Slashdot Mirror


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."

40 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. All needed to be known by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

  2. Magic free money by Papaspud · · 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
    1. Re:Magic free money by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · 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...

    2. Re:Magic free money by phantomfive · · 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."
    3. Re:Magic free money by Krishnoid · · 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.

    4. Re: Magic free money by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    5. Re:Magic free money by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · 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.

    6. Re:Magic free money by Hognoxious · · 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."
    7. Re:Magic free money by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · 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.

    8. Re: Magic free money by tomhath · · 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.

    9. Re:Magic free money by HiThere · · 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.
  3. You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · 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.

    1. Re: You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · 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!

    2. Re: You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. Re: You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · 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.

    4. Re:You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · 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.

    5. Re:You jealous? by jpaine619 · · 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..

    6. Re: You jealous? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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
    7. Re:You jealous? by b0s0z0ku · · 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.

    8. Re:You jealous? by Richard_at_work · · 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.

    9. Re: You jealous? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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
    10. Re:You jealous? by LynnwoodRooster · · 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!
    11. Re:You jealous? by HiThere · · 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.
  4. Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by xlsior · · 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?

  5. Re:Build that wall, sir. by jpaine619 · · 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?

  6. Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by xlsior · · 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.

  7. Re:Fiscal justice? by xlsior · · 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.

  8. Not dramatically fast .... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ;-)

  9. Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by b0s0z0ku · · 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.

  10. Fair, but... by bradley13 · · 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.
    1. Re:Fair, but... by AmiMoJo · · 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
  11. Re:Yup. by JaredOfEuropa · · 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...
  12. revenue taxing - finally by Tom · · 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
    1. Re:revenue taxing - finally by SuricouRaven · · 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.

  13. Re:Cant innovate, lets tax by Tom · · 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
  14. Re:Build that wall, sir. by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  15. Re:cool by _merlin · · Score: 2

    One can say the same thing about the US.

  16. Raise taxes but they won't pay by WCMI92 · · 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
  17. Groundhog Day (movie where day repeats over ...) by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    "France Considers Raising Taxes"

  18. Re:Europeans are poverty stuck, blind, & in de by b0s0z0ku · · 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."