91–100 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I don't know why you just ignore to comment on the justification given: that big tech companies engage in blatant tax evasion.
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…
"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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What public resources did Amazon, a US company, use from France? Digital infrastructure, anti-poverty programs that mean potential customers still have something to spend, financial infrastructure, legislation, ...
Shouldn't that be covered by the 20% VAT that Amazon pays on goods and services sold to entities in France?
VAT is basically a tax paid by people. Companies don’t really pay VAT, they collect it from the end-customers and pass it to the state.
Relying on VAT alone skews the burden of financing the state on the people only, which means no participation from the companies that make money without directly contributing to the country’s expenses they benefit from.
It also disproportionately disadvantages companies that also employ people and have a physical presence in France and have to pay taxes.
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
And they tax any company that fits the profile, be they German, Japanese, Chinese, French, or, god forbid, US-American.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said it was only targeting US companies? 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.…
Most of those are still American businesses (twenty of twenty-nine, or over two-thirds). Another interesting way to look at it would be by revenue breakdown - I suspect the total revenue of American companies may be disproportionately high.
FYI, Alibaba's revenue (~56B) exceeds that of Ebay (~10B), Uber (~11B), Expedia (~11b), Twitter (~3b), Groupon (~3v) and Tripadvisor (~2b) combined.
Yes, Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/Google/Verizon are still huge. But it doesn't mean there aren't other big fish out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What public resources did Amazon, a US company, use from France? Digital infrastructure, anti-poverty programs that mean potential customers still have something to spend, financial infrastructure, legislation, ...
Shouldn't that be covered by the 20% VAT that Amazon pays on goods and services sold to entities in France?
> The French government has argued that such firms headquartered outside the country pay little or no tax. Isn't that largely due to EU laws and the decisions of Ireland and a couple other countries.
Let's say it is. Why would that change anything? France's government isn't trying to target or punish anyone (whether Ireland or Google), it just wants to stop the corporate tax avoidance it sees as unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would incentivize competitors in France. That’s a good thing for France.
From what I can tell, it will incentivize competitors everywhere, as long as they don't have revenues over €750M.
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?
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