301–310 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All taxes are a slippery slope. Name one that has ever been repealed. Income tax in the U.S. started out as a modest 3% on only the highest incomes and look where that has ended up: full on wealth redistribution. We can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but not whether there's a slippery slope when it comes to implementing a new tax.
In 1944 the highest US tax bracket was 94%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's up to them to figure out where's the right trade off to maximize their gains.
Sure, but assume they somehow pass the tax 100% onto the customer. So now French citizens are the ones paying for the "right to the free market" of their own country. Does that seem fair?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An easy rebuff to the US is simple: if they are American companies, why aren't they paying American taxes on their European business activities?
They are. The US taxes companies on profits made abroad. The issue is that these taxes are only collected when the money enters th US, so companies park this money abroad.
The rest of your comment refutes this. They might pay it sometime in the future, but they are not paying it by parking it abroad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All money made on the white market in any country is facilitated by that government, and taxes are paid on all profits to pay for the services which allowed the profit to be made. So any taxation is justified? > It's not arbitrary to expect businesses to pay for services they benefit from. Any digital company with revenue of more than €750m ($850m; £670m) - of which at least €25m is generated in France - would be s…
>so any type of tax is justified? That's a straw man. You're leaping from "some type of tax is justified" which is quite a bit more reasonable than "any tax". And if you want to say it's a slippery slope or some such, well, ever single action if extrapolated to the extreme can be a viewed as such. If 3% is reasonable and then it's proposed to goes up and up, fight the increase, not the initial reasonable action. Of c…
No, it isn't.
Road tax pays for road maintenance. Municipal tax pays for municipal maintenance. VAT and Income Tax pay for government expenditure. Taxes are collected in exchange for a service.
Foreign businesses providing entirely digital services in France aren't actually receiving any kind of service back from the French government. In other words, this specific tax is just a mechanism for collecting money arbitrarily in exchange for nothing.
That's a slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's up to them to figure out where's the right trade off to maximize their gains.
Sure, but assume they somehow pass the tax 100% onto the customer. So now French citizens are the ones paying for the "right to the free market" of their own country. Does that seem fair?
Currently local businesses pay for the "right to the free French market", but remote businesses don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's up to them to figure out where's the right trade off to maximize their gains.
Sure, but assume they somehow pass the tax 100% onto the customer. So now French citizens are the ones paying for the "right to the free market" of their own country. Does that seem fair?
Now we can argue as to how much said tax is passed onto the consumer and whether or not the additional tax revenue towards various social services offsets the hit. Which is an important distinction to make when choosing what to tax, since some consumers (namely the poorer ones) have less in the way of dealing with modest price increases.
It also could be argued that companies are stealing money from nations they reside in by taking advantage of tax havens or various loopholes to reduce their tax burden. At that point companies starve the various social services and results in consumers being unfairly affected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so any type of tax is justified? That's a straw man. You're leaping from "some type of tax is justified" which is quite a bit more reasonable than "any tax". And if you want to say it's a slippery slope or some such, well, ever single action if extrapolated to the extreme can be a viewed as such. If 3% is reasonable and then it's proposed to goes up and up, fight the increase, not the initial reasonable action. Of c…
> "That's a straw man." No, it isn't. Road tax pays for road maintenance. Municipal tax pays for municipal maintenance. VAT and Income Tax pay for government expenditure. Taxes are collected in exchange for a service. Foreign businesses providing entirely digital services in France aren't actually receiving any kind of service back from the French government. In other words, this specific tax is just a mechanism for…
You've just ignored all the above posts without addressing them. The other posts make it clear without any counter argument from you that government provides a safe and stable addressable market to do business (and literally the currency).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies raise prices based on demand curve, not cost.
That’s not what they say when the subject of tariffs comes up. “We’ll have to pass it on to consumers”.
And if I remember my classic macroeconomics class correctly, that share depends precisely on the elasticity of demand (slope of the demand curve).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Satellites 2. You don't need French schools to learn how to Google things
Why would anyone advertise to french customers if there is no functioning french economy, and thus no money to be made there? How would french consumers pay for satellite access without a functioning economy?
Political propaganda/advertising is a great investment in times of choas/crisis.
>How would french consumers pay for satellite access without a functioning economy?
Use crypto currency or foreign currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes local businesses better able to compete. Win-win.
(replying to sibling) Some do. Source: I'm French and I do :)