51–60 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxation/regulations can place an undue burden on smaller companies. So I think it's perfectly acceptable to use size as a component of taxation. It's like progressive taxation applied to business.
No matter how the law is written, if the result is that the exceptions only apply to French companies and not to the US, it’s bullshit :). They could pick arbitrary ways to bisect the set until they get the desired result.
If there are no alternative to AWS, Google Adsense, or an American SaaS in France; the French people will be paying all of the tax. The big tech giants will just slap them with a 3% surcharge for being in France.
This is different from US-China tariffs. If the US can source from other suppliers, the Chinese will need to lower their prices. Effectively making them pay the tax. It is a complicated and messy situation.
The big tech giants are named that way because they are big and dominant. This makes them able to make the rules and circumvent the current ones. You'll need the whole EU (or maybe the EU/USA) to get them in line.
France has been digging its own graveyard for a while. It seems that they didn't learn their lessons and now going full speed. If you are a French startup, you'll be less competitive. People hate paying more and it's not clear if they can deduct this tax (like VAT).
Trump is right on this one -- this measure is definitely anti-competitive and specifically aimed at American tech companies. I hope he is swift to retaliate with appropriate tariffs. Failing to do so will bring a wave of random EU taxes on American tech companies, which will eventually lead to lower profits and engineer salaries.
How, did you forgot how big US is? We are reminded here on HN how big US is, so it is natural that some US companies will also fall into that tax laws. What will Trump do? tax smaller companies so non US ones are hit harder ? Off topic, did the China tariffs had any good side effect so far?
Taxing digital companies based on digital presence certainly makes sense to me, as a layperson. A company that's selling ads to a French company that wants to show those ads to French users is doing business in France, end of story. Taxing only very large corporations - that's a little more questionable, but plenty of countries (including the US) treat small businesses preferentially, so it's not like it's unpreceden…
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…
There's nothing arbitrary here, in fact they're attempting to partially address a perverse incentive to take all your business online and do some jurisdiction arbitrage to minimize corporate taxes. This gives you an unfair advantage over, say, a brick-and-mortar store or a physical ad agency in Paris that's trying to compete online.
Taxes are not just about revenue, they are often about changing incentives (for the better if used well, for the worse if used without regard for unintended consequences).
>Much of the edge Amazon has versus local retailers is that it is more efficient.
Much, but not all. This addresses an additional edge Amazon has versus local retailers.
Taxing digital companies based on digital presence certainly makes sense to me, as a layperson. A company that's selling ads to a French company that wants to show those ads to French users is doing business in France, end of story. Taxing only very large corporations - that's a little more questionable, but plenty of countries (including the US) treat small businesses preferentially, so it's not like it's unpreceden…
On the other hand, most revenue is probably B2B and business reclaim their VAT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxation/regulations can place an undue burden on smaller companies. So I think it's perfectly acceptable to use size as a component of taxation. It's like progressive taxation applied to business.
No matter how the law is written, if the result is that the exceptions only apply to French companies and not to the US, it’s bullshit :). They could pick arbitrary ways to bisect the set until they get the desired result.
26 companies fall under the required threshold. Not all of them are US based and there's even a French one (criteo).
Here is the full list [1]:
• Sales of goods: Alibaba, Amazon, Apple, Ebay, Google, Groupon, Rakuten, Schibsted, Wish, Zalando.
• Services: Amadeus, Axel Springer, Booking, Expedia, Match.com, Randstad, Recruit, Sabre, Travelport Worldwide, Tripadvisor, Uber.
• Advertisement: Amazon, Criteo, Ebay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Verizon.
[1] http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2019/03/20/20002-20190320...
This is a stupid move. The tax is not payed by big tech giants. Not by both, either. It's complicated and depends on who needs whom the more. If there are no alternative to AWS, Google Adsense, or an American SaaS in France; the French people will be paying all of the tax. The big tech giants will just slap them with a 3% surcharge for being in France. This is different from US-China tariffs. If the US can source fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the effect of social networking products on mental health, in this light it absolutely makes sense for countries with nationalized healthcare to tax big tech
well, it only "makes sense" in case you are literally insane
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 other theories of taxation is that it should be used to raise revenue from the best means possible. I disagree with that framework but applying taxes arbitrarily hardly seems fair or the best way to raise revenue. Economists have known for 100 years that land value taxes (LVT) are by far the most efficient way to raise taxes. After that consumption taxes are the next most efficient. Corporate taxes and taxes on…
Effectiveness of UBI is still an area of much debate and research. Early results of this research based on a few pilots is decidedly not positive.