111–120 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah...they are non-profit right? :)) Let's take Amazon for example, or Google or Facebook...how much do they invest in R&D? Last time I've checked they reported billions in profit every quarter.
Amazon is notorious for reporting approximately zero profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why we tax profit and not revenue. Different industries have radically different cost structures. That is completely irrelevant as long as the tax is only collected once at final sale and not every time the goods change hands within a supply chain. If Walmart has 97 cents of cost per dollar in revenue then the sum total profit within their supply chain is 97 cents. Somebody is getting every penny in the dol…
> If the government says that for every dollar in revenue you have to pay 20 cents in taxes then Walmart will either raise prices by ~20% or require their suppliers to lower prices by ~20%. In no event do they go out of business, because their customers still need what their suppliers produce. You are assuming there is no elasticity here. People would stop working for walmart and go work for google, in this example,…
Walmart sells essentials like food, clothes, and medicine. In what world does a consumer need an Android, or the internet, but not food.
Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like…
I think the tax should be on profit based on where the users are located not on gross revenue. This looks more like a capitulation in the fight against various tax evading schemes employed by these companies. Isn't possible to just give a broader EU law that criminalises this kind of schemes?(i.e. draining the profit by various means). I'm sure that as soon as a bunch of executives along with their lawyers are put in…
Most companies have negative profit. All the revenue is offset against r&d and expansion
Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like…
Free trade isn't some right, it's just better for everyone involved
Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like…
The argument against protectionism is that it hinders growth of all parties involved.
What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? I could understand an argument that they have a right to levy a tax on money created by selling services to EU citizens, but global revenues? They mention Twitter as an example in the article, but Twitter's revenues for 2017 was $3.83 billion, and their net-earnings is mostly negative, or barely positive. So they'd be a…
> What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? Every right. Their government, their citizens, their laws. > but global revenues? These companies exist globally. They would be vastly smaller and have far less impact if they did not have EU citizens. Network effects matter and ignoring them is choosing to not understand the big picture. > So they'd be asking Twitter…
Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like…
Why would you want to restrict (economic) interaction between two parties just because they’re far away from each other?
I’m sure some of the local companies in my area would love to prevent me from buying goods elsewhere, but why would I want to buy goods elsewhere unless they are either cheaper and/or of better quality?
In my opinion, your quote misrepresents the situation. It’s not about “giving someone access to a market”, it’s about not restricting trade between two parties because it’s assumed those two parties are intelligent human beings who choose to trade with each other for a reason, and restricting this activity only helps inferior companies who are unable to market their own goods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is 100% wrong. Walmart buys[1] goods for 97 cents and sells them for a dollar. Google produces technology for 50 cents and sells it for a dollar. A 5% tax on revenue would make Walmart a money losing enterprise while being a minor annoyance for Google. This is why we tax profit and not revenue. Different industries have radically different cost structures.
> This is why we tax profit and not revenue. Different industries have radically different cost structures. That is completely irrelevant as long as the tax is only collected once at final sale and not every time the goods change hands within a supply chain. If Walmart has 97 cents of cost per dollar in revenue then the sum total profit within their supply chain is 97 cents. Somebody is getting every penny in the dol…
Im Googles german division, i made a profit. I buy a server rack from the irish-division for 10.000.000 $.
This server rack will be shipped, and i reduced my profit. They do pay nearly no taxes. Now, the usual neo-liberal vector here is to blame the states for getting there tax buisness not synced, which they cant because they compete among one another- which the NeoLibs ususally know.
Taxing for customer access would be fairer. If my citizens engage in a buisness relationship with a company for x minutes or y % of there total economic activity per day- then you pay a tax on that- no matter where on the planet you are. Sorry Imgur.
Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? I can see the argument behind saying you should have access to your local market be realtively free, you have to live somewhere, and you and your local societies interests are relatively aligned. However,when it comes to foreign markets many people here seems to want the best of both worlds. It's a paraphrase but it seems like…
> Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? Why would you want to restrict (economic) interaction between two parties just because they’re far away from each other? I’m sure some of the local companies in my area would love to prevent me from buying goods elsewhere, but why would I want to buy goods elsewhere unless they are either cheaper and/or of better quality? In…