The effect of Taxation on American High tech by France of three percent
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 262
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default The effect of Taxation on American High tech by France of three percent

    I have noticed that France wants a tax of three percent of Google,Facebook, and Amazon. It has drawn the notice of the POTUS who has threatened tariffs.

    Corporations here in the US have enjoyed a lower Corporate tax to the extent that large Corporations according to tax law end up paying no tax at all. Issues with these large corporations employing monopolistic tactics to stifle competition are a major topic and a debate over that is now in play.

    Since we see more tariffs and sanctions to trade today it might be a topic which will be informative to visit since these companies offer digital services which are brought by semiconductor making along with hardware manufacturing along with software including satellite launching for wireless internet to directly support these services.

    Since these three support and promote commerce which provides manufactured goods then it may be a good topic.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,208
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1706
    Likes (Received)
    1132

    Default

    France have to pay their ever increasing pension burden somehow...

  3. Likes ronan liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Yes I do understand what their motivation may be. Besides these three companies are under scrutiny here for various business practices. They are also at the same time highly valued. Amazon is selling everything under the sun and they just grow and grow.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2488
    Likes (Received)
    2291

    Default

    No, it hasn't. It's applied a all international companies with revenue of more than €750m ($850m; £670m) that make more than €25m in online sales in France. It seems to be a perfectly fair response to the current trend for many international companies of basing a nominal 'HQ' in some location that has little or no tax and then arranging internal 'licensing charges' etc. so that the parts of the company that are actually generating the revenue and profits pay large 'fees' to the 'HQ' in the low/zero tax region.

    If it hits particular US companies, it is because those companies are partaking of this tax avoiding practice. It also affects a number of Chinese, German, Spanish, British and French companies. A number of other countries, including Austria, India and Japan are also planning to introduce such laws. Oddly enough, the EU as a whole failed to do so because Luxembourg and Ireland objected to it, since they generate large sums from hosting such fake 'HQs' in their low corporation tax environments.

    POTUS shouldn't be threatening tariffs, he should be taking the ball and running with it to make progress towards making this type of anti-tax haven policy universal. He might even get some credit for it.

    Two reasoned articles (amongst many):-

    France tech tax: What's being done to make internet giants pay more? - BBC News

    US launches inquiry into French plan to tax tech giants - BBC News

  6. Likes barbter, Tyrone Shoelaces, hanermo, ronan liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    I did not know that. Is this a violation of French law somehow or is it some kind of hedge against foreign companies doing business there. Such companies offer what people want right and so since the price of services cost more. Burdens of pensions may be a thing and here SS and Medicare are things similar yet no one will increase money to these programs easily because they do not care to do so.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,208
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1706
    Likes (Received)
    1132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Amazon is selling everything under the sun and they just grow and grow.
    I believe that 50+% of every dollar spent in the USA is now with Amazon?

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    I did not know that. Is this a violation of French law somehow or is it some kind of hedge against foreign companies doing business there. Such companies offer what people want right and so since the price of services cost more. Burdens of pensions may be a thing and here SS and Medicare are things similar yet no one will increase money to these programs easily because they do not care to do so.
    Swings and roundabouts, as the "perception" depends on whom it is gets what slant going in the media, thence "the public", and the halls of legislatures and courts.

    Take money-laundering.

    The US proclaims to be the biggest and toughest and most "moral" opponent, threatens the Swiss, the Caribbean, etc, etc and yet.. more funny-money is run through NEVADA, USA, than most anywhere else. They just deodorize it and "bless" it well.

    Some third-world - or even first-world country - China, for example - does something a certain way, we brand it corruption.

    US does the same thing, but first sells passage of a Law to special interests to make it "legal" then claims virtue.

    The money is taken out of the creator's pocket, either way, but China did it with lower overhead, so seems the better deal to the victim. Vietnam sees that work, they pile-on with a sweeter deal, yet. And so on...

    Nation-States and City-States compete just as their residents and companies do. Always have.

    Trump's way isn't so different from past practice. Just noisier and harder to predict in advance.

    That last part is a feature, not a bug.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    I believe that 50+% of every dollar spent in the USA is now with Amazon?
    I had to check that out, it seems Amazon has 49% of ONLINE sales in the US. That is still a fraction of total sales. I buy stuff on line a lot, most often Amazon is not the cheapest or what I want. I realize Amazon is like a cult for many. The big tech companies should pay fairly in the markets they operate.

    One of the less talked about aspects of offshoring was and is, companies moving to tax havens.

    Steve

  11. Likes barbter, Mark Rand liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    One of the less talked about aspects of offshoring was and is, companies moving to tax havens.

    Steve
    And they will move again. And again. And again....

    ANY body-corporate, the minders have a fiduciary obligation to do the best they can for their shareholders/stakeholders. It's their JOB to minimize taxes, same as any other detriment to shareholder value.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2488
    Likes (Received)
    2291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    One of the less talked about aspects of offshoring was and is, companies moving to tax havens.

    Steve
    And that is exactly what this law is aimed at. There are two possible responses to it:-

    1) This is unfairly targeting our* companies and must be fought at all costs.

    2) Bloody good idea. It's time someone was brave enough to do something concrete about rationalising the taxing of multi-national on-line companies, lets all work together and see if we can come up with something that can be implemented across the globe to sort the mess out.

    * for any values of 'our'

  14. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Well the fact it was not set up that way when these companies moved in tells me something has changed. Already many US companies have been sued over many things and been paid by US corporations. In fact our own Pharmaceutical companies have been taught to give a price break on medications while we are told we must pay a higher cost.

    That is not the case because we have learned from the countries in Europe we are paying too much. It could be these pharmaceutical companies feel they must break even in costs to a captive citizenry and then everything shipped out to someplace else is just pure profit.

    To me the whole hole thing tells me a lot about how France does business. Does anyone that is concerned about tariffs admit that maybe they should be cut to the bone in most cases?

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Well the fact it was not set up that way when these companies moved in tells me something has changed. Already many US companies have been sued over many things and been paid by US corporations. In fact our own Pharmaceutical companies have been taught to give a price break on medications while we are told we must pay a higher cost.
    USA HAS higher costs. Self-inflicted.

    One of my "additional duties", ULM, late 1980's early 1990's was to (re)train new UK lawsters on secondment to the US. A contract good for the UK need about three times as many pages to cover "normally expected" US realities.

    The US was the most litigious society in the world - nine TIMES more so than the second-place winner (Japan at the time). ISTR UK was in 12th place.

    Big Pharma is sued for everything and no-thing in the US. All year, every year. So is any OTHER business with "deep pockets".

    Those costs - plus HUGE damages awards - all have to be paid for out of their sales. They don't get money from Government, God, or the Devil to pay them.

  16. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Yes we do have high costs yet I have not noted stats for that yet. Also right we have been litigious as a society though there has been substantial tort reform. It was sold as reducing the cost of services from the ones sued reducing liability insurance being high for medical pros yet the costs still went much higher.

    I do not directly know it would would have mattered as medical costs have risen all over the place. It not costs rising the quality of care decreasing in countries in the West. It is similar with the distribution of wealth and also the lowering of the unemployed. It is coincidental.

  17. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    572

    Default

    The US pharma companies do have high legal defense cost and, many drugs are very costly to perfect. That said, douche bags like the pharma bro are examples of all that is wrong in the health care industry. Greed pure and simple, the opiate problems are attributable to a few companies and made up accounts of how their drugs were NOT addictive.

    We as a country seem to be great at making all kinds of rules that don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. If you or I made a defective part and it killed people we would be sued. If we made that part with knowledge that it could cause death we may even be charged criminally. To many big companies have isolation from prosecution at the individual level. Unless and until the top dogs at big companies have their neck on the line nothing will change.

    Steve

  18. Likes Casady Machine liked this post
  19. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    964
    Likes (Received)
    5323

    Default

    If you want to understand this concept, you need to read about one of the biggest examples of it- Apple. Apple avoided paying taxes, in the USA, and most everywhere else, by sending all its profits to Ireland, and deducting them from their US taxable income as expenses.
    Then, they just kept them off shore until the US government declared a tax break on repatriating profits.

    That was part of Trumps tax bill- he allowed Apple to bring all those profits back in, virtually tax free. Interestingly enough, they didnt bring that much back- they are still parking all that dough somewhere in the cloud.

    So the French, having seen this and similar shenanigans, instituted this law, so that companies that owe taxes actually pay them.

    Double Irish arrangement - Wikipedia

    Access to this page has been denied.

  20. Likes Mark Rand, JoeE., ronan liked this post
  21. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    The US pharma companies do have high legal defense cost and, many drugs are very costly to perfect. That said, douche bags like the pharma bro are examples of all that is wrong in the health care industry. Greed pure and simple, the opiate problems are attributable to a few companies and made up accounts of how their drugs were NOT addictive.

    We as a country seem to be great at making all kinds of rules that don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. If you or I made a defective part and it killed people we would be sued. If we made that part with knowledge that it could cause death we may even be charged criminally. To many big companies have isolation from prosecution at the individual level. Unless and until the top dogs at big companies have their neck on the line nothing will change.

    Steve
    "In theory" they DO have their anatomy (life, fortune, sacred honour..) on the line.

    Officers and Directors are MEANT to be held PERSONALLY liable if laws are broken. "Ulta vires" acts.

    "In theory" ulta vires acts invalidate the very right to existence of a corporation. Liability is no longer "limited".

    "In practice".. hooverments (those who vacuum up money AKA "Governments") will go to great lengths to NOT damage a body corporate.. nor even the specific miscreants.

    Simple grocery-store 'rithmetic:

    They can suck more MONEY out of letting the entity live to pay more hooverment fees, fines, penalties, court and legal fees time after time than they'd collect out of a one-time forced liqidation where even legitimate taxes may be subordinate to other claims.

    Besides.. the now out-of-work STAFF in their hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands each have one vote. Every election cycle. For long years.

    That cuts more ice than a mere dozen or so Directors who only have one vote, each, too.

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    The history of corporate person hood is recent an exclusively an American thing.
    In th founding of the nation corps had to be formed for a single purpose and could have their charters pulled for not serving a public good.
    Sane with bankruptcy law.
    Used to be if you ran a company into the ground you’d lose your money too.
    Now you can suck the place dry and walk away.

  23. Likes JoeE., Casady Machine liked this post
  24. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    I buy stuff on line a lot
    Bad Steve ! Bad !

    One of the less talked about aspects of offshoring was and is, companies moving to tax havens.
    Oh, it's been talked about plenty. It's just that no one ever does anything about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    ANY body-corporate, the minders have a fiduciary obligation to do the best they can for their shareholders/stakeholders.
    Not true. This is a fairly recent innovation in propaganda but is not inherent in corporate conduct. It was not a part of the theology for the first hundred years of corporate existence, for example. For the first hundred years of history, if you didn't like the way a corp was run you could sell your stock and go somewhere else. Management made decisions based on what they thought was best for the company.

    This crap about primary responsibility to the shareholder is a new develoment that someone came up with to justify stupid decisions and overwhelming greed. If my brain still worked I could remember who started peddling that garbage. Five minutes with a search engine would probably find the answer tho ...

  25. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  26. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1123

    Default

    I heard yesterday that there is no tax on jet fuel in the EU. They are debating adding a jet fuel tax to pay for airports, air traffic control and other more efficient forms of pubic transit.
    Bill D.

    France wants EU to seek end to jet fuel tax exemption to curb emissions - Reuters

  27. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  28. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Not true. This is a fairly recent innovation in propaganda but is not inherent in corporate conduct.
    As usual, your alleged grasp of history is highly selective. Read "mostly WRONG", not to mention several hundred years out of date.

    Every nation that supports any of the many forms of body-corporate or other limited-liability entity publishes their rules for the formation and conduct of same. Folks can just go read for themselves.

    I surely don't know ALL of them, I've only had the responsibility for corporations established in six countries as an officer or Director, personally. Two of those "operated" in 60+ global jurisdictions, but I was NOT personally on-the-hook in their local legal presence. I merely advised those who were.

    That said, one reads and heeds, It IS your own ASS hanging-out, after all!

    And, in later years, one also teaches. A major part of why The Institute of Directors, London, and the Hong Kong Institute of Directors even exist.

    Ethics training.

    Keeping the newly-minted arrogant aware of their responsibilities to society and the law as well as their stakeholders. Even when "they are them" as to majority control of the stock, the law still applies.

    Screw THAT pooch? One may get a bad choice of options: Aubrey McClendon style exit. Bernie Ebbers style exit. There is no shortage of less well-known crash landings. Stockholders, regulators, and/or Courts hand out bad news every week of every year, one place or another.

    So no, they do NOT always "get away with s**t".

    Further, the overwhelming majority of RESPONSIBLE minders are none too pleased with the arrogant noise of the ignorant who've NOT had to put their own shoulder to the work.

    So... second word is "off"


    Former member:

    Training | IoD

    Former Fellow:

    The Hong Kong Institute of Directors


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •