The effect of Taxation on American High tech by France of three percent - Page 12
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 221 to 236 of 236
  1. #221
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,544
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3021
    Likes (Received)
    470

    Default

    Advertising works though it stimulates business. Google has the better way to capture that business. It is what they do.

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    4830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    It's because they don't "find ways". They buy these so-called loopholes . . .


    Spinit, google is an advertising agency. They provide almost nothing of value. They are 98% shit (by volume, not weight.)

    The best thing for foreign countries to do is ban them altogether. . ..
    You got the first part right.

    Google started and is still mainly used as a search engine -- a job it still does well. It's also a very good and free email client with one of the industry's best spam filters. And a cloud repository with one of the lowest cost storage (free at one level) and best uptime records. It's also one of the best voice recognition and language translation providers around. A competitive (and free) alternative to Microsoft Office. And dozens of other things, including being a leader in autonomous vehicles.

    Unlike say, Facebook, it has a half-decent (yeah, half-bad) record of protecting private data, including from warrantless searches from the US government. The Google employees I know still have a bit of that "don't be evil" ethic that most large companies (including Google) eventually seem to jettison.

    You might not like the "free" but paid-by-advertising model that's been used for centuries by everything from print through TV producers, but the company is providing lots of us with value given for the inconvenience of having ads pop up now and then -- same as the forum we're all currently using. To me, the let's-all-kill-Google advocacy sounds more like Chinese propaganda than the 'druthers of Google's mostly-happy two billion users. Think we should be using Baidu search and Chinese cloud services instead??

  3. Likes daredo222, Greg White liked this post
  4. #223
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,544
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3021
    Likes (Received)
    470

    Default

    Amazon wants to offer broadband using Satelites. That would be another service likely a pay service. That might be another tax which can be imposed who knows how that will be viewed.

  5. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    24,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4351

    Default

    [QUOTE=jancollc;3386293]It's odd. For years I have been hearing from liberals how republicans speak in codes that only racists can hear.

    Nope, codes that only other republicans can hear. OK granted these days that's the same thing.

  6. #225
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    2,580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3923
    Likes (Received)
    13322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    In the EU companies pay taxes on lots of things and the final corporate profits are usually thin for very big companies.
    Aka big companies skate most company-profit taxes, via offshore arrangements.

    In the US the same practice is worse.

    A thin 3% tax makes a lot of sense.
    It would at least get some money into the economy, while making little effect on corporate actions.
    And it is only for companies over 500B$ in revenue.

    Over time, redressing systems could happen.

    The France action could very well work, and be a big anchor tenant for EU systems reform.
    As such, 3% vs -2% is a huge improvement, over 500 M people and a 19T economy EU-wide.
    (Large US IT corps typically pay 2% negative tax.)

    There would be zero real-world negative effects on US large corps, like General Dynamics, Raytheon, Caterpillar, Hollywood, Auto, etc.
    A 3% tax in france would be offset in us tax liability, and maybe 0.5% would be seen in gross marginal profit, with == 0.05% or less effects.

    It is possible us big corps would/will see this as a wedge to reduce their global free rein.
    We will see this soon in what happens.

    My estimate is that the france intent will be buried.
    Your PM box is full. I've sent you an email.

  7. #226
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    537
    Likes (Received)
    2565

    Default

    [QUOTE=jim rozen;3386752]
    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    It's odd. For years I have been hearing from liberals how republicans speak in codes that only racists can hear.

    Nope, codes that only other republicans can hear. OK granted these days that's the same thing.
    So why is it that you can hear & understand what they're saying? I wouldn't have thought you were a secret Repugnicant.....

    PDW

  8. #227
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    93
    Likes (Received)
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Your PM box is full. I've sent you an email.
    Don't bother, I don't want to talk to you.

  9. Likes daredo222 liked this post
  10. #228
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    24,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4351

    Default

    [QUOTE=PDW;3386819][QUOTE=jim rozen;3386752]

    So why is it that you can hear & understand what they're saying?

    Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring. Never said they were *good* at secret codes.

  11. #229
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2342
    Likes (Received)
    2141

    Default

    This seems to be appropriate to the thread.

    Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis for July 20, 2019 - GoComics

  12. #230
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    507
    Likes (Received)
    1349

    Default

    Thread:
    Let´s see what happens.

    Fiscally, I feel stock-market and results overall past 1 year would be:
    A 3% tax in France would mean nothing to the corporate profits of the IT Big Corps.
    A 3% EU-wide tax would still mean nothing.
    A follow-on US or global 3% alternate minimum tax would still mean nothing.

    It would be *great* if France implemented the tax, and even better if the Big Corps accepted it.
    They pay more in tax dodges, today.

    The problem Big (IT) Corps face is that if they actually have to start paying any clear tax at all, over time the rate will rise.
    And it will not be politically possible to cancel the system overall- and repeal the new Corp Tax at whatever rate it is set.

    So the Big Corps will become the next milk cows for the politicians, in France and soon in the EU overall.
    And likely next in the US.
    IMO:
    At issue is not the tax rate of 3%.

    The rate will soon keep increasing to fund the political entitlements deficit in the EU/France and the USA.

    And within about 12-15 years
    - the rate will be high-ish, (3-10%, or 15%, does not matter.),
    - and there will be no more new profits from big IT innovations,
    - and the deficit rate will be higher as a percentage of annual GDP,
    - and the total national deficit(s) will be way past 200% of GDP within 10-15 years.
    Greece was bankrupt at 170% debt, and too big to fail (EU markets and german banks).

    ;
    IF the US corps start to pay some tax this is a good thing.
    But IF then, as is likely, this simply leads to more US deficit spending, this is essentially emptying the Big Piggy Bank on Bread-n-Circuses.

    The US Big Corps could pay off the US national debt. No problem. 2019.
    Once.
    The US rich could pay off the US national debt, cash.
    Once.

    But if the US keeps spending money it does not have, as now, within 6-8-10 years it would take both the rich and the corps all cash to pay off the debt.
    Once.

    And leave all the rich with 0% cash and all the corps with 0 spare cash or overseas deferred profits.
    ((It is unlikely the rich and the corps can be asset-stripped at the same time.))

    It is likely stock markets and investments would decrease, with lower growth.
    And spending at the same rate as in 10 years, would have the US at the same debt in the next 10 years, with no more assets.
    And half the recurring income.

  13. #231
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    4830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    . . . Fiscally, I feel stock-market and results overall past 1 year would be . . .
    Reasonable analysis IMO.

    In the past, the way to make sure cross-border taxes and tariffs remained reasonable was by things like trade and tariff agreements. Courtesy of our current administration, it seems no one trusts us -- and thus they can do as they please as well. More like some tin pot dictator than first world economies.

    Apparently the US is already seeing a bit of this in international waters off Iran. We'd like a coalition to assure free transit. But allies are reluctant to participate, given so many torn up and trashed agreements of late.

  14. #232
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,544
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3021
    Likes (Received)
    470

    Default

    Han. With all due respect to you it just seems like to me that France does not mind extra taxation as a rule. If it is a American company and successful then France especially does not mind. ( or the politicians)

    Since France has started this then perhaps the EU may be of the same mind. These three are only possibly the start.

    All of your subjective numbers are not in my opinion directly relevant to this targeted taxation. All three in great likelihood will increase business and will bring more goods at lower cost boosting the economy in France.

    The advertising and Google search engine is already the standard businesses especially on the internet pay for advertising on Google and position different companies according to first search hits. The companies who make the most money pay for top spots.


    At any rate what these three bring brings regular taxes which are there anyway to pay in to the government for defense, social services and healthcare. Having these three seems a win / win.

    Han do you think it would be fair to levy a three percent tax on foreign companies that operate in the United States? Surely that is a issue to think about. Tariffs are one thing negotiable, yet taxes are more permanent.

  15. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    24,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    7734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Reasonable analysis IMO.

    In the past, the way to make sure cross-border taxes and tariffs remained reasonable was by things like trade and tariff agreements. Courtesy of our current administration, it seems no one trusts us -- and thus they can do as they please as well. More like some tin pot dictator than first world economies.
    You mean... since we woke up to how we were being butt-f**ked, they can no longer "trust us" to return to being a willing victim to their economic advantage?

    Why would we do that?


    Apparently the US is already seeing a bit of this in international waters off Iran. We'd like a coalition to assure free transit. But allies are reluctant to participate, given so many torn up and trashed agreements of late.
    We'd "like" a coalition, surely. But "free transit" of that area is no longer critical to our well-being. At all.

    We won't loose a lot of sleep nor treasure over there never again being a "coalition", anywhere in the Middle East.

    Note that we've ONE carrier battle group "nearby". Not even IN the gulf. Last go? ISTR there were FOUR of 'em, yah?

  16. Likes adh2000 liked this post
  17. #234
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,369
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    4830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    You mean... since we woke up to how we were being butt-f**ked, they can no longer "trust us" to return to being a willing victim to their economic advantage? . . .
    Need to be more discriminating in your choice of partners, Bill?

    China has been playing a long game of both agreed and clandestine IP theft, government subsidy,etc. We'd like agree that surely needs fixing, with much of the fault due to our own companies' short-term oriented management. They've been happy to sell out jobs, technology, and even entire companies for a quick buck.

    Relatively level playing fields with our traditional North American and European allies something else. With allies, you work things out.

    Despite the bluster of on again, off again sanctions -- the balance of trade has only gotten worse under Trump (especially with China). Some measured resolve would be very much a good idea in that realm, especially with respect to outright theft and subsidy. Used to be that's what trade talks were about -- and we once and just a bit less still have tremendous leverage (size of our market, dollar as the global currency, crucial technologies, energy independence, etc.) on that front.

    But here's why Trump can't have both deficit spending to boost our economy and zero trade deficit, no matter how much erratically he blusters, even with allies:

    The fundamental cause of a trade deficit is an imbalance between a country’s savings and investment rates. As Harvard’s Martin Feldstein explains the reason for the deficit can be boiled down to the United States as a whole spending more money than it makes, which results in a current account deficit. That additional spending must, by definition, go toward foreign goods and services. Financing that spending happens in the form of either borrowing from foreign lenders (which adds to the U.S. national debt) or foreign investing in U.S. assets and businesses—the capital account.

  18. #235
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2342
    Likes (Received)
    2141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Han. With all due respect to you it just seems like to me that France does not mind extra taxation as a rule. If it is a American company and successful then France especially does not mind. ( or the politicians)

    Since France has started this then perhaps the EU may be of the same mind. These three are only possibly the start.

    All of your subjective numbers are not in my opinion directly relevant to this targeted taxation. All three in great likelihood will increase business and will bring more goods at lower cost boosting the economy in France.

    The advertising and Google search engine is already the standard businesses especially on the internet pay for advertising on Google and position different companies according to first search hits. The companies who make the most money pay for top spots.


    At any rate what these three bring brings regular taxes which are there anyway to pay in to the government for defense, social services and healthcare. Having these three seems a win / win.

    Han do you think it would be fair to levy a three percent tax on foreign companies that operate in the United States? Surely that is a issue to think about. Tariffs are one thing negotiable, yet taxes are more permanent.
    You are still missing the point Spinit. The tax doesn't specifically target US companies, it targets all companies that sell goods/services without paying taxes on the profits generated by sales in the territory that they're sold in. If they already pay taxes in France they can deduct these from the charge. It ensures that a certain amount of tax will be paid as a minimum, rather than none at all.

    This isn't picking on US companies, it's one country being brave enough to tackle an abuse that has been affecting the whole world since on-line marketing and tax havens were combined together. If the US wants to levy a 3% tax on companies under the same terms as the French have done it would, in fact, claw back some tax from US companies. It would also generate revenues from foreign companies selling good/services on-line into the US without paying tax for any profits generated there. At that point, the rest of the G6-7-20-whatever, might decide that it's a jolly good idea and all Internet based services and sales might attract a similar charge where the seller was not declaring appropriate taxes in the destination territory.

    It would not cause companies to go bust, it might cause countries like Luxembourg, Eire, The Cayman Islands, UK Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc. to loose a few hundred jobs and a few $billion in tax revenues, but it would cause the tax take to be collected more closely to the locations where the profits were generated.

    What's not to like?

  19. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    24,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    7734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    It would not cause companies to go bust, it might cause countries like Luxembourg, Eire, The Cayman Islands, UK Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc. to loose a few hundred jobs and a few $billion in tax revenues, but it would cause the tax take to be collected more closely to the locations where the profits were generated.

    What's not to like?
    Two things:

    - real-world COST and practicality of assessing, administering, and collecting - seriously flawed.

    - resulting skewed application - unfairness isn't eliminated, just moved.

    Take VAT, by contrast. Surely not one of my favourite impuestos.

    - But it is relatively cheap to administer

    - and relatively hard to cheat at.

    Taking-on a hundred Gold Hern's (Euro's, Dollars, Francs, Pounds - wotever) worth of effort to collect 90 to 120 Gold Herns worth of tax revenue only makes the buro-of-rock-rats who are paid to f**k with the admin data happy.

    ALL others LOSE!


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
  •