281–290 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is already a VAT! This will come on top of it.
I guess he proposes to increase the VAT for big players instead of creating an all new form of taxation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand how VAT works. If I spend £100 on AdWords as a company, the £20 VAT comes off my VAT bill. I pay £20 less. So Google's VAT bill is utterly inconsequential and meaningless. VAT is only paid once by consumers for products , advertising is a company expense that simply shifts the VAT one level down the chain. It doesn't get applied at every level on the supply chain, it gets passed down. So if Amy's…
> VAT is only paid once by consumers for products, advertising is a company expense that simply shifts the VAT one level down the chain. It doesn't get applied at every level on the supply chain, it gets passed down. That's one way to look at it. Another way is to see it as a tax paid by each supplier based on how much value that supplier has added to the supply chain - a sort of 'value added' tax, if you will. > So…
Regardless, you still don't understand VAT. The consumer pays VAT, not the business. It just happens to be collected by the business.
VAT is not charged on exports.
It's a consumption tax levied on individuals, not a tax levied on business profits.
Google generates nothing as the money would simply be spent on something else.
So I pay VAT, you pay VAT, companies do not pay VAT, they merely collect it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess he proposes to increase the VAT for big players instead of creating an all new form of taxation.
And how would that work? Let’s say I’m a company that can choose to buy advertising from Facebook for 99 plus 25% VAT or from someone else for 100 plus 20% VAT. If I can deduct the VAT paid I get a better deal going with Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would that work? Let’s say I’m a company that can choose to buy advertising from Facebook for 99 plus 25% VAT or from someone else for 100 plus 20% VAT. If I can deduct the VAT paid I get a better deal going with Facebook.
I'm arguing that all companies should have the same VAT rate. If for some reason we want to apply a higher rate to a company it should be via lower base deduction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accounting is setup to selectively avoid paying taxes in certain countries. That's free trade. It's also shady and selective to avoid paying taxes for infrastructure the company uses. That's kind of screwed up.
Despite the fact that these companies are putting headquarters in Ireland, it's actually US taxes that they're seeking to minimize, so it's not really the EU's place to collect them here. With the new UA corporate tax law changes for international income I expect fewer US companies to build HQ in Ireland. Though being domiciled in Ireland also makes the Ireland Data protection Authority their primary point of contact…
The EU isn't collecting American taxes. They're fixing EU issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite the fact that these companies are putting headquarters in Ireland, it's actually US taxes that they're seeking to minimize, so it's not really the EU's place to collect them here. With the new UA corporate tax law changes for international income I expect fewer US companies to build HQ in Ireland. Though being domiciled in Ireland also makes the Ireland Data protection Authority their primary point of contact…
The intent of a company to minimize taxes has no bearing. The tax shields hurt both the United States and other EU members. The EU isn't collecting American taxes. They're fixing EU issues.
This largely looks like an EU tariff on whatever they end up defining digital companies as, which will likely be defined in such a way to tax Google and Facebook, while avoiding taxing Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they raise their prices, people buy less, so profits are less, so its value as investment goes down, so it gets disinvested. Where would that money go? to any company with higher returns, in this case, Google.
> If they raise their prices, people buy less, so profits are less, so its value as investment goes down, so it gets disinvested. Where would that money go? to any company with higher returns, in this case, Google. You're assuming that Google has higher returns. Higher margins doesn't inherently mean higher risk-adjusted returns. The higher margin company could be higher risk or have higher fixed up-front capital cos…
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…
As a response to several people stating that free trade is better for everyone. I've taken economics courses, I understand how free trade is better overall. However, those calculations only work when both sides follow the same rules. Once you have different groups of people with different values, whether it's the EU valuing privacy, China valuing domestic production, or the US valuing intellectual property, absloute…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what the VAT, customs, and personal income tax is for. It's relatively easy to keep track of just where money comes from for a purchase, and where stuff is delivered. If you actually reside there and use the services that's one thing - and you can tax the purchase for the purchaser. Taxing sources is far harder, and virtually impossible for virtual goods. Should we tax CNDs for a percentage of Netflix and Ama…
I genuinely don’t see how you find this so confusing and you’re using wildly disparate examples that don’t all make the same point. I’m not interested in taking part in this outrage feat.