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

All needed to be known by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-03 16:41 · Score: 5, Informative

"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."

Magic free money by Papaspud · 2019-03-03 16:51 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV

Re:Magic free money by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2019-03-03 18:03 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by phantomfive · 2019-03-03 18:57 · Score: 4, Funny

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?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Magic free money by Krishnoid · 2019-03-03 18:57 · Score: 2

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-03 19:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2019-03-03 19:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Solandri · 2019-03-03 20:08 · Score: 1

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 by Hognoxious · 2019-03-03 20:14 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Magic free money by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2019-03-03 20:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by mpercy · 2019-03-04 01:07 · Score: 1

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 by VeryFluffyBunny · 2019-03-04 01:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Re: Magic free money by tomhath · 2019-03-04 03:30 · Score: 2

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 by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2019-03-04 03:44 · Score: 1

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 by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:19 · Score: 1

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.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Magic free money by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:21 · Score: 1

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

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Magic free money by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:28 · Score: 2

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Magic free money by JesseMcDonald · 2019-03-04 08:40 · Score: 1

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.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Magic free money by Hognoxious · 2019-03-04 10:04 · Score: 1

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

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Government and money by ArchieBunker · 2019-03-03 16:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

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

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard

Re:Government and money by Vroem · 2019-03-03 18:48 · Score: 1

I agree with the analogy but giving more money to the French government is like overdosing an underage heroin addict.
Re:Government and money by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-03-03 19:07 · Score: 1

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."

You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 17:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 18:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

That all you got, boy? "My country can beat up yours, and if you don't like it, move out?"
Re:You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 18:34 · Score: 1, Funny

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 18:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

OMG! Brown people! Scary! Duck and cover!
Re: You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 18:37 · Score: 2

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 18:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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? by jpaine619 · 2019-03-03 18:44 · Score: 2, Funny

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? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-03-03 19:52 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: You jealous? by pushing-robot · 2019-03-03 20:06 · Score: 1

The US has fast aircraft carriers. Any world government that is not concerned about us must be utter fools.
Hans...are we the baddies?

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Re:You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 20:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by Hognoxious · 2019-03-03 20:16 · Score: 1

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

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:You jealous? by Richard_at_work · 2019-03-03 20:20 · Score: 5, Informative

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? by Malc · 2019-03-04 00:05 · Score: 1

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? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-03-04 00:49 · Score: 2

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?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:You jealous? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 02:02 · Score: 1

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 03:00 · Score: 1

Only because the current US system is pathetically underfunded.
Re:You jealous? by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:You jealous? by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:43 · Score: 1

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).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:You jealous? by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:52 · Score: 1

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:You jealous? by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:You jealous? by rahvin112 · 2019-03-04 08:39 · Score: 1

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? by sfcat · 2019-03-04 09:23 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:You jealous? by Dirk+Becher · 2019-03-04 10:37 · Score: 1

- 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? by Dirk+Becher · 2019-03-04 10:39 · Score: 1

I think I responded to the wrong comment. Whoops.
Re:You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 11:21 · Score: 1

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? by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 11:23 · Score: 1

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? by xryl · 2019-03-06 05:23 · Score: 1

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? by xryl · 2019-03-06 05:58 · Score: 1

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.

splendid by astrofurter · 2019-03-03 17:19 · Score: 1

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 by HiThere · 2019-03-04 06:01 · Score: 1

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Yup. by WindBourne · 2019-03-03 17:40 · Score: 1, Troll

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Yup. by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-03-03 22:36 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Yup. by thegarbz · 2019-03-03 22:57 · Score: 1

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. by Cederic · 2019-03-03 23:03 · Score: 1

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. by WindBourne · 2019-03-04 03:08 · Score: 1

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Yup. by Cederic · 2019-03-04 03:25 · Score: 1

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. by cheesybagel · 2019-03-04 10:35 · Score: 1

Yeah. It is one of the main arguments against Imaginary Property I think.
Re: Yup. by WindBourne · 2019-03-04 18:04 · Score: 1

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Yup. by Cederic · 2019-03-04 20:39 · Score: 1

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. by WindBourne · 2019-03-05 06:32 · Score: 1

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Yup. by Cederic · 2019-03-05 06:59 · Score: 1

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. by WindBourne · 2019-03-05 11:13 · Score: 1

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Build that wall, sir. by subie · 2019-03-03 17:54 · Score: 1

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:Cant innovate, lets tax by xlsior · 2019-03-03 18:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Build that wall, sir. by jpaine619 · 2019-03-03 18:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Cant innovate, lets tax by xlsior · 2019-03-03 18:37 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Less jobs, more tax burden by bidule · 2019-03-03 18:39 · Score: 1

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.

--
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)

Re:Less jobs, more tax burden by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 06:57 · Score: 1

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 by jpaine619 · 2019-03-03 18:40 · Score: 1

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? by xlsior · 2019-03-03 18:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Cant innovate, lets tax by phantomfive · 2019-03-03 18:59 · Score: 1

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Not dramatically fast .... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-03 19:47 · Score: 5, Informative

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 .... by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:38 · Score: 1

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Build that wall, sir. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-03-03 19:48 · Score: 1

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

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re: cool by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-03 19:57 · Score: 1

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

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-03-03 19:57 · Score: 1

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:cool by Hognoxious · 2019-03-03 20:10 · Score: 1

s/who speak/who think they speak/

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-03 20:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re: Build that wall, sir. by Hognoxious · 2019-03-03 20:27 · Score: 1

Circus? It's more like a pantomime.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-03 21:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Fair, but... by bradley13 · 2019-03-03 21:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

Re:Fair, but... by SuricouRaven · 2019-03-04 01:37 · Score: 1

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... by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-04 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Fair, but... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 03:37 · Score: 1

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.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Fair, but... by SuricouRaven · 2019-03-04 04:43 · Score: 1

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... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 05:08 · Score: 1

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...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Fair, but... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 05:19 · Score: 1

It seems to only be illegal if brokered through a US agent.
Re:Fair, but... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 06:11 · Score: 1

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.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Fair, but... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 06:52 · Score: 1

Do you really think that upper management in FB, GOOG, AAPL, etc will really go to prison or get fined?
Re:Fair, but... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 07:19 · Score: 1

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.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Fair, but... by sfcat · 2019-03-04 11:25 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:Fair, but... by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 14:24 · Score: 1

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.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Fair, but... by SuricouRaven · 2019-03-04 19:01 · Score: 1

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.

revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-03 22:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:revenue taxing - finally by Hodr · 2019-03-04 01:43 · Score: 1

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 by CrimsonAvenger · 2019-03-04 02:30 · Score: 1

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....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:revenue taxing - finally by bill_mcgonigle · 2019-03-04 02:36 · Score: 1

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.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Enigma2175 · 2019-03-04 03:19 · Score: 1

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.

--
Enigma
Re:revenue taxing - finally by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 03:39 · Score: 1

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?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:revenue taxing - finally by SuricouRaven · 2019-03-04 03:42 · Score: 1

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 by SuricouRaven · 2019-03-04 03:45 · Score: 2

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 by Tom · 2019-03-04 03:45 · Score: 1

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?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 03:48 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 03:51 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 03:54 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 05:00 · Score: 1

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?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:revenue taxing - finally by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-03-04 05:22 · Score: 1

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 by swillden · 2019-03-04 07:35 · Score: 1

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.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:revenue taxing - finally by sfcat · 2019-03-04 11:28 · Score: 1

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).

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 21:43 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 21:45 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 23:42 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by Tom · 2019-03-04 23:44 · Score: 1

...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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:revenue taxing - finally by xryl · 2019-03-06 06:20 · Score: 1

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).

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by Tom · 2019-03-03 22:43 · Score: 2

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by thegarbz · 2019-03-03 22:56 · Score: 1

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:Build that wall, sir. by prefec2 · 2019-03-03 23:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Can we have this in Germany too? by prefec2 · 2019-03-03 23:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

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:cool by _merlin · 2019-03-03 23:52 · Score: 2

One can say the same thing about the US.

The Giant infrastructure & utility free loader by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 00:41 · Score: 1

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: Build that wall, sir. by JudgeFurious · 2019-03-04 01:56 · Score: 1

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.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.

Raise taxes but they won't pay by WCMI92 · 2019-03-04 02:05 · Score: 2

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.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by misexistentialist · 2019-03-04 02:10 · Score: 1

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 by mjwx · 2019-03-04 02:16 · Score: 1

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.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re: Build that wall, sir. by MBGMorden · 2019-03-04 02:23 · Score: 1

Pantomime? This is more like a rollerblade.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

Re:cool by registrations_suck · 2019-03-04 02:39 · Score: 1

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

Re:cool by Hognoxious · 2019-03-04 02:52 · Score: 1

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

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 03:06 · Score: 1

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 by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 03:08 · Score: 1

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. by WindBourne · 2019-03-04 03:14 · Score: 1

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.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Totally agree with you. by HiThere · 2019-03-04 06:08 · Score: 1

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Groundhog Day (movie where day repeats over ...) by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-03-04 03:26 · Score: 2

"France Considers Raising Taxes"

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 03:36 · Score: 1

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.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re: Cant innovate, lets tax by Tom · 2019-03-04 03:41 · Score: 1

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

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 04:25 · Score: 2

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 by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 04:29 · Score: 1

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 by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 04:37 · Score: 1

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 by b0s0z0ku · 2019-03-04 04:40 · Score: 1

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

Re:Build that wall, sir. by nazrhyn · 2019-03-04 05:11 · Score: 1

You don't vote for kings.

Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 05:13 · Score: 1

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).

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:Build that wall, sir. by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:15 · Score: 1

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.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

FWIW -- a prediction by HiThere · 2019-03-04 05:46 · Score: 1

An axe age
an iron age
Shields shall be broken

A wind age
a wolf age
Ere the world totters.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

France was being pragmatic. by couchslug · 2019-03-04 07:08 · Score: 1

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.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Build that wall, sir. by Big+Bipper · 2019-03-04 08:41 · Score: 1

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

--
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.

my reply to you by ChitaChijiokeCharles · 2019-03-04 10:02 · Score: 1

nice one from you the discussion is cool | Music Download

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by cheesybagel · 2019-03-04 10:36 · Score: 1

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 by phantomfive · 2019-03-04 18:16 · Score: 1

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

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Build that wall, sir. by prefec2 · 2019-03-05 00:10 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by thegarbz · 2019-03-05 03:23 · Score: 1

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 by phantomfive · 2019-03-05 03:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Fee, fie, foe facts: by Rambo+Tribble · 2019-03-05 03:57 · Score: 1

Giants don't like a tax.

Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by thegarbz · 2019-03-05 09:48 · Score: 1

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 by phantomfive · 2019-03-05 16:19 · Score: 1

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Slashdot Mirror

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

156 of 302 comments (clear)