostly American, but also Chinese, German, Spanish and British, as well as one French firm and several firms with French origins that have been bought by foreign companies. The paper listed Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (the four so-called "GAFA" companies) but also Uber, Airbnb, Booking and French online advertising specialist Criteo as targets. "A taxation system for the 21st century has to built on what has value today, and that is data," Le Maire said. He added it is also a matter of fiscal justice, as the digital giants pay some 14 percentage points less tax than European small-and-medium sized companies.
The draft law will be presented to the cabinet on Wednesday, and then presented to France's parliament, Reuters reports.

"The tax would also target the sales of personal data for advertising purposes."

Comments

All needed to be known

[Anonymous Coward]

"He added it is also a matter of fiscal justice, as the digital giants pay some 14 percentage points less tax than European small-and-medium sized companies."

Re:All needed to be known

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was the case, the suggestion would be reducing taxes on small and medium sized companies by the amount raised from the larger ones.

Build that wall, sir.

[Build That Wall]

We do not want to become like the EU. Mr. President, you have the nation's support.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not speak for the nation, sad person with TDS.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good morning Arnaud, you jolly old faggot! How's the weather in Brussels today?

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[subie]

Same old user, same old copy paste job from another article. You are a meaningless embarrassment to those of us on the left. When you resolve to use insults then you loose the battle. I'm looking for candidate that can take Trump out and I can't name one. What is your excuse when the Mueller report comes out and nothing happens?? Look at what happen to the whole Colen Congressional Testimony? It's already out of the news because....Who is going to believe a convicted felon who lied to.....Congress and suddenly Joe Six pack is going to believe anything that moron says? The guy copped a plea for a lesser sentence, if he was serious then he wouldn't offered a plea but he did and he can't be trusted. We are better than this.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[jpaine619]

We do not want to become like the EU. Mr. President, you have the nation's support.

Yeah.. uh.. I'm a conservative, but I'd like to know why you think you get to make a blatant statement like that? There are a few people in this country who get the privilege of speaking for the nation.. President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Congress is a coequal branch), and maybe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (again, another coequal branch).

You get to speak for yourself and maybe your family.. If you're the Mayor of some city, I suppose you could speak for your city... But what the hell? How offensive would you find it if some liberal said "On Behalf of the US, I'd like to say we all love socialism".. Yeah... the level of ego to elevate yourself to that position..... I didn't vote for you.. nobody did... Do you get to speak from royal birthright?

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we all want to be like the good ole US of A where big companies are encouraged to employ people offshore and undercut hardworking Americans at small and mid size companies in terms of job opportunities, wages and taxes . Yeehaw!

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

He likely has viagra so he will be jolly allright

With the taxes.... Well the big 5 can pay their taxes or GTFO

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a nation, it's a circus.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I support that, too; the wall will protect Mexico from Americans.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Hognoxious]

Circus? It's more like a pantomime.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[prefec2]

So you do not want that big companies pay taxes? Strange.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on the list now.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[JudgeFurious]

Circuses have some redeeming features. This is really much closer to one of those dirt carnivals that setup in parking lots and are gone in a few days.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[MBGMorden]

Pantomime? This is more like a rollerblade.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well no shlt. By the preponderance of evidence of Trump being voted in; he CAN actually speak for the country. At least a MAJORITY of it.

We are on the right side of history - let the leftist snowflakes dissolve without your help in propping up that kind of mental crap.

"You get to speak for yourself and maybe your family.."

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that the right side is always wrong in the end. Authoritarianism is incompatible with an educated society.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[nazrhyn]

You don't vote for kings.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[HiThere]

Well, at least a majority of the electoral college. But he doesn't speak for me, and I haven't heard any public statement he's ever made that I agree with. So, as a part of the nation, he doesn't speak for me. What he legitimately speaks for is the power center of the country as represented by the executive branch of the US government. And a bunch of other people who, in my opinion, are either shy several bushels of brains, or are greedy bastards who don't care what happens to the country. (It's an or because some people, demonstrably, actually trust Trump.)

All that said, the Democrats didn't put up a decent candidate either, so you can blame them for the problem, too.

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the wall for you, Pedro.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Education" has proven to mean nothing more than indoctrination, generally to leftist causes.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I do not. Companies treat taxes as a business expense and pass them directly onto consumers. They make our economy less competitive and send jobs to China.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that with Cohen. If he had any goods on Trump, anything legitimate, why does his deal include prison? You could be on film raping a child to death, and if you had the actual goods on Trump, you wouldn't see the inside of a cell.

Re: Build that wall, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Refresh my memory. What is it that Cohen lied about, exactly?

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[Big Bipper]

Politicians keep blaming the rich. But no matter what they force the rich to pay, politicians will spend more. "Martin Armstrong" It's all about taxes, where ever they can find them

Re:Build that wall, sir.

[prefec2]

In a society, where wealth become more and more unevenly distributed, power is unevenly distributed which results in instability and a decay of democracy. Therefore, it is relevant to ensure that high income and wealth are taxed to limit tensions and influence. Also other measures are necessary to limit influence. Even rich people, like Warren buffet, tell you that it is unethical and stupid that he has to pay less taxes (in %) than his secretary.

Also spending habits of politicians can be limited and regulated. For example, in the EU no government should have a bigger deficit than 3%. Furthermore, Germany had a surplus in taxes the last years. Therefore, your claim politicians are always spending more than they have is wrong.

Magic free money

[Papaspud]

I'm sure they won't just add that 3 % back to the costs of their services in France, nope that money will just magically appear.

Re:Magic free money

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

They won't because they can't. Here's an explainer, with TL;DR section.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/ec...

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The government "makes things right" by taxing them for use of personal data, but will the people ever see any of that 3%? No.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Search France, Corp. with a global income less than 750 million that pays a licensing fee to Google, Inc. to use their search technology and exclusive rights to operate in France.

Re:Magic free money

[phantomfive]

I'm sure they won't just add that 3 % back to the costs of their services in France

So.....advertisers will pay more? Tell me, where is the drawback again?

Re:Magic free money

[Krishnoid]

You can only "just raise prices" to whatever you want if you have a monopoly on a necessity.

If the digital giants have no competition for their respective products, it may not be a necessity, but it's pretty much a monopoly.

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

If they could raise prices 3% with no consequences, they would have already done it. That's a given. So no, they will not simply raise prices. It may change the optimal price/volume point, and so indirectly change prices (which could be up or down, if they want to claw back profits by volume, they may reduce prices).

Re:Magic free money

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

You fail to consider the market for FB services. It is not what the users are *paying*, it is what advertisers are. It is business oriented, so the elasticity of demand and the power to negotiate is significantly better than what a consumer has. So, believe me, nothing close to full passing of the tax is even close to happening. And since the amount is not even all that big, it ain't getting passed on the consumer at all.

Not to mention that if a service is a monopoly, then regulation should not be optional, but mandatory. Monopolies are always bad.

Re:Magic free money

[Solandri]

You're assuming the goal of a business is to maintain their pre-tax revenue and sales. It's not. It's to maximize their profit (profit = revenue - costs). So yes passing the tax on to customers will decrease demand (fewer unit sales). But from a profit perspective, it is usually preferable for the company to pass the tax on rather than simply eating it. The obvious example is if the seller currently only has a 2% profit margin, and you impose a 3% revenue tax on them. Obviously they're not going to eat the tax since that would mean they'll be losing money with each sale. The only way they can continue to sell and stay in business is by passing part or all of that tax on to consumers.

This is why corporate taxes are usually a percent of profit, rather than percent of revenue. A percent of profit becomes equivalent to a higher income tax on shareholders (profit is distributed to shareholders so adds to their income). A percent of revenue is equivalent to a sales tax, so falls upon customers.

Money can't be created by taxes (at least not directly). Money is only created from productive activities, like creating/selling a product or providing a service. In that respect, taxes are never free. Taxes simply shift productivity away from the people doing the productive activity, and gives it to the government. So taxation by itself can never increase productivity (which is what's needed if you want a 3% tax increase to be "free").

Taxes can offset their hit to the economy if the tax revenue is subsequently spent on equally or more productive activities. If it's spent on things that are even more productive (e.g. taxing rich people who would've wasted the money on gold toilet seats, and using it to build highways), then the combination of tax + spend can actually increase the productivity of the economy. But if the spending is less productive, then it does net harm to the economy. (e.g. Taxing people and giving it right back to them in the form of social services is wasteful, because it adds the overhead of tax collection and redistribution, instead of just leaving the money in the people's hands in the first place. There has to be a difference between the tax collection income profile vs social services recipient income profile which increases productivity for social services to be worth it.)

Re:Magic free money

[Hognoxious]

Because if adverts cost more then companies will be able to afford less, of course.

Hang on ...

Re:Magic free money

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

But from a profit perspective, it is usually preferable for the company to pass the tax on rather than simply eating it.

Their problem is they cannot do it, for reasons the explainer made clear, which shows that you have not read it.

The obvious example is if the seller currently only has a 2% profit margin, and you impose a 3% revenue tax on them. Obviously they're not going to eat the tax since that would mean they'll be losing money with each sale. The only way they can continue to sell and stay in business is by passing part or all of that tax on to consumers.

Yes, a part of the tax may be passed on, but it will definitely not be the full amount, and how much the company will "eat" will depend on demand elasticity. If the company attempts to raise the price, and the demand is elastic (which it always is), the demand facing that company (and that market) will fall to a point where only the customers that are prepared to pay the new full amount will participate in the market. The consumers that will not be buying the service will not be paying the tax. Typically for elastic (flat) demand curve, that will mean a large loss of market share, which to most companies is unacceptable.

You're assuming the goal of a business is to maintain their pre-tax revenue and sales. It's not. It's to maximize their profit (profit = revenue - costs).

If you seriously think a company only looks at the profits, and not at market share it commands and its growth potential, you simply don't know how companies work. Sales, share and growth are numbers that any company cares about a lot, and it will routinely sacrifice profits to achieve a sales, market share or growth target. That is why a company which risks to lose a significant share will think hard before passing taxes on.

Therefore a tax is practically never passed on in full, especially in the long run.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at how Apple prices things internationally, you'll see a trend towards tailoring their pricing in US terms and then aiming to make the same profit margin in all other markets.

Yes, instead of reducing the price and eating the tax, they really will raise the price even more and eat fewer sales in those regions.

Someone like Samsung might take the opposite approach, in-line with your linked article, but not Apple.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain why it is APK kicked the fucking shit out of you stupid slashdot morons here first ok https://it.slashdot.org/commen... ? Answer is you are losers and stupid. Hahahahahaha!

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

And those extra costs will be mostly paid by their real clients: advertisers.

So, perfect!!

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

If the digital giants have no competition for their respective products, it may not be a necessity, but it's pretty much a monopoly.

Yup, but Facebook is in no way a monopoly. They may be the only ones providing a big social network - but that is not the product they sell. They sell ad space, but lots of others sell ad space too. Likewise for Google. They may have the biggest search engine that almost everybody uses. But they are only one of many places to put an ad. If your ad isn't running on Google, then almost nobody sees it "on a search engine". They may still see it on TV.

Someone who wants to advertise a new car model, may do so on facebook. It will cost x to reach a million people. Or they may buy ad space in some big sports event, and reach a million people that way. Or go for billboards, newspapers, TV ads, and so on.

A tax on ads placed through the Internet giants, will make them more expensive and shift some of the ads onto TV, billboards etc. There is no monopoly on ad space.

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when the French government gets their hands on more tax money, they will spend it. And they will spend it in ways that fit party ideology, and/or the goal of getting re-elected. So some of that money will be spent to the benefit of french people. Could be new roads in France, could be weapons from French manufacturers, could be soda fountains from French soda fountain providers. Could be domestic tax breaks.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Another liberal looney. Don't worry citizens, we know how to spend you hard on money better than you do, you plebs.

Re:Magic free money

[mpercy]

The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states

"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."

And it goes on to say

"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:

o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.

o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.

o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.

o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.

o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.

o Most attempts to distribute the burden of corporate taxation have neglected the possible importance of effects on the relative prices of products.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them have monopoly.

Amazon as a front shop of a huge distribution network is huge but there are others. I think it is as close to monopoly as it gets. Here the increase in tax or rather forcing the company to pay it in the first place there where it sells the goods will cause a hike in price.

Google has many business areas - for search machine business we, worms, are not customers but source of data. which means customers here are data consumers. How this transfers into price of the stuff I buy is difficult to say. There are also other search machines - I hardly use google no more only if I have doubts on search results of the one I setup as default. Not often anyway.

Apple - produces phones and provides services. I cannot see how I cannot give up on apple. My daughter cannot which is why she bought the shit from her stepfather for more than a new samsung of better quality would cost. Still not a monopolist.

Uber - is a taxi company. I know it is difficult for an USian to grasp but in some countries taxi companies actually work. Even if they were miserable I see no reason why all profits should be siphoned out of local market into US but I digress - this is by no means a monopolist. Not in Western Europe.

Re:Magic free money

[VeryFluffyBunny]

No magic. 3% of GAFA et. al.'s profits in France would decline. How difficult is that to understand? And their profits are so obscene that they can afford to lobby the US govt. (and others) into letting them do whatever they want. I, for one, would like to see 3% less of that.

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

People who advertise are selling a product. So consumers will pay more for their goods and services.
But more importantly it will be small companies who get hit harder by increased advertising costs.

Re: Magic free money

[tomhath]

If they could raise prices 3% with no consequences, they would have already done it.

The reason they can't raise prices without consequences is because of a thing called "competition". Yes, the giants don't have much competition, but their current price points are where each can compete best against the other giants. If everyone in the market gets hit with a 3% tax they can all adjust prices up 3% without consequences.

But wait, what if one doesn't raise prices? Wouldn't that give them a competitive advantage? No, because if that was true they would already have cut their prices.

Re:Magic free money

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Well, hello back, yet another French corporation, subject to the same laws that other French corporations are subject to and not hiding revenue in Ireland.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

The companies that are advertising will charge more for their goods to recoup the cost.

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

wutz uh apk and why should we care?

Re: Magic free money

[HiThere]

However, there's a question as to whether the price increase would be enough to offset the network effects benefiting the "giants". For every environment there's an optimal size, and this might be sufficient to favor smaller companies. Perhaps. (That's not the way to bet...but it's a possibility.)

Re:Magic free money

[HiThere]

Mod parent up. A combination of underrated, insightful, interesting, and informative.

Re:Magic free money

[HiThere]

One thing, however, is that you're considering all the corporations involved to be public goods. In France, at least, many consider foreign influences to be the opposite of a public good. And, personally, I consider Facebook to be such even without invoking national benefit.

So perhaps the point of this tax it to encourage local business to succeed. Doing it with a tax rather than as a tax-break will generally raise a lot less public opposition. And they may consider that if some of those "giants" just decide to leave the country, they'll be better off.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't raise prices to pay for the tax increase, the taxes have to come from somewhere else. That could be out of salaries which would could result in either fewer people working or employees making less. As personal tax rates are higher than corporate, that could result in a net loss of tax revenue for the government. Or, they could invest less in the company to offset the increased taxes. That means the company grows slower, decreasing the rate at which it increases revenue which will also result in less taxes paid in the future.

All in all, this is about nothing more than a greedy government. It wants more money, so it looks everywhere for new taxes. And to disguise the greed, it claims there is some moral reason for doing so. But with all things greedy, the push for new revenue now, doesn't look in to how it might impact revenue tomorrow. Or, they just believe it doesn't matter, because government can just create yet another tax tomorrow once they've eaten today's golden goose.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they won't increase the price of the stuff they are buying adverts for?

Re:Magic free money

[JesseMcDonald]

You can only "just raise prices" to whatever you want if you have a monopoly on a necessity.

It's actually just the opposite. If you have a monopoly then you're probably already setting the price to optimize revenues. In the absence of competition, cost isn't a factor in that optimal price; only the demand curve matters. If you raised the price above that optimal point then the drop in quantity sold would result in lower total revenues. In this situation any increase in costs can only come at the expense of that portion of your profits attributable to the monopoly. You can't just raise prices to pass costs along.

In the absence of a monopoly, the minimum viable price is determined by production costs and the amount of accounting profit needed (after adjusting for risk) to make the investment in the business worthwhile—in other words, the venture's opportunity cost. Anyone charging more than this will be undercut by competitors until prices approach the minimum. If production costs increase, that difference will come not from the business's profits, which are already approaching the minimum sustainable level thanks to competition, but rather from the prices paid by consumers for the same goods. There may also be substitution effects: consumers may switch to lower-quality, cheaper alternatives rather than pay higher prices. Either way, consumers are the ones paying most of the increased production costs.

Re:Magic free money

[Hognoxious]

If the market would bear a higher price, why aren't they already charging that much?

Re: Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry me a river.

Re:Magic free money

[Anonymous Coward]

In the absence of monopoly (or similar market structure), the demand curve the average company is facing is nearly flat. Increasing prices will put it out of the market. Like I said elsewhere, it is economics 101, something that the slashdot libertarian community never got past the introduction of. A pity, because education is always useful, even when it requires some thinking on one's own and not just regurgitating cliches.

In this particular situation, where you have a large market that has firms paying higher tax, and only this group evading it, there will be practically no change other than a market share redistribution.

Government and money

[ArchieBunker]

Giving a government more money is like giving booze to an alcoholic.

Re:Government and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving anyone more money is like giving booze to an alcoholic. How about just arguing it's a bad idea because it creates an irrational market distortion?

Re:Government and money

[Vroem]

I agree with the analogy but giving more money to the French government is like overdosing an underage heroin addict.

Re:Government and money

[No Longer an AC]

P. J. O'Rourke said something similar.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

He also said "The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop."

Re: Government and money

[Anonymous Coward]

First mover advantage is the market distortion. These companies don't retain dominance solely through innovation, it's largely through their first mover advantage. Taxes like this help to offset that distortion. The worst you could say, is it's trading one distortion for another.

Re: Government and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Google wasn't the first search engine. Facebook wasn't the first social media platform. You might like their relatively dominance and the difficult any other market player might have in displacing them, but arguing FMA is not based in any sort of reality. Other complaints, like their tax evasion/avoidance would be legitimate if it weren't for the fact that they're already being punished by the this in court and should continue to be so long as they continue to do such. That's the proper way to handle such things.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't disagree that FMA can lead to some sort of market distortion, but as a rule it doesn't lead to any sort of permanent market dominance unless there's sufficiently levels of barriers to entry or the position is sufficiently close to a natural monopoly. Neither of these are true for most tech companies. Yes, extant dominance tends to mean that any short-term competition tends to come from larger rival companies rather than smaller companies, but that's just the nature of the build up of capital. Now, there's certain parts of Facebook's actions seemingly violating the privacy of users and possibly leveraging that as an unfair advantage, but that too is heavily something the courts should be ruling on, not leaving it to the tax code to impart punishment.

In short, government introduced market distortion has to have a rational basis other than "company is big and it'd take decades for them to face serious competition". They've got a natural monopoly? That's possibly worthy of regulation. They're being abusive? That's what the courts are for. They're distorting the market merely by existing? Yea, all remotely large companies--even if large merely means the dominant one in a small town--do that. People are starving to death because of perverse actions of a company? That's something to be resolved, probably with the courts or possibly with government subsidies to the people.

It's just not enough to argue a lie. It's not enough to argue a truth that's irrelevant.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

better stop using English which was invented by the English.

Re: cool

[Anonymous Coward]

English is derived from high German and Norman French.

Middle English is from the 11th to 16th century. The copyright is expired you dipshit.

You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

The French have fast trains. The US does not.
The French have access to health insurance regardless of means -- if you lose your job and get sick, you won't end up deep in medical debt.
French universities are covered by the government, no need to save $200,000 in school funds starting when your kid is born.

What does the US have? Endless war, mass incarceration -- the money is used to do violence instead of helping fellow Americans.

Re: You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

Yeah, the US can blow up any country in the world while leaving its own citizens in the lurch (or in prison, or addicted to opiates, or dying of cancer from breathing the fumes from military burn pits). YAY AMERICA!

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to leave. You will not be missed.

Re:You jealous?

[Vinegar Joe]

And the French have zillions of Muslims.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the US have? Endless war, mass incarceration -- the money is used to do violence instead of helping fellow Americans.

Well then, perhaps we should withdraw the protection of the US military from France and it's people and make it clear to the world that the French are on their own and the US will no longer defend them. Would that suit you? You Europeans, and especially you French, endlessly criticize America for it's military power and the wars that we undertake to maintain Western civilization against the depredations of Iran, Syria, Russia and the transnational non-state terror organizations. Where would you be without the protection that we provide? Trump has already said that NATO has outlived its usefulness. You find American wars distasteful. Many Americans would be happy to cease paying for your national defense. Would you like that? You brag about your generous social spending while you freeload off of our defense spending. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe we should hand you the bill or withdraw our protection.

Re: You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

That all you got, boy? "My country can beat up yours, and if you don't like it, move out?"

Re:You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

You're clearly lucky to live in a state that gives a fuck about public higher education -- many states are more concerned about football than academics.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The French have the gilet jaunes who represent a middle class being bled dry by taxation so high it pretty much kills a lot of families' budget.

Re:You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

OMG! Brown people! Scary! Duck and cover!

Re: You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

The Yellow Vests are rather socialist in their outlook -- part of their beef with banker Macron's neocon government is the withdrawal of services from rural areas. At least they have the balls to shut down the country in protest rather than taking what the neocons dish out with barely a whimper.

Re:You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

France is a nuclear weapons state of its own right -- I doubt it will have a problem defending itself against external attack.

Re:You jealous?

[jpaine619]

The French have fast trains. The US does not......

Yeah, but to be fair, if the Islamists over here ever decided to go all loopy and form rape gangs (like seems to be fairly common in Europe these last few years) we can shoot them...... That's gotta count for something..

Re: You jealous?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The US has fast aircraft carriers. Any world government that is not concerned about us must be utter fools.

Some countries are inland, you know. ;-p

Re: You jealous?

[pushing-robot]

The US has fast aircraft carriers. Any world government that is not concerned about us must be utter fools.

Hans...are we the baddies?

Re:You jealous?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The US Navy guarantees free trade for the entire rest of the world, and it's free as in beer. We also guarantee the security of Europe, so that they don't need to spend on defense, which frees up a ton of money for their vaunted social programs. Then, as a casual F you to the American people, Europe profits from unfair trade policies to the tune of $150 billion a year. If you really want a "who's more virtuous"-off (but of course you do) then France can't hold a candle to the titanic achievements with which the United States has benefited the world.

Re:You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

The US pisses away a lot of money upholding petty, terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships and apartheid states in the Middle East -- this has nothing to do with the security of Europe. If the US wanted to, they could slash defense spending by 50% and still be safe.

Re: You jealous?

[Hognoxious]

I'm not going to look it up, but I bet they could reach Switzerland.

Re:You jealous?

[Richard_at_work]

The US wouldnt exist if it werent for the support of the French during your war of independence.

I think France has done more than enough for the US, you ungrateful prick.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ship- and submarine-launched cruise missiles can reach anywhere within Europe and with enough precision that in a worst case scenario European economy would be crippled within hours. After that the EU would sue for peace immediately because they have too much at stake and losing the work of a couple of generations in one day condemning the whole populace to misery would not be acceptable. Europe has no way to retaliate against the US except by using French SLBMs and that would spell the end for Europeans. They could of course try and align with Russia but that would also seriously cripple them. But in the end it's idle talk. When Obama laid down the law to the EU, they could only accept. Dieselgate shows just how European industry can be undermined with mere threats.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your military units have skulls in the logo? Oh dear, it seems you are.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said that France is not concerned about the US? Nobody except you, which makes this a straw man.

Other than that, France does have operational nuclear weapons.
It the current crap thanks to Putin, Jinping, Rouhani, and of course Trump, keeps going on sooner or later you'll see France upping their game as well.
They may even get EU support, because Brussels doesn't want to be the one with the short straw as the buffer zone between the US and Russia or US and Iran.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is full of idiots. APK is not one after making you all shut the fuck up quite easily with facts https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw APK piss ALL OVER you fucking stupid slashdot losers today https://it.slashdot.org/commen... and it made me laugh at you.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice job. APK did a better one shitting all over these homo deviants infecting slashdot completely annihilating them https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, football brings in more money than academics.

Re:You jealous?

[Malc]

I'm pretty sure Meng Wanzhou disagrees with your viewpoint about free trade for the entire rest of the world. The US Navy is the sharp end of the US trade policy, not the world's.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come APK blew up all you fake name /.ers so easily here and you cunts ran https://it.slashdot.org/commen... ? Hahahahaha!

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, sports are sometimes the only way a kid can get to college. Having worked with many people who have gone to college on a sports' grant, I'd say they're better, more humble and easygoing and hardworking than other graduates.

Re: You jealous?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why the fuck would the US destroy the EU? To cripple its own economy and make room for Russians? Do you masturbate frequently to such fictional scenarios?

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia and China would just love to be able to say "so we can bomb whoever we want, then?". So here comes WW3.

I'd say the US, no matter the isolationist fantasies, would lose a lot too.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about healthcare and university. The US healthcare and college systems are the worst aspects of life there and are in urgent need of reform. But don't forget the only reason Frenchmen have been free to ponce around Europe in big shirts trying to get laid, is the sacrifice of the US tax-payer to its military-industrial complex, especially from 1944 onwards. In its absence the counter-factual was either Nazi or Soviet occupation. Since De Gaulle the French have never been (officially) grateful for this sacrifice. They should be more circumspect.

And if life is so good in France, why are the gilet jaune marching every Saturday? Let's face it, life is good for the middle class in cities. It's pretty shit for everybody else.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same applies to prostitution.

No doubt football had a decisive role in helping us win the cold war

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

and still be safe

By apartheid state you mean the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are run by fascist antisemites who want to annihilate all Jews?

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it would. The French did very little during the war of independence. The outcome was never in question, with or without the French. Only it would have taken a little longer.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to love the lack of perspective in this post.

Simultaneously believing US support of opposition fighters in other countries is horrible, but being proud of their support of opposition fighters in America during their revolution.

Also believes the US should be eternally grateful for French support in their war almost 250 years ago, completely dismisses US support to French in war less than 100 years ago.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of the argument, let's say USA wants to cruise missile "carpet bombing" Europe.
- First, Europe has better air defence than the usual third world country that USA
- Second, even if the air force is not "5th generation"** (but the F18 on carrier neither), US fleets will be sitting ducks against calssic weapons retallation (missile attack-submarines, few years ago, an english and french submarine collide because they did not hear each other until the collision).
** Rafale and EuroFighters are more capable than the F35 and largely on par or superior of the FA-18

No first strike with classic weapon can impair europe so much, that the US fleet will not be sunk for retallation (and avoid escalating the war with the whole countries).
And even if it's the case, Russia will appear to be the "savior of the day" (nearer to grab the ressources).

The only plausible scenario is nuclear WW3 for this to happen.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the recent conflicts, French Rafales are sending first to destroy the air defense capabilites (since France is in NATO again for a decade).
So how the USA will do without external risk taker to remove the air defense, it will be harder for them to brag air superiority when you have to send your own men first to clean up the sky ?

Frankly, i was against the reintegration of France in NATO, it forces us to follow USA diplomacy/interests, that are not 1 for 1 France one's.
Trump ask money for NATO, he is right, and will give an incentive to opt-out again and let the USA imperialism help itself.

As for "Russian" menace, Russia GDP is the 1/2-1/3 of the France alone (Germany is higher, england is not bad either...), They are 140 million, europeans 350 millions, in workforce or production wise, even if Russia would be interested,to inveade europe it would be Napoleon or Hitler russia invasion screw-up in mirror.

Re: You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

Only because the current US system is pathetically underfunded.

Re:You jealous?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The last war France won on its own, it still had a king. We bailed you out of your last 3 (including one in which you were completely occupied). I think we're even...

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

We were just helping them with their war against Britain, such help doesn't come for free you ignorant clod.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the French would be speaking German from either WW1 or WW2 if it weren't for the US, so yeah, suck on that.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, the problem of merkin edjukayshun, greed. its more important to make money than actually teach anything. go 3rd world merkin edjukayshun. the merkin century is over, thank god.

Re:You jealous?

[HiThere]

No. A modern major war between nuclear powers would not resemble either the Hitler war or the Napoleon war. It would be massively more destructive in a much shorter time.

OTOH, it would end the problem of global warming, as urban nuclear blasts would waft a large amount of carbon-black high into the stratosphere, cooling things down in what has been called a "nuclear autumn" (though that analysis was done WRT a war between India and Pakistan, and several decades ago, so that might be an understatement).

Re:You jealous?

[HiThere]

When both sides want to kill the other side, and both have legitimate grievances, I find it difficult to want to support either side, and I really don't want to stand between them, either.

Re:You jealous?

[HiThere]

You need to study your history a LOT more. You're wrong.

That said, the French support was a side show in their sparring off against Britain, and earlier they had instigated what the US histories call "The French and Indian war", introducing widespread scalping to the Indians by paying a bounty on white scalps.

And THAT said, both of those actions were actions of the French monarchy. Whoops! That has little relation to the current French government, and even at the time had little to do with the intentions of the French populace.

Re:You jealous?

[HiThere]

FWIW, the US was isolationist and largely pro-German during WWII until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Then we quickly changed our minds. France had little or nothing to do with our participation. Even Britain was a secondary consideration, and much of the populace was anti-British. (Much, not only those with Irish ancestors.) This was apparently because the Germans were openly racist, and the British much less so.

That said, there were prominent pro-British spokesmen (including FDR) as well as pro-Nazi (including Charles Lindberg). So isolationism was dominant. Until it wasn't practical any more.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them are drinking Heineken, except during the fasting month - you can see the green beer packs pile up in aisles then.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

No they would not. They'd speak Russian if it wasn't for the US keeping the Soviet expansion at bay.
That's what the US deserves to be credited for. They protected the rest of continental Europe, and perhaps the British isles, from being turned into a Soviet shithole and more.

Re: You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what I got is that you write on here every day how much you hate the US, how terrible the US is, yet you choose to live in your beloved NYC and write about that too.

If you dislike a thing, but benefit from it and contribute to it, what does that make you?

If you believe what you say, act like you do.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody wants to start business in France or live there if they had the choice to move elsewhere.

Re:You jealous?

[rahvin112]

Keeping score on an international footing like you are pretending to do is fucking stupid.In fact it's beyond stupid, it's pure idiocy.

We are allies with France because they support the same values as the US. The only sane way to choose allies to to pick allies that share the same values vis-a-via freedom, democracy and free economies. It's the same reason we are allies with most of Europe, Japan and others. Certain people seem to think it's better to ally with Dictators and Totalitarian regimes, countries who given the opportunity would destroy our country as a threat to the power structure of those regimes.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has airplanes. We aren't taking a train from Seattle to Miami. We fly. The US has the best healthcare in the world, as long as you have coverage you are fine. We need to work on this, but need to get the border under control before we can consider that. US universities are the best in the world. France doesn't have a single university in the top 20. Ever use a French big internet company, for anything? There aren't any. France kills business and innovation.

Re: You jealous?

[sfcat]

Only because the current US system is pathetically underfunded.

Um, not to bring facts into this or anything, but the US actually pays more per student than just about any other country. Overall funding of the education system isn't really the problem with US education. Its a combination of waste on administration, other problems of society impacting students and the educational system, and our shifting cultural attitudes towards hard work and accomplishment. The teachers should be striking against their principles and superintendents as those are the folks stealing all the money from their paychecks. Also, the teacher's unions are not helping either.

Now perhaps you are talking about college level education in which case that's certainly not underfunded either. Its just the students paying the costs instead of the state. Also, its much cheaper when the state pays because the state doesn't build lazy rivers like the University of Alabama does. It would be better if we funded our public higher education systems (including community colleges) again but since that comes from the states (who are usually broke) instead of the feds (who have printing presses for money), I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:You jealous?

[Dirk Becher]

- The U.S. is a superpower and thus has military responsibility. The last time France was a military superpower...I don't know...1815?

- France is currently dialing back on a lot of their government benefits because it was a little bit too stale and expensive.

Re:You jealous?

[Dirk Becher]

I think I responded to the wrong comment. Whoops.

Re:You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

The US can abdicate its responsibility. There's no law that says it has to be responsible for everything, everywhere, to the detriment of its own people.

Re: You jealous?

[b0s0z0ku]

I live in NYC because it's 40% foreign-born, and thus not full of provincial Americans. It's one of the few US cities that's tolerable to live in.

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

"" No. A modern major war between nuclear powers would not resemble either the Hitler war or the Napoleon war. It would be massively more destructive in a much shorter time. ""

I agree.

The "synopsis" was a land invasion (without nuclear) to retrieve wealth, ressources and the industrial production, even in this case, it is not really possible.

If you put nuclear arsenal in the recipie, this is a complete blockade of war or an economic return centuries ago in a very hazardous world (hunger, radiation poisoning, destruction of the infrastructure, no police, no health, ...).

The MAD doctrine let the non-warmongers*** keep cool the warmongers, because nobody really wants to live in a post apocalypse world.
*** you can be against war/conflict and do not let others walk on your feet (not be a pacifist at all cost).

Even the recent incidents beetween Pakistan and India follow this logic, a few planes shooted down, but not much more, the pakistan annouce that going in war beetween the 2 countries when each country has nuclear weapon is NOT good idea (and it's clear for observer that India show their muscle for the next election, the power in place is not the favorite next candidate).

Re:You jealous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last war France won on its own, it still had a king. We bailed you out of your last 3 (including one in which you were completely occupied). I think we're even...

The last war the USA won on their own... was not Irak 1&2 (those were a coalition), post-911 Afghanistan (coalition), not Vietnam obviously, not WW1 and WW2 (again the coalition thing). Hmm, still searching...

We bailed you out of your last 3 (including one in which you were completely occupied). I think we're even...

The USA never cared about any other country. As a reminder the USA did not enter WW2 when Germany invaded Poland or even France. They only got involved two years later, after they got attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Re:You jealous?

[xryl]

US sell weapons to the world, it covers 30% of the market.
Russia came second, with 25%
Then you have Europe with 20% (6% for France, 5% for Germany and 5% for England, 4% for the other countries).
China has 9%.

What do you think would happen if there was a war ?

If you talk about the size of the army, US is peanuts compared to China (twice the size).
In a major conflict, China will likely ally will Russia, Korea, leading to a 4x larger army with a lot larger weapon industry (at least 35% of the world production).

In this case, do you think US alone with all it's proudness will be powerful enough to resist ?
Do you really really believe in the lies of your arrogant president to protect you without Europe ?

The only counter power is the western world, that is: US + Europe. That was the deal of NATO and honestly, it's more than ever required.

The price US pays for defense is mainly because a screw on a tank cost 100$ when sold to US army. You are targeting the wrong enemy if you think NATO is where you should save.

Re: You jealous?

[xryl]

It's not a matter of quantity, it's a matter of quality. It's amazing that with only a 1/10th of the budget per year per student, European countries succeed with better education for their people.
Honestly, when we are getting a résumé from a US college, we double test the candidate.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern English is more French than old English, moron.

splendid

[astrofurter]

Sounds like a splendid idea! Let France lead the way by laying a _heavy_ tax on data hoarders. The more data they hoard, and the more rapey their data collection scams, the higher their taxes!

Re:splendid

[HiThere]

The problem with that is that it encourages governments to encourage them to collect data via other governmental programs. I'd rather it was enacted as a law with a built-in automatic tax rate increase that would reach 100% in a decade or so.

Re: cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Norman French is not modern French. Dipshit.

Re: cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Lick my nutsack. I never made that claim. I also never made the claim that middle English does not exist. English. DO YOU SPEAK IT? Say what one more time. I DARE you.

Yup.

[WindBourne]

Not earning enough from the massive penalties (5-10x what Europe fines European companies, when they do go after them) that Europe charges the Internet Giants.
The real problem is that we are not taxing the Sales over the internet properly, combined with nations (such as Ireland) that does not charge corporate taxes. To be fair, I would rather that America moves to 0% tax if the company is here (and is doing the bulk of the work here), otherwise a simple 25% tax on them.

It is long past time for the west to worth together and come up with an honest and fair solution to all of this. A VAT or Sales tax is fine on internet sales, but ideally, we make them universal across the west.

Re:Yup.

[JaredOfEuropa]

The problem is not only in tax rates, but in the fact that tax laws have loopholes that allow profits to be shifted to countries where that profit is only lightly taxed. In it's simplest form a company will shift all of its IP to a tax haven, then charge all of its national subsidiaries a license fee for the use of that IP, in order to reduce their profits close to zero. Many, many companies do this.

Re:Yup.

[thegarbz]

5-10x what Europe fines European companies, when they do go after them

Could that be because foreign mega giants to 5-10x the amount of damage when they break the laws? Naah must be teh nationalism.

Re:Yup.

[Cederic]

massive penalties (5-10x what Europe fines European companies

Show some fucking evidence for your ignorant idiotic claims.

Yes, I do expect the evidence to include comparable levels of breaking the law.

Re: Yup.

[WindBourne]

7 European drug companies were fine .5 B, in which multiple ppl died from lack of a good drug, while Google was charged 5 B for requiring search/chrome on Android, if mobile phone company wanted to use play store. How many ppl died? None. How many businesses were forced to install play store? None.
here we see that Europe is going after Google for basically charging too little. look, I believe in going after companies for monopolistic actions. To be honest, these companies need to be broken up. But, those fines are still out of line, esp the android one, and even the ads.

Re: Yup.

[Cederic]

So your example is a $130bn turnover company being fined - for a second time, because they're a multiple offender - 1/6 of their profit, compared to a drug company being fined 1/10 of their turnover?

You're not convincing me of shit.

I mean, you skipped entirely the 1bn EUR fine on Daimler, which was a mere 1/3 of their profit.

Maybe - just maybe - if the US companies obeyed the fucking law they wouldn't get fucking fined. Is that so fucking hard to fucking comprehend you American fucking idiot?

Re:Yup.

[cheesybagel]

Yeah. It is one of the main arguments against Imaginary Property I think.

Re: Yup.

[WindBourne]

What law was broken when they allowed any company to install and use android, but required google search/chrome IFF they installed google play? That is simply an app manager. Any company CAN make their own. Amazon did. The fact that Amazon did, SHOWS that they are not monopolizing android.
So, what exactly was illegal about it? There was nothing like Microsoft with Windows who said that if you want windows, you had to install all of it. In addition, The European companies were hit with 1/10 for committing murder and TRUE monopolistic actions, while Google was hit with 1/4th of their TOTAL annual profits, which is a great deal more than anything that has been hit against european companies.
VW was hit with 1B, so, I seriously doubt that Daimler will be hit with more.
Just found this. In fact, Daimlers profits were 9B last year AND the fine for lying and murdering ppl with pollution was a whopping 85 MILLION Euros.
That is why Daimler did not make that list of massive fines.

You are now lying as bad as caffeinated bacon/crimson tsunami. I would have thought better of you.

Re: Yup.

[Cederic]

If only I could source my claims. Oh, wait: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

At least one of us has managed it.

Re: Yup.

[WindBourne]

Huh.
Lets see. You said that Daimler paid 1B for defeating emissions, which was NOT the case. Now, you post to a story about FIVE European companies cheating for 14 years to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars, with an out and out anti-trust breaking numerous laws in numerous nation, etc. and they are fined a TOTAL of 2.9B. Google, who is ACCUSED of cheating for several years, and again, all they did was require that all 3 programs be installed, if the company wanted their play store.
So, :
1) you totally changed what the issue was from CO2 emissions to collusion.
2) 5 companies were charged a TOTAL of 2.9B, which BTW, is far far LESS than 5B that Google was charged.
3) Only Daimler paid 1B, which is again on 120+B YEARLY revenue, with a yearly profit of 9B, so, they paid less than 1/9 of their PROFITS.


Google paid 5B on 100B revenue, 22B profit, which means that they are paying ~1/4 of their profits.
And you tink that you have 'managed' something?

Good god. If I did not know better, I would say that you are caffeinated bacon. You are lying through your teeth and lying with links.

Re: Yup.

[Cederic]

You said that Daimler paid 1B for defeating emissions

No, I did not. Stop fucking lying. Feel free to reply because I'm not going to read your response because you're wasting my time with your foolishness.

Re: Yup.

[WindBourne]

oops. Mea Culpa.
You ARE correct about your not saying that it was over Co2. I re-read our postings and yes, you did not say that it was about CO2.
Still it remains the fact that Daimler paid a fraction of the amount that Google did.

French trains a mixed bag

[SuperKendall]

The French trains are OK, I've used them a few times - they are not dramatically fast compared to most other countries though, and because of the very real threat of strikes I would be leery of relying on them too much for crucial connections. It worked out fine when we took them to a few destinations outside of Paris.

The Chunnel train to London is probably more of an exception though in terms of being more reliable, I'm not sure that is as affected by strikes since it's more crucial.

Cant innovate, lets tax

[AHuxley]

France defaults to extra big taxation.
Invest in France and enjoy that extra big tax.

Who in France is getting all the new tax spending?

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[xlsior]

France defaults to extra big taxation. Invest in France and enjoy that extra big tax. Who in France is getting all the new tax spending?

People who need healthcare, people who enjoy decent public transportation and high-speed trains, people who work to live and not live to work?

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[AHuxley]

Why the sudden need for more tax?
What services suddenly need extra tax money?
Less tax and France is more investment friendly.
That would attract more good quality private sector jobs.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[xlsior]

Why the sudden need for more tax?
What services suddenly need extra tax money?

The French government deficit is projected to be 3.4% of GDP -- (By comparison, the US is projected to be 4.7% in 2019)
Most countries recognize that having ever climbing deficits is a bad thing. They can either cut expenses, or raise taxes to make up for the shortfall. The French government is choosing the latter, aimed specifically at huge corporations that historically haven't been paying their fair share. Note that it's only targeting a percentage of their profits realized within France. If Apple, Google, Facebook and the others don't like it, they can always choose not to do business in France.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't the oh-so-smart Europeans build their own tech business to tax, instead of having to rely on US companies? They keep telling everybody how the web was invented in Europe - it wasn't - so how come that in almost 30 years there is no euro search engine, hunh? Not so smart after all.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always more things to spend money on, and more people's personal agendas to fulfil! To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." That's why they need more taxes. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Actually they need more taxes to offset the loss in tax revenue from small and mid sized local business. The tax system has to evolve with the changes in the marketplace.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[phantomfive]

Most countries recognize that having ever climbing deficits is a bad thing.

I'm....not sure that's true. The only time anyone complains about deficits is when the other party wants to spend.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the implication facebook is a technological marvel? Come on.. This law will indeed help level the playing field and foster new competitors, which is exactly what you want?

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why can't the oh-so-smart Europeans build their own tech business to tax, instead of having to rely on US companies?

Are you suggesting that taxes should discriminate between companies based on their country of origin? What is this, protectionism?

so how come that in almost 30 years there is no euro search engine, hunh?

There's been several search engines in my country alone. I seriously doubt that in other EU countries, many of them larger, the situation is very different.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

> Who in France is getting all the new tax spending?

Not you, Ivan.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one that is actually used and as popular as Google.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a sudden need. It's just these companies have managed to shirk their responsibilities until now. As the summary notes, up until now Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple are effectively subsidized by French small and medium sized companies while siphoning money out of France.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not true. The "run the economy like a household budget" thing has been completely discredited by modern monetary theory.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Tom]

France defaults to extra big taxation.

Funny how taxes are always huge, massive, unbearable no matter the actual number. 3% now. The same was said when someone proposed a 0.001% tax on stock exchange trades. Yes, that's a thousandth of one percent.

If you want a country with really high taxes, look to Switzerland. Last I checked (was there in summer last year), they were doing quite well for themselves. I seems - shocking, I know - that the fate of a country doesn't depend much on how it structures it taxes, but on how well it is run in total. Taxes are a small part of the equation.

Basically, in simple words: You are complaining about the price of food, without checking how much and what quality you get for it. Sure, this restaurant is more expensive than McDonalds, but you get actual meat in a size that doesn't leave you wondering if you already ate that burger or just imagine you did.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[thegarbz]

I'm....not sure that's true. The only time anyone complains about deficits is when the other party wants to spend.

The fact that parties are inept at reducing spending (gotta give a tax cut to those voters), and the fact that they use it to attack the opposition spending, has nothing to do with the fact that people generally know that deficit in relation to GDP is a bad thing.

Don't underestimate the willingness for a politician to run a country knowingly into the ground for personal gain.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit man - go easy! Slashdot itself needs healthcare after the severe public beating it got from APK they all ran from https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if he/she lives in Ireland he/she could say Google :), in China Baidu, Russia Yandex, etc....

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

But where is Eurosearch? :)

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes in Switzerland are actually quite low when compared to neighbouring countries and taxation varies from canton to canton. Vaud is quite high compared to Nidwald for instance.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you taking the piss? Every Saturday I fire up YouTube and watch the gilets jaune marching through Paris. Wherever the revenue is going it's definitely not to people who "work to live and not live to work". Unless by "work to live" you mean "work to pay your taxes and then fuck you very much".

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

And one of the arguments is that, in contrast with households, governments can levy new taxes when necessary. Lo and behold!

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Tom]

I happen to live in one of those neighbouring countries. Our taxes are lower.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to check this, but it seems Qwant is one. You might lump it up with the likes of searx, startpage, duckduckgo but perhaps more like the latter.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[cheesybagel]

Companies which destroy businesses which used to pay local taxes. Like bookshops.

So yes, the amount of taxes collected decreased thanks to these phoney business models. Big woop.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[phantomfive]

I used to blame politicians, but now I blame voters. They get what they want.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep telling everybody how the web was invented in Europe - it wasn't

Except it was:
Berners-Lee worked as an independent contractor at CERN from June to December 1980. While in Geneva, he proposed a project based on the concept of hypertext, to facilitate sharing and updating information among researchers. To demonstrate it, he built a prototype system named ENQUIRE.

and again The first website was built at CERN. Despite this being an international organisation hosted by Switzerland, the office that Berners-Lee used was just across the border in France.

so how come that in almost 30 years there is no euro search engine, hunh?

Except there is. It's called Qwant.

Not so smart after all.

Is that self-reflection I hear?

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[thegarbz]

I don't blame voters. What alternative do they have? The system in many countries is rigged to ensure you get the choice of two horrible options.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[phantomfive]

I don't blame voters. What alternative do they have?

The voters vote. Any politician that votes to increase taxes gets voted out. Any politician who votes to decrease benefits gets voted out. That's why Democrats voted to keep the Bush tax cuts, and why Republicans couldn't get rid of Obamacare when they finally had the opportunity.

We've had politicians who made balanced budgets a major issue of their campaign, but it wasn't a very effective campaign strategy. People don't want that.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax

[thegarbz]

Yet there is a party currently seemingly impervious to any kind of criticism in power right now and taxes aren't being raised. How is this the voter's fault when neither party actually offered a platform to solve the problem.

Who do I vote for? The party that wants to screw the country through X, or the party that wants to screw the country through Y? I certainly blame voters for the train-wreck that is the current POTUS embarrassment, but I don't blame them for the state of the country when no alternative was provided.

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax

[phantomfive]

If you want to increase services, vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you want to decrease taxes, vote for Trump or anyone from the tea party. If you want both, vote for Nancy Pelosi or George Bush.

Less jobs, more tax burden

[bidule]

I am sorry to say this, but France is a champion of tax burden. Those gilets jaunes are a symptom this failure. I'll blame this lack of income on the rigid job creation/destruction over-regulation.

Re:Less jobs, more tax burden

[Anonymous Coward]

The gilets jaunes are very much pro-taxation. They want the government to walk back the abolition of a tax on wealth (capital hoarded by individuals) and the replacement of a progressive tax on capital gains with a flat rate one ("flat tax" is obviously a fraud meant to transfer money upwards). There are other issues than these.

Long story short the billionaires and 0.1% took control of over 90% of the media (94%? in the hand of billionaires alone). They manipulated the Presidential election. (in which the first four candidates got roughly 24%, 20%, 20% and 19%). Legislative election came right after it and few voted. The president got an absolute majority in the lower legislative chamber (but this is usual), made of many business types, mostly first time deputies/politicians. A rubber-stamp parliament. There's a prime minister but he and all the ministers directly answer to the president so you've got an extremely pyramidal, concentrated system that is the most slanted to the executive power ever while the media are liars and serve the 0.1%, public media included.
End result the 0.1% are waging class warfare and transferring tens of billions euros in burden taxation from the rich to the poor through indirect taxes or regulated prices, a small dose of direct tax (the CSG) or just budget cuts to public housing, hospitals and other.

This "GAFA tax"? The French don't give much of a shit. 0.5 billion are crumbs. Some of them are complaining about 30 billions given to the rich and large companies. Stagnating wages are a major issue (hint : with better wages we won't complain of prices and taxation as much). Tax fraud or evasion is estimated at 80 to 100 billions yearly, though for "efficiency" and getting rid of "parasitic public workers who do nothing" the current power wants to get rid of a couple thousand tax inspectors.They want to sell the national lottery too, much like the State relinquished toll road income years ago and it goes into private coffers instead. About everything they do is like this.

Re:cool

[jpaine619]

better stop using English which was invented by the English.

But mostly spoken by Indians. There are more people in India who speak English than the rest of the primary English speakers, worldwide, combined..

Re:Fiscal justice?

[xlsior]

Is this a new purview of the French government, to dispense fiscal justice? I assume there will be no juries or trials, making the French fiscal justice system a dictatorship?

Every country on the planet creates their own tax laws, with their own arbitrary rules. Any company that chooses to operate in a country is obliged to follow those laws, for better or worse. If they don't like it, they are free to leave or stop doing business altogether. That's literally how it has always been, everywhere. This is nothing new.

Re:Fiscal justice?

[misnohmer]

"Fiscal justice" as a goal is new. Probably related to "social justice".

Re:cool

[Hognoxious]

The fuck it is, you dumb fat cunt.

Not dramatically fast ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure on my weekly trip to our HQ to Paris from Bordeaux (around 580km road distance), It takes 2 hours to get me at the center of Paris. "not dramatically fast compared to most other countries " you said ? Sure, let's see : Going from NYC to Pittsburgh that is around the same road distance of a Bordeaux-Paris, it will take you around 9 hours by train. Enjoy ! London to Glasgow, it's about 4 hours by train for around the same distance... Even with countries with fast trains you still get a major difference, Milano to Roma (573km) you will need around 3 hours ! 50% more .... sorry but I don't know in which planet (oops, country) you live in. If you wanted to bash TGV you could have gone for the comfort or the lack of connectivity on some east lines. But for the speed, the reliability or the price, no serriously get a clue.

Same thing about strike, lately train had more to suffer from impact of update of rail switches to full automatic that caused multiple black out at major paris station thant from any strikes. When there are major strikes, you know why trains are still ok in France ? Because, people will take the train to go to paris to have a huge demonstration ;-)

Nice French bashing and cliché combo attempt ;-)

Re:Not dramatically fast ....

[HiThere]

One thing to remember with trains is that it makes a great deal of difference which stations you are traveling between. Distance is not a great metric, unless you use route distance.

That said, the US system is pathetic, and was intentionally sabotaged by both the auto industry and the rail freight portion of the railroads. It used to be underfunded, but these days calling it underfunded is a gross understatement. The passenger service was sold to the government, and then freight was given priority over passenger service, while the government did it's best to totally kill off passenger service. They haven't quite succeeded, but pretty damn close.

Re: cool

[Anonymous Coward]

If Disney uses English in its movies, you can bet the copyright has been extended.

Re:cool

[Hognoxious]

s/who speak/who think they speak/

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

Riddle me this... the places in the US that pride themselves on "light regulations" also tend to have the highest incarceration rates. Whereas incarceration rates in Europe tend to be 1/3 to 1/4 of the US average with similar or lower violent crime rates. If the US puts so many people in prison (proportional to population), is it really so lightly regulated?

The difference is that Europe is somewhat more economically regulated than the US, but those regulations generally affect larger corporations, not the average citizen. The US is home of Draconian social regulations that put people in prison, ruin their lives with arrest records, etc and so forth.

Good on the French standing up for the little guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good old America always defending the wealth of the rich who well avoid helping everyone by paying tax.

Fair, but...

[bradley13]

In all fairness, this should have nothing to do with the Internet giants. Given the massive degree of internationalization today, *all* companies should be taxed where they generate their revenue, rather than allowing stupid games with tax havens.

That said, what France is doing is borderline corrupt: targetting specific companies that (they think) represent untapped sources of sweet, sweet tax money. France is basically broke, attempts to further tax the populace led to the yellow-vests, and cutting bureaucracy or public services is politically impossible. They need more bread and circuses to stave off the collapse...

Re:Fair, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

cutting bureaucracy or public services is politically impossible

That's the real problem. You only need new sources of revenue when you lack the spine to cut spending.

Re:Fair, but...

[SuricouRaven]

Tax havens work precisely by allowing corporations to determine where their revenues are generated.

In simplest form, a company might manufacture their product at almost zero profit in China, sell to a subsiduary in Ireland, have that subsiduary mark the price up and sell on to a subsituary in the US, and then the US company sell the product retail at almost no profit. This the revenue is generated in a jurisdiction with favorable tax conditions - at least on paper.

You could try to stop that by charging tax at retail or at production, where the actual economic activity takes place. It's been tried. It results in the Ireland division closing, and a new, completely independent (but owned by the same board of directors) company being founded to buy the product from China and sell to the US.

That's only the simplist way to be tax efficient. You can do a lot with branding too. Franchise operations like that: The company doing the actual selling spends most of their revenue on licensing fees for the brand, thus ensuring they make no profit which can be taxed. The profits are made by the company in Bermuda which holds the trademark rights.

Hollywood is very well known for the tax efficiency - few hollywood movies actually make a profit on paper, to the point that it's standard practice to quite a movie as 'making a revenue of $X on a budget of $Y' - because there is never any profit. This is usually done by having a distribution company or other services companies based in nice low-tax countries which the studio will deliberately buy services from at ridiculously high prices, thus driving themselves into as close to zero profit as they can get. The companies making the money are owned by the same people, of course.

Re:Fair, but...

[AmiMoJo]

Nothing corrupt about noticing that a bunch of companies are all pulling the same tax-dodge and trying to do something about it.

Re:Fair, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness, this should have nothing to do with the Internet giants. Given the massive degree of internationalization today, *all* companies should be taxed where they generate their revenue, rather than allowing stupid games with tax havens.

That said, what France is doing is borderline corrupt: targetting specific companies that (they think) represent untapped sources of sweet, sweet tax money. France is basically broke, attempts to further tax the populace led to the yellow-vests, and cutting bureaucracy or public services is politically impossible. They need more bread and circuses to stave off the collapse...

Who said it was limited to Internet companies? IDK how "digital revenue" translated from the text of the actual law, but that could cover IP licensing to a subsidiary schemes in general. It’s worth reading up in more instead of getting hung up on the notoriously accurate /. headline.

Re:Fair, but...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Now what happens when you bring that money into the US to pay the shareholders, or to use to pay employees? Taxation. Your overseas income is tax deferred - not tax exempt. The second it hits US shores, it's taxed.

Re:Fair, but...

[SuricouRaven]

There are plenty of ways around that too. Easiest one? Don't bring it in. If you have only a few shareholders, you can just keep it overseas. But, if you do want it back in the US... get a loan. A huge loan. Secured upon the money you are not bringing into the US. As you have perfectly secure collateral, in liquid assets no less, you can take out your huge loan with a very low interest rate. There will be some cost, of course, but less than if you were to pay tax. It does look a bit iffy in accounting having what looks like a serious liabilities issue on paper, but traders understand how the game is played.

People have been finding ways to legally avoid paying tax for as long as tax has existed. I've read of accounts from the Roman republic of people grumbling that the richest citizens of Rome somehow managed to avoid taxation. There are more tricks than you or I can possibly imagine to achieve this aim.

Re:Fair, but...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hurray! You just suggested a solution (loan against foreign assets) that is illegal. The IRS will consider that as taxable income. That loophole leads to a nice cozy jail cell...

Re:Fair, but...

[b0s0z0ku]

It seems to only be illegal if brokered through a US agent.

Re:Fair, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax is not fair.

Re:Fair, but...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Oh, if you want to use a foreign agent, then you're subject to FBAR reporting for any and all assets over $10,000 that would normally be taxable or traceable in the US. I assumed people recommending overseas transactions are aware of FBAR? Failing to report it (like getting a loan from an overseas company - that's an FBAR-reportable asset) results in $500,000 in fines and 10 years in prison, for each violation. And each tax year is considered a separate violation, so if you run this scam for 3-4 years in a row, you're liable for a few million in fines and 40 years in prison.

Re:Fair, but...

[b0s0z0ku]

Do you really think that upper management in FB, GOOG, AAPL, etc will really go to prison or get fined?

Re:Fair, but...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.

Re:Fair, but...

[sfcat]

Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.

First, Elon Musk didn't. Second, Ken Lay led one of the most massive frauds in history against a "powerful" US state. That's a bit more than tax fraud. And technically Martha Stewart went to jail because of insider trading but really because she pissed off some powerful person. I understand you think you live in a society where what you said was true but it simply isn't so. Also, when the rich do tax evasion, they use lawyers and accountants who technically follow the law but still accomplish the goal of preventing tax from being charged. So how are you supposed to prosecute a person who is technically following the letter of the law even if they obviously aren't following the spirit of the law? Even a 4 year old can game economic systems designed by Economists (see Freakanomics) so I seriously doubt politicians can beat a global industry of tax lawyers and accountants. Perhaps, you should see this policy for what it really is...a subsidy for accountants and tax lawyers.

Re:Fair, but...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Elon Musk paid a $20 million fine for financial impact on the market with his ludicrous tweet. Yes, he did. And tax evasion always ends bad; tax avoidance is legal, and pisses the IRS and Government off, but it's legal. Tax evasion? That is what is used to get most rich people, including Al Capone.

Re:Fair, but...

[SuricouRaven]

I was just outdated by ten years. The fact that the IRS has had to issue a specific memorandum saying it is illegal does imply that it must have been a known practice prior to this. So they closed that loophole - I'm sure there are others.

I know 1 thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a poster named APK kick the living crap out of all slashdot assholes https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

The key word is not "3%" nor is it "Internet giants" - the key word is revenue.

This is what should've happened a decade ago. Taxing revenue instead of profits puts a clean shot right between the eyes of the majority of tax evasion schemes. It's a step long overdue.

And before the typical neo-conservative trolls shout it down: Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits. My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours. If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Hodr]

That's a false equivalence and it's amazing you found 4 idiots with mod points to support you.

You are claiming that personal taxes have no exemptions for costs. If you itemize you basically turn that income number into a profit number by removing your expenses (travel, tools, work materials, costs). If you rent your house or sell your guitar or anything you deduct the cost. Even if you can work from home and have zero costs whatsoever, meaning your income is 100% profit, you are still given a "standard deduction".

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours.

Actually, mine is slightly more complicated than that. I get some deductions based on what I pay in rent. It might perhaps be more accurate to say that income tax where I live is heavily biased towards "revenue" rather than "profits", and perhaps the same kind of shades-of-grey approach would work for corporation tax (although perhaps not, because multinationals have far more ability than individuals to juggle things around and look for loopholes).

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[CrimsonAvenger]

Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits.

What, no Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions where you live? Which, at least theoretically (yah, it's been a very long time since any attempt was made to update those deductions) is meant to allow for the costs of actually, you know, living and paying your bills.

In other words, no you're taxed on income over and above cost of living (again, it's been a very long time since they adjusted the Standard Deductions and such to actually match a "normal" cost of living for taxpayer and family) - in other words on profit....

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[bill_mcgonigle]

If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.

Yeah, they'll raise prices 3%. As long as it's an across-the-board tax there's no competitive advantage to not do so.

Congratulations, you just raised taxes on the middle class again - as always.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Enigma2175]

Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits.

What, no Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions where you live? Which, at least theoretically (yah, it's been a very long time since any attempt was made to update those deductions) is meant to allow for the costs of actually, you know, living and paying your bills.

In other words, no you're taxed on income over and above cost of living (again, it's been a very long time since they adjusted the Standard Deductions and such to actually match a "normal" cost of living for taxpayer and family) - in other words on profit....

By a "very long time" do you mean the 2017 tax legislation when the personal exemption was eliminated and the standard deduction nearly doubled? 2 years isn't a "very long time" when talking about tax policy, it is only 2 tax cycles for individuals. The change was passed in 2017 but it went into effect for the 2018 tax year so it's really only 1 year since the change happened. Prior to that, the standard deduction hadn't changed since 2017, when it went from $6,300 to $6,350. You have to dig REALLY deep for the prior change, when it went from $6,200 to $6,300 in 2015, $6,100 to $6,200 in 2014, $5,950 to $6,100 in 2013, $5,800 to $5,900 in 2012 and $5,700 to $5,800 in 2011. Or in your mind do those updates not meet your personal criteria for "updating those deductions"? These deductions were never supposed to match "normal cost of living", they were supposed to approximate what itemized deductions an average family might take -- things like charitable contributions, education expenses, business expenses and so on. Things that congress decided should be tax-deductible because the activity benefits the country more than the tax revenue would (or that have lots of voters behind it, like deductions for having children).

You misunderstand the reason for standard deductions and exemptions and don't seem to be aware that they have constantly been updated, usually every year.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[LynnwoodRooster]

Taxing revenue is about the stupidest thing you can do. It's the surest way to kill companies. Don't care if you make profit or not, Government wants a cut of the action. Will Government chip in to cover costs when there is a loss on the books? No? Then why does it get to claim a piece of revenue when that loss happens?

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[SuricouRaven]

No-one is proposing a percent-for-percent changeover. That would be silly. Obviously a revenue tax would be at a much lower percentage than a corporation tax on profits - ideally so that the total amount taken would be the same. The post is just suggesting that a tax on revenue rather than profit may be more difficult to avoid through the use of underhanded but entirely legal accounting tricks.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[SuricouRaven]

Also if you say there should be no taxes of any type... well, I hope you can afford a private security guard for your home, because you just laid off the entire police force. Better get some exercise too, because I don't know how long the roads are going to be viable with no maintenance and no-one footing the power bill for traffic signals. Sorry to puncture your libertarian bubble, but taxation is rather important for a functional society.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

It's the surest way to kill companies.

[citation required]

Will Government chip in to cover costs when there is a loss on the books? No? Then why does it get to claim a piece of revenue when that loss happens?

Like I said: Income tax works that way. My income is taxed based on revenue. And no, if I can't make it and end the month spending more than I made, the government doesn't chip in.

Also: Yes, the government does regularily step in to prop up companies. It saved most of the banks during the financial crisis, it hands out subsidies to industries that are critical to society but not very profitable, it has a multitude of sponsorship and financial support programs running and many more ways in which money flows to companies.

Anything in your argument I forgot to wipe the floor with?

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

Yeah, they'll raise prices 3%

Contrary to anything else that gives them an excuse to raise prices, this price raise at least will cycle around to the society. Also, a company that decides to absorb this tax without raising the prices - for example by not paying lawyers lots of money to come up with tax evasion schemes - will have a competitive advantage.

The whole point is that this is a tax that stays within the country where the business is made. Name one other way to ensure this.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

Can't speak about your country, but mine is very, very, very far away from allowing actual cost of living to be deductible. The deductions include those expenses made in direct relation to the job, i.e. commuting costs, application costs for a new job and a small number of additionals.

Nowhere can I deduct my mortgage payment, my electricity bill or my food.

Comparing standard deductions with the profit-margin-only taxation of corporations is not a thing here. If you can deduct your mortgage, let me know, I might want to move where you are living.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

I can't deduct my rent. Maybe in your country you can. Over here, deductions are only possible for things directly related to your job, and a very small number of extras.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

A tax on company revenue, by another name, is a sales tax. The problem is the games that can be played with both sales tax and net profit, and the shuffling around of intellectual property and so on. Now in this situation if companies in Germany bought online ads they could then pay a sales tax - the problem is someone could buy ads with a shell game somewhere else with no tax applied and still shown to a German web browser. Its not clear to me how to move forward in a way that truly taxes fairly. Its disgusting. Maybe certain things could be done with capital controls but I am no expert, this would likely lead to localized rent seeking but could still be better than our present alternative.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here you go. Seriously, do you think it's a good idea to tax a company when they don't even make a profit? You're a new startup, you have $250,000 in expenses, you made $200,000 in revenue, meaning a gross loss of $50,000 (and an even greater net loss, most assuredly). AND you get to pay a nice tax on that $200,000 in revenue.

Your income tax is NOT based that way. You have deductions, don't you? If you have negative income throughout the year - you don't pay income taxes. If you earned $5,000 - well below the standardized deduction - should you pay income tax? No? Then why should a company pay when it has zero net income as well?

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[cascadingstylesheet]

And before the typical neo-conservative trolls shout it down: Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits. My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours. If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.

Typical conservative troll here, lol (possibly paleo instead of neo though)

Several things to take issue with here.

Income isn't the only tax, for one thing, individual capital gains are taxed only on gain, for example. (I won't say profit, as I don't think you get to account for inflation.)

For another, it's questionable whether corporations should be taxed at all. Their employees are taxed on income, and their investors/owners are taxed on profits. Just how many places on this highway are you going to engage in highway robbery, anyway?

And does this tax on revenue of yours go for everybody? Grocery stores? Restaurants? Have you thought this through?

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

VAT is a revenue tax. Europe already has that, but services are exempt. This new tax reduces that loophole.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

taxfoundation.org == shill. Not a valid source.

Startups have no right to exist. Corporations have no right to exist.

People are not equal to corporations. People are more important than corporations. Corporations exist at the pleasure of humanity. They are not equal. They should never, ever be treated as equals.

Right now, corporations are treated as better than you and me. They only get taxed on their profit which they can deduct from in many ways. We are taxed on revenue which there are some but not as many ways to deduct from. A corporation can "deduct" everything. Can you deduct what you had for lunch, your toilet paper, your water bill? The answer is no.

Fuck off with your parched lips from all the corporatism fellatio.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[swillden]

Taxing revenue instead of profits puts a clean shot right between the eyes of the majority of tax evasion schemes.

It would also be deadly to low-margin businesses. Like grocery stores and other important retailers. Well, not actually "deadly", but it would force them to dramatically raise their prices to generate enough profit that they could pay the taxes. And note that low-margin businesses primarily serve low-income people.

Simple revenue taxation is inherently regressive.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

So let them. Then we can choose whether we need to purchase their crap at the increased rate anyway.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[sfcat]

The key word is not "3%" nor is it "Internet giants" - the key word is revenue.

This is what should've happened a decade ago. Taxing revenue instead of profits puts a clean shot right between the eyes of the majority of tax evasion schemes. It's a step long overdue.

And before the typical neo-conservative trolls shout it down: Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits. My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours. If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all businesses make the same margins and thus taxing revenue is fair. There is no way those policies have unintended consequences like driving manufacturing out of France...wait...they already did that 50 years ago. All policies like this do is drive out types of businesses that employee large numbers of people (low margin businesses like industry) in favor of businesses that employee much smaller numbers of people (higher margin businesses like marketing).

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't deduct my rent. Maybe in your country you can. Over here, deductions are only possible for things directly related to your job, and a very small number of extras.

Home offices are awesome...you should look into it...

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

That was true 20 years ago. Then suddenly everyone had a home office and they added so many rules and restrictions about it that nowadays it is really difficult to get it approved even if you genuinely do have a home office.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

You're a new startup, you have $250,000 in expenses, you made $200,000 in revenue, meaning a gross loss of $50,000

That is why you have a cash reserve when you start a business. Obviously you won't be profitable immediately.

So what would this change? Take non-viable companies out of the economy a little bit faster. Cry me a river.

You have deductions, don't you? If

I've answered this already. Deductions are incomparable, much more narrow and limited.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all businesses make the same margins and thus taxing revenue is fair.

If you need proof that taxing profits is fair, you have been living under a rock the past 20 years.

There is no way those policies have unintended consequences like driving manufacturing out of France...wait...they already did that 50 years ago.

Rumours to the contrary, France still exists.

favor of businesses that employee much smaller numbers of people (higher margin businesses like marketing).

There is a proposal on the table to counter this. Very simple: Make social security payments deductable. Suddenly, employing people is a benefit.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[Tom]

...taxing profits is unfair... of course. typo.

Apple paid 0.005% of taxes in Europe, give or take a zero. If you think that is fair, we have nothing to discuss.

Re:revenue taxing - finally

[xryl]

Or, like it should happen, have a money that's devaluative based on People choice. Instead of taxes that, in all cases, the corporations will succeed in avoiding, make the money deflates.
You win 100f$ this year, it'll value 95f$ next year. The missing 5f$ is captured to pay for People's services (like road, health, education, defense, law, etc...).
Since the corporation can't avoid using the money, there's no way to escape the scheme. They win 100f$, even if they convert to 100€ in a Irish bank, the instant they want to use it on US ground, it'll aligned to the new value (so 95f$ a year later).

That way, there is no possible escape. The depreciation rate could also be based on the amount (that is a small fee per f$ per transaction that cumulate exponentially when combined).

I know 1 thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a poster named APK kick the living crap out of all you slashdot assholes today https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Heil Hitlary as Mandated by Law

[Anonymous Coward]

We're coming after everyone who didn't vote for Hitlary as mandated. Mueller will investigate you forever, or until something sticks, whichever comes first. And don't even think about mentioning Mueller's involvement in the Uranium 1 deal because fake news won't report it. Fake news won't even report the scientific facts of 9-11 (ae911truth dot org) hahaha

That's not so bad. What IS bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not so bad. What IS bad? APK 100 vs. /. score of -100 after I saw him make all /. STFU after this https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Can we have this in Germany too?

[prefec2]

Dear Government,

we all know that the big IT companies do not pay taxes in the EU, as some countries (e.g., Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany) do not really try to tax them, look the other way when they avoid taxes etc. I know that Germany is afraid someone (the US) could start taxing German cars, but:

(a) the car industry is only 4.5% of Germans GDP.
(b) they are ignoring modern trends for decades now, they had it coming and they need to change. The US taxing them could actually help.
(c) we can easily make up by taxes from these companies.
(d) it support diversity in the market. This is important to have a real market economy and not a capitalistic nightmare with monopolies.
(e) this Trump person will blackmail you with the car industry anyway and as the German public is not interested in paying more for the defense budget, especially since this part of the government is run so badly, the Trump will tax that industry sooner rather than later.

So please come to your senses and tax these Internet companies.

Thank you!

Re:I know 1 thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, look the fat useless incel cuck is talking about himself in third person now, poor deluded little nut job, never won anything in his life. Sad.

Re:cool

[_merlin]

One can say the same thing about the US.

The Giant infrastructure & utility free loader

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Giants did not
- pay for the talent train those developers, etc
- pay for basic schooling
- build the road, lay the water, electric, gas grid
- pay for the vaccines that reduce infections
- pay for all sort of basic research that make things happens

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain wrong. There are approximately 125m people in India who speak English. There are 60m in Britain alone - another 280m in the United States. But the point is stupid/moot in any case as English is becoming the defacto global second language, spoken by almost everyone who has a second language (if their primary language isn't English).

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

> In Europe and many socialist cities/states poverty is forced on you because those options are taken away. How do you measure poverty?

Comrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is a disease that it's high time we eradicated!

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, no. It's not "derived" from Norman French. Norman French was mostly used by the aristocracy, with the religious hierarchy using that, English and Latin. There are as many Latin words in the English language as there are French. Regardless, English is "derived from" Germanic languages. Its vocabulary merely includes French and Latin words.

Raise taxes but they won't pay

[WCMI92]

Google. etc don't pay taxes. That is what they do. Governments can raise taxes to 9,000% it doesn't matter to them they won't pay.

Re:Raise taxes but they won't pay

[Anonymous Coward]

What? 9,000?

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[misexistentialist]

ignoring the demographics of American prisons, the average European citizen seems pretty regulated, hard to get into trouble when you have no free speech, weapons, or even much of your paycheck, these conditions are similar to being in prison, which of course has its benefits, like free healthcare and housing

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[mjwx]

Riddle me this... the places in the US that pride themselves on "light regulations" also tend to have the highest incarceration rates. Whereas incarceration rates in Europe tend to be 1/3 to 1/4 of the US average with similar or lower violent crime rates. If the US puts so many people in prison (proportional to population), is it really so lightly regulated?

The difference is that Europe is somewhat more economically regulated than the US, but those regulations generally affect larger corporations, not the average citizen. The US is home of Draconian social regulations that put people in prison, ruin their lives with arrest records, etc and so forth.

Whilst that's a good point, the main reason that our prison populations are lower is because we haven't treated it as an industrial complex. Here on the other side of the pond prisons are still considered the property and responsibility of our respective governments.

There is also a lot more in the US you can go to jail for. If you get caught with drugs on the streets of Paris, Dortmund or Newcastle, you'll at worst get a fine. Possession alone is not a impressionable-able offence unless you've got enough to be dealing (and we mean a lot, not just a few weeks supply). Basically the US system is set up to keep prison populations high, it could cut prisoner numbers significantly just by changing possession to a misdemeanour offence.

Re:I know 1 thing

[Anonymous Coward]

APK isn't an incel, he gets his ass plowed daily down at the glory hole in the Pilot Travel Center off of I-85. Every day he tests out his natural immunity to AIDS while carrying a viral load that would drop an elephant instantly.

Re:cool

[registrations_suck]

Americans were also invented by the English, so it's OK.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Europe is somewhat more economically regulated than the US, but those regulations generally affect larger corporations, not the average citizen.

Yes, according to the leftist fantasy that large corps, when taxed, just sit in the corner, pay and cry, instead of just shrugging and passing on the costs to the customer, that is, your "average citizen".

Re:cool

[Hognoxious]

All colonials are vulgar, that's true. But the septics are mostly comprehensible.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

More American misconceptions: (1) Free speech -- oh my God! You can't spew Nazi or racist propaganda in public! The horror! (2) Weapons -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Gun ownership rates aren't exactly zero in Europe. (3) Paycheck -- think of US health insurance premiums as a tax, then add them to the "official" tax rate in the US.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

Out of the OECD-22 the US has:
-- the highest change of dying by age 60
-- the third highest functional illiteracy rate
-- the highest % of population in functional poverty (below 50% of median income)

Long-term unemployment is lowest, but if you're forced to work in a McJob, that's not actually great.

Totally agree with you.

[WindBourne]

Companies are playing both sides of the pond and actually harming the west. It is long past time for our nations to work together and come up with a decent solution. these days, I believe that we should kill corporate taxes, and instead use sale/vat tax, combined with dividend taxes. Regardless, the west is being played by our own companies, & none of the western nations can do anything, until we all work together.

Re:Totally agree with you.

[HiThere]

Tax is a bad instrument for public policy. Fines aren't much better. Prison for executives would be superior, but such laws are rarely enforced, and allow the potential for abuse in framing someone you don't like. And evidence is hard to collect.

Confiscation of assets and public auction is better, but some of those assets you really don't want going public. And when that happens limitations on use agreed to by the original party often lapse.

The only real answer is removal of corporate person-hood, and actually holding those in power responsible for the actions of their company, even if you can't document why they took those actions. But powerful people are usually successful in avoiding prosecution.

Re:Totally agree with you.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, maximize taxes on the poorest. Remove tax burden on efficient tax shelters (keeping profits in corporations you have partial/total control over). Tax something easily avoidable (dividend taxes) by the rich.

Sounds great.

Groundhog Day (movie where day repeats over ...)

[cascadingstylesheet]

"France Considers Raising Taxes"

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[LynnwoodRooster]

You'll probably shout racist and Nazi - but eliminate inner city gang members from those stats and we do a lot better. We don't really have a prison or illiteracy issue - we have a dependency issue that's encouraged and furthered by the Democrats. And the victims are overwhelmingly black, hispanic, and poor.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

Authoritarians/reactionaries love punishment approaches to solving problems because it satisfies their lust for seeing people getting their just desserts (in their judgement).

They'd rather spend 10 billion putting drug dealers and users in prison than spend 1 billion treating addiction like a health issue, providing compassionate treatment and eliminating the demand (which besides being cheaper up front ALSO makes for way cheaper long term costs). And that's not even accounting for the fact that the "war on drugs" generates its own additional social problems like escalating violence due to the virtual arms race between cops and dealers, parents taken away from their children which perpetuates the poverty cycle and so on.

And it goes part and parcel with their tendency to believe in myths about the nature of social problems. One is the false notion that the only drug addicts are trash that already burden society by not working and getting benefits when the reality is that it affects all social classes, especially opiates, and many drug addicts are fully high functioning, have a job and a regular life and somehow make it "mostly work". Another example, the pro-lifers believe that the vast majority of abortion seekers are single "sluts" looking to escape scott-free the consequences of their sinful choices when the reality is that the majority of women that receive abortions already have children and are frequently married or long-term partnered. Then they believe that the vast majority of welfare/food stamp recipients are lazy african-americans who just sit around all day on the dole, the reality is that whites are actually the largest single group by race (more than double that of african-americans) and that more than 75% of the households receiving benefits have at least one adult with a job (and a huge portion of those without that income are people who are literally unable to work).

BTW on a semi-related note, look at all the myths the republicans are pushing now about socialism. They continually harp on failed states like Venezuela and North Korea and try to terrorize their base into thinking that's where American is headed. First that ignores the fact that nations call themselves all kinds of things that aren't true. North Korea's official name is the "Democratic Republic of Korea" and obviously it is neither of those things. So just because a nation calls itself socialist, it doesn't mean it really is. But even larger, it ignores the fact of the many nations that are social democracies and are quite successful, arguably some of them more successful than the USA, like Sweden and France.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely correct in your larger point about the absurdity of USA public policies. However, Europe in general has weak of on protections for freedom of speech. Germany in specific:

Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law). However, the following are illegal, and 26,757 court cases, 21,454 convictions and 20,390 fines in 2013:

Disparagement of
- the Federal President (Section 90).
- the State and its Symbols (Section 90a).
- Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103). (will no longer be valid as of 2018)

Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism.

[Who decides what is hate speech?]

Membership in or support of banned political parties (Section 86). Currently banned parties include the SRP and the KPD, but historically all non-Nazi parties have been banned (1933–1945).

[Who decides which parties are banned?]

Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184).

[Who decides what is pornography?]

Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[120] Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.[121] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[121] The Love Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a constituent assembly, or the so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.[122]

Re:The Giant infrastructure & utility free loa

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither did all of the refugees sucking on the teat of those "free" public services.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, health insurance is taken out PRE-TAX, so it lowers your tax burden to the government.

Nice try.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

As far as disparagement of the President and the state and its symbols, I disagree with the law, but it's seldom prosecuted if ever. Also, keep in mind that children in the US have been arrested (or kicked out of public school) for refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag, so de-facto, US freedom of speech is limited even if the law officially guarantees it. I actually agree with hate speech/banned political parties considering Germany's history. Porn? It seems like the laws (in practice) are similar to the US for hardcore porn -- age verification and separate sections in stores. Soft porn/nudity isn't terrible restricted -- nipples aren't exactly rare on TV there. Public assembly seems to be subject to notification requirements, but permits aren't actually required. Contrast this to the US where every shitty little protest march tends to need a permit, or the cops go to full pig mode and start arresting people for obstructing sidewalks or similar "crimes."

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

Not always. It's only pre-tax if your employer pays for it, or if you're self-employed. If you're paid on W-2 and not offered insurance, you can't take the deduction if you buy your own insurance.

Also, I wasn't arguing pre-tax and post-tax status. I was saying that let's compare apples to apples. If most tax rates in Europe include health insurance coverage with low to no deductible, then let's add insurance premiums and deductibles to US tax rates to make the comparison 1:1. It's not only about the tax, but what you get back for it.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

But we have only made small steps in doing so -- because the regulations favor corporate scum (in this case prison ad police contractors). Which feeds back to the original point ... European regulations favor people, Americans favor rich corporations.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[b0s0z0ku]

Have you worked with some supposedly literate middle-class white people? It's frustrating as hell.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[LynnwoodRooster]

Sure. But that does not eliminate the fact that blacks and hispanics commit overwhelmingly more crime than their share of the population, and is driven by gang activity (at least for violent crimes).

Always more taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Need to pay for the third world socialist voters somehow.

FWIW -- a prediction

[HiThere]

An axe age
    an iron age
Shields shall be broken

A wind age
    a wolf age
Ere the world totters.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

French here, you're right albeit the quantity of these French and Latin words is huge. About as many Latin as French words as well but many of these words are pretty much the same in Latin and French or additionally Ancient Greek, like "hierarchy".

From your post, here are the words I think are French, Latin or both (or very closely derived) :
- really, no, derived, Norman, used, aristocracy, religious, hierarchy, using, Latin, many, language, regardless, Germanic, vocabulary, includes.

Re:The Giant infrastructure & utility free loa

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to stop wars then. The people gets a double penalty : tax burden for billions wasted on cruise missiles, fuel, guided bombs, blankets sent to the terrorists etc ; and the refugee waves. Then there are hundreds billions in economic damages abroad, to say the least...

France was being pragmatic.

[couchslug]

France was at war with England at the time. No ideals involved on their part. In return the US saved France in two World Wars and helped rebuild it via the Marshall Plan, then protected it from the Soviet Union.
Explain why the US should be grateful to France for anything.

In soon to be news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Internet giants pull out of France and block traffic in/out of the country to their services completely.

Sorry.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

A good majority of the people put into prison did so of their own free will. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

Having said that, should some laws have more lenient sentencing guidelines? Sure.

But ultimately, the people who get arrested, in a VAST majority of cases, CHOSE to do the act they did that broke the law. No one forced them to.

If you want Draconian, look up socialism in Europe.

Re: cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I speak binary, dipshit.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

We can send you a million gang bangers and see what happens.

my reply to you

[ChitaChijiokeCharles]

nice one from you the discussion is cool | Music Download

Gimme

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me some lovinâ(TM)

Lov z money

Where are the comparable levels?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have gotten your 5-10 times number from somewhere, didn't you?
Show us where.
Or did you pull it from your ass like all your numbers?

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in both France and the United States. The liberalism in the US is undermining the wealth of its people and most fail to comprehend the insane costs of these policies. Most don't understand how not financing healthcare and education threatens not only their wealth but also their health and undermines the US' ability to have a competitive workforce.

Americans deceive themselves thinking in the US "people choose to live in poverty by making dumb decisions". This helps them sleep at night as long as they ignore that getting sick can get them fired, lose their employer's insurance and be unable to find any alternative they can afford. Then all the money invested by society in that individual can get flushed down the drain.

A high salary is nothing if all of it goes towards getting private health insurance, car insurance that means you'll be on the hook for any damages you cannot pay, insanely expensive education costs for your kids, and a total lack of pension forcing you save a significant portion of the income for retirement. The lack of employment benefits also prevents risk pooling and forces everyone to save 100% of what they may need if they lose their job. So yes the amount on your paycheck is nicer but that's only because most people ignore these extra costs, to their detriment if they fail to plan for them.

Middle-class americans also seem to think that because people with "half-decent jobs have health care that is generally paid by employers" it's ok for all the other people they interact with (cashiers, cleaners, hairdressers, plumbers, etc) to have no health coverage. To them it's ok if these people die as long as they have half-decent health coverage. Most americans are christians so maybe that's what passes for being a good christian over there. To me that's just being a horrible human being.

Except you are the only liar WindBourne

[Anonymous Coward]

You still go on with these accusations, but never even a single example to go with it.
Same as all your lies.
Whereas your constant lies are routinely documented. https://google.com/search?q=si...

If only they had you as their lawyer...

[Anonymous Coward]

WindBourne: No law was broken.
Judge: Oh ok then, case dismissed.
Why didn't their defence think of that?

If only you read your own links WindBourne

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, Volkswagen has paid €1 billion in fines over defeat devices following its 2015 admission that it installed them in 11 million cars worldwide, while high-end subsidiary Audi has paid €800 million.

But the number of vehicles showing irregularities in BMW's case is far smaller, at just under 8,000.

Prosecutors said that they believed "mistaken labelling of the part of the motor control software responsible for exhaust treatment" was behind increased on-road emissions.

"Extensive investigations" had found neither evidence of a purposely designed defeat device, nor of intent to commit fraud by BMW employees, they added.

There is a reason for the differing levels of fines.
You always do this WindBourne. Claim things and if you ever provide links, they almost never back up what you are claiming. Are you being intentionally deceitful? Or are you just that grossly incompetent, every, single, time?

Only liar is you as always.

France Need Another ATM

[Anonymous Coward]

Their current ATM of other people's money ran out so they are looking for another ATM. Hey look, but internet companies have money, let's tap into that! And on it goes until no one has money and neither does France.

Fee, fie, foe facts:

[Rambo Tribble]

Giants don't like a tax.

How about these lies of yours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Constant liar WindBourne

PS: Dailmer paid a fraction because they werent even found guilty of anything serious.

Prosecutors said that they believed "mistaken labelling of the part of the motor control software responsible for exhaust treatment" was behind increased on-road emissions.
"Extensive investigations" had found neither evidence of a purposely designed defeat device, nor of intent to commit fraud by BMW employees, they added.

But you knew that...because it came from your very own link....

WindBourne, still lying and refusing to read his own links.

As always it clear you are the liar WindBourne

[Anonymous Coward]

Google tells me you are the liar WindBourne.

You lie WindBourne

You lie again
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
over and overWindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies

It's just not credible for you to call other people liars without the slightest bit of evidence, when it's clear for all to see what a lying sack of shit you are.

As always it's clear you are the liar WindBourne

[Anonymous Coward]

Google tells me you are the liar WindBourne.
You lie WindBourne

You lie again
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
and again WindBourne lies
over and over WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies
and more WindBourne lies

It's just not credible for you to call other people liars without the slightest bit of evidence, when it's clear for all to see what a lying sack of shit you are.