211–220 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i meant revenue (which i think you'll understand why it's a problem if you've ever had to pay any corporate tax in your life).
I don't like income taxes either, but to be fair, all employees are paying taxes out of their 'revenues'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/eur...
It's not a search engine, it's only an ad business.
Criteo is « just an ad business » ( which is going to take a huge hit from all the privacy measures, btw). It’s extremely vulnerable compared to the company that own the content platform, aka the search engine, or the social network. Calling them a competitor to google is true, but it’s also a very narrow point of view.
Just look at how well it’s doing on the stock exchange and you’ll see what i mean,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support it too. Big corporations pay almost no taxes in our country; instead it is individual and small and medium entreprises that are heavily taxed. This makes it very hard to start and run a business in the long term.
They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? It's like thinking the company should pay 5m in tax in Ireland based on sells in France while being ok with them deducting expenses from unrelated business…
VAT is tax for consumers, not corporations.
> Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country?
Because those profits are made from sales in that country, and every physical company selling in that country pays their taxes, just because Internet-based companies can avoid having a physical presence to perform their sales (Amazon still has warehouses), doesn't make them exempt from the same logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just basic horse-trading. A somewhat extreme yet very basic example would "all of the law" (for some specific jurisdiction). Assuming this isn't North Korea, you will probably find an overwhelming majority considering the status quo to be better than completely lawless anarchy, even though every single individual can probably point at some individual law that they would rather abolish. International trade agreem…
>> It's just basic horse-trading I understand it's all about horse-trading, it's the meaning of the word "everyone" in the claim "a net positive for everyone" that I question. My understanding of European Union horse-trading is that it's all about "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This might well be good for most if not all EU politicians and bureaucrats, it's patently not going to be a net positive for ever…
For the EU this discussion is basically identical with the tired flame war of "EU is undemocratic cleptocratic fascist/communist (please circle according to preference) monster bureaucracy deciding on banana and keeping brave people of Somecountry down" vs. "Nope, it isn't, and the banana example is no longer just wrong, but also outdated".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? It's like thinking the company should pay 5m in tax in Ireland based on sells in France while being ok with them deducting expenses from unrelated business…
AFAIK Vat is a tax which insist on consumers, not on companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Google have a monopoly on? Do you not have access to iOS? Do you not have access to DuckDuckGo and Bing?
http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/eur...
The parent's point was that a) is not true for Google as a search engine.
b) doesn't seem to be true either; while money and experience can make you provide better search results, you don't get an advantage just from a high current percentage of searches.
In a trivial sense you can "SilasX has a monopoly on SilasX's labor" or "Joe Schmoe has a monopoly on hot dogs sold at Elm & Main St". That's not the monopoly anyone cares about. What matters is whether it's difficult to bring online the alternatives to employing my labor or buying a hot dog in that vicinity. In that respect, Google's monopoly on search is not the worrisome kind of thing we associate with monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You totally underestimate the governement ability to understand things.
They have a background, a history. They’ve spent the last 40 years adding layer upon layer of tax and subvention mechanism to try to regulate the economy while solving zero fundamental issues ( unemployment, industry, global private sector attractivness, education and recently even healthcare). The only thing they’ve managed to do is to increase the cost of the public sector. So yes, indeed i don’t have any kind of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support it too. Big corporations pay almost no taxes in our country; instead it is individual and small and medium entreprises that are heavily taxed. This makes it very hard to start and run a business in the long term.
They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? It's like thinking the company should pay 5m in tax in Ireland based on sells in France while being ok with them deducting expenses from unrelated business…