Live data from Hacker News

France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

bbc.com

371–380 of 501 posts

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you're /s or not, I wholly agree; I both fully support using public policy, tariffs, and other economic mechanisms to support "at home" companies over those abroad, as well as supporting local labor over that outside the country. If internet companies are the future of the economy (see: Stripe's opinion), why wouldn't you do everything you could as a country to support your own companies?

Because protectionism isn’t only economically bad but also immoral. You can’t force everybody else to pay higher prices. Supporting your own companies at the expense of the rest of the society isn’t good. You’ll be forcing consumers to pay higher prices for a completely nationalist reason. No reasonable economist would favor protectionism.

Strawman, nobody is arguing for supporting companies at the expense of the rest of society. The parent is arguing for supporting companies for the benefit of the society. Both can happen, it depends on how and to what extent it is executed. Economists disagree a lot and they have only partial say in policies, countries are not run solely by economists.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#372
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm American and I support the French doing this. Some Americans "hate taxes", but I have enough money. What I don't have is enough control in a country ruled by oligarchs and corporate fiefdoms. Governance is all about fostering a healthy society, by balancing incentives and disincentives. If you don't do that actively and carefully, curbing abuse and exploitation, then they grow to a breaking point.

So you believe paying more taxes somehow gives the taxpayers more control over their country ? Giving away more money doesn't mean you have more control over how said money is used. The most direct consequence actually goes in the other direction, you have now less agency (=money). There's no obvious mechanism that makes a monopoly (=government) more accountable the more money it's given.

It does enable it to spend on things like healthcare to prevent monopolies (or oligopolies which are often just as bad) from exploiting people. At least in theory a government is a benevolent monopoly, which is often better than one which only cares about profit.

The US has issues with government corruption, but this seems at least in part to do with americans' disdain for their government, which is partly because underfunding makes it difficult for it to operate smoothly.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are. 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.

They can't spend it when it's parked abroad either. It's less that they're not paying taxes, just that they aren't paying taxes on it yet . By comparison, most European countries don't tax companies on foreign earnings at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday

Or they wait for good deals to come up to bring the funds back home at a fraction of the cost.

Meanwhile it's easy to get domestic loans based on foreign assets which gives them easy access to spend that same money locally.

Put it in safe low yield securities on the other side, take out low interest loans here and profit on the tax money which should have been paid at the expense of small competitors who don't have the scale for tax scams or the lobbyists to legalize them.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#374
post #15

I never understood the logic behind taxing large internet businesses. The idea behind taxes is that you use some public resource and you pay for that service. You own a home in a neighborhood, you pay property tax that funds the schools. You drive a car, you pay gasoline tax that funds the streets. You hire workers locally, you pay the tax to pay back all the contributions public institutions made to adding the skill…

> The idea behind taxes is that you use some public resource and you pay for that service. You own a home in a neighborhood, you pay property tax that funds the schools.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself: why would you fund schools just because you own a property? By your reasoning, you should have a children tax, not a property tax.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#375
post #15

I never understood the logic behind taxing large internet businesses. The idea behind taxes is that you use some public resource and you pay for that service. You own a home in a neighborhood, you pay property tax that funds the schools. You drive a car, you pay gasoline tax that funds the streets. You hire workers locally, you pay the tax to pay back all the contributions public institutions made to adding the skill…

> The idea behind taxes is that you use some public resource and you pay for that service.

This is not the idea behind taxes at all. There are plenty of services I don't use, but still believe should be funded by the government because they ensure a healthy society or because they care for our most at risk.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#376
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm American and I support the French doing this. Some Americans "hate taxes", but I have enough money. What I don't have is enough control in a country ruled by oligarchs and corporate fiefdoms. Governance is all about fostering a healthy society, by balancing incentives and disincentives. If you don't do that actively and carefully, curbing abuse and exploitation, then they grow to a breaking point.

So you believe paying more taxes somehow gives the taxpayers more control over their country ? Giving away more money doesn't mean you have more control over how said money is used. The most direct consequence actually goes in the other direction, you have now less agency (=money). There's no obvious mechanism that makes a monopoly (=government) more accountable the more money it's given.

I don't believe taxes give me more control. What I believe is that taxes aren't inherently bad and that we should express more concern over where the money goes and what economic effects it has, not paint all taxation as bad. Effective democracies do have an explicit mechanism to make government accountable: votes on issues (like where taxes are gathered and how they're spent) and representation. Through an effective democracy, using government as a proxy, people can also keep bad behavior by big amoral profit-motivated corporations in check. We don't have an effective democracy in the US. That's because it is overtly influenced by money, which, amorally or immorally, goes to help the spender.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#377
post #39
post #17

I just hope the US does not "retaliate" on this. EU entrepreneurs are too dependent on US businesses.

I really wish US companies would take a more forceful approach with these rogue governments. “You get off our back or we pull out of your countries”

"Rogue governments"? The governments do not derive their power from U.S. or from tech companies. Regarding pulling out, that is always a possibility, but very unlikely one, even if the taxation was higher than what France demands.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#378
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much tax is enough tax?

more than 4 milion on $11.3bn of revenue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/02/amazon-ha...

Stock based comp expense. If Amazon paid these employees cash instead of stock, Amazon's cash profits would have been lower. Instead they pay in stock, and employees pay the tax (which they're happy to do because the stock keeps going up). Furthermore if Amazon sold that stock in the public markets to fund those cash payments to employees, it wouldn't be revenue at all, and still not taxable.

From the article: "On average the thousands of staff who handle orders received about £3,000 per person last year. Senior staff will have taken home considerably more.

Amazon’s share price has surged 84% in the last two years. Last year the shares vested at an average stock price of $992, in 2016 it was $704 and in 2015 $467.

The payouts will have reduced Amazon’s tax bill because under UK tax law companies are required to deduct the vest value of the shares provided to employees."

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#379
As much as I support governments cracking down on companies trying to dodge paying taxes, I can't help but feel like this is just for show.

Since the yellow vests protests started last year(yes, they are still happening, although the number of protesters has been decreasing rapidly), the French government has been under pressure to stop taxing the middle class and go after other entities/individuals to raise money.

It is no secret that France and most of the developed world is technically broke. With a debt to GDP ratio approaching 100%, the French leaders have to find money quickly or the whole welfare state will come to an end sooner than later.

Considering the fact that this tax is supposed to bring in 400m per year, it is basically a drop in the ocean.

But, what will happen is that Macron will spin it as a success and will tell people: "See we are taxing the bad guys."

In the meantime, he will keep on increasing the taxes on the middle class covertly.

The problem is that in a normal functioning democracy, the proceed of the taxes is used to increase the well being of the population.

In France though, all new taxes raised are not used to create or maintain infrastructure or even subsidize basic services for its citizens.

Most of the proceeds are actually used to pay off the debt. See the carbon tax from last year when the government admitted that only 50% would be allocated to actually fight climate change and the rest would be used for some other unrelated things.

France as a whole has never been more taxed than now, and yet public services and public infrastructure(or whatever is left of it, after they nearly sold everything to private corporations) is falling into disarray.

Emergency rooms are closing(They have been on strike for the last 3 months now), social services have been cut back, roads on the countryside are full of potholes, electricity/gas prices keep on increasing.

The middle class is being bled dry by an overzealous state that does not know what to do anymore to fix the problems it created in the first place.

For the last 30 years politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have done one thing and one thing only. Instead of reforming, they just tax, tax and tax more. Until there nothing left.

That's why France is dying. That's why people like me who do not like what France has become have left to create companies/ pay taxes somewhere where I don't feel like I have to share 50% of my money with a state that provides very little to me.

Re: France has approved a digital services tax despite threats of retaliation by US

#380
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How could Google make money in France if there was no french police force, education system, market regulation, court system, contract enforcement? By showing ads. Ads only need eyeballs to make money.

Nope. They need a sufficient internet infrastructure. People with access to it. People with money to spend. People with enough peace of mind to spend it on something else than absolute essentials. People with enough peace of mind and free time to leisurely waste on mostly useless websites. People to whom the physical goods of a great number of their advertisers can be delivered (infrastructure & post system). Eyeball…

Nah, the internet functions fine without the French government, and people are always looking to exploit the poor and helpless.

>The differences in CPC between an affluent white male working in tech in San Francisco and a poor black woman selling peanuts on the street in Rufisque, Senegal (which isn't even the most extreme opposite one could think of) is proof of that.

Why then are advertising giants like FB so eagerly expanding into "3rd world" markets and offering "free internet"?

Post reply on HN