451–460 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1944 the highest US tax bracket was 94%
I'd happily go back to the effective rate of tax in 1944 if you are so willing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reply is a great example of why talking about taxes in an open forum is often a waste of time. We start with a discussion about whether this one particular tax is reasonable or unreasonable because of jurisdiction issues, and before long you realize that a bunch of the people arguing against that tax don't really care about the jurisdiction issue, their real agenda is that they don't want any taxes, any governme…
You made the point of the government selling services, not about France taxes. I responded to that point.
Well, I was arguing that the government is NOT in the business of selling services, and that is why taxes for the mot part are not based on consumption.
Ideally—from my perspective as a product member of the Socialist Republic of Kanuckistan—taxes based on consumption are not about “fairness” but about creating disincentives for undesirable exploitation of resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What public resources did Amazon, a US company, use from France?" off the top of my head, I'm sure there are lots more: - a large set of well-off consumers who got there because of free public education, parental supports, et cetera - a safe society so drop shipping is possible - roads & infrastructure for shipping - a justice system that protects Amazon from cheating buyers and sellers - a stable, accepted currency…
All of those can be applied to any company however. By this logic, they should add a +3% tax on every foreign business. None of this is true. It is a protectionist / anti-tax evasion measure primarily. It can be justified considering the threat that amazon poses in local markets
That's precisely what a tariff is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
“For the benefit of the society” How would you measure that? Does paying more for a worse product and raising the price of the better one benefits society? If the product was better it would already be in the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They still pay taxes, though, even if politicians did set a lower rate for a period of time. If they bring the money back in to pay back the loans they'll pay taxes on it. You call this a "scam" when in reality it's the system working as designed, so I don't think you have a particularly good grasp on this subject. Again, in most countries companies don't pay taxes on foreign income at all .
Things are indeed working as designed, designed by the people who it benefits through regulatory capture, lobbying, and campaign finance, that part shouldn't be hard to understand.
If it were "working as designed" there wouldn't be a trend of global cooperation in closing these tax loopholes and you wouldn't be reading an article about France working to close one.
>If they bring the money back in to pay back the loans they'll pay taxes on it.
While profiting from the capital which should have been paid in taxes for decades, and more importantly out competing their smaller rivals out of the market because they didn't have the resources, scope, or moral infortitude to engage in similar behaviors.
Would that it were we all could avoid our financial obligations and paying our fair share long as we did so eventually while being called heroic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those large tech companies can make money in France because the french government provides all that is necessary for a free, fair and functioning market. How could Google make money in France if there was no french police force, education system, market regulation, court system, contract enforcement? Also, those large tech companies can sell to French customers because French customers have money to buy from them.…
Don't you think that a company might just raise their prices to pay for those taxes?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the money the French make by using Google services? Desktop search traffic originating from Google is 90% - presumably for a good reason. https://www.statista.com/statistics/220534/googles-share-of-...
The market already rewards Google for their services by the absurd amount of money they make. The government is generally not in the business of rewarding businesses for their services.