The effect of Taxation on American High tech by France of three percent - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 262
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3142
    Likes (Received)
    3561

    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. 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.

    .
    Balls. Same as it ever was. Read up on the psychology of nostalgia

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D View Post
    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
    Not sure "no" tax is at all close to accurate. The "EU" is still also each member COUNTRY and there have long been OTHER ways air carriers and passengers are taxed.

    Beside the taxes on fuel.

    Which must already exists, given the rates are published!


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3546

    Default

    I think any company perhaps 5 years in existence should pay perhaps a 1 to 3% tax of gross revenue.

    Also every worker should pay a minimum tax of 5% of gross income.

    Every person and every company is using the countries’ infrastructure so should pay a little for that use.

    Every person and every company should have regard for not wasting tax money..and if they don't pay any then they don't care.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3546

    Default

    RE: Under the 1944 convention there can be no tax on kerosene in any country in the world,

    If no tax then why is it about $3.50 a gallon?
    Average Kerosene Prices - NYSERDA

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    Balls. Same as it ever was. Read up on the psychology of nostalgia
    Umm, no. Read all the psychology you like, it's not nostalgia. Both you and ol' brown eyes are mistaken.

    You are excused, probaly too young to remember. This "shareholder value" crap is the work of Milton Friedman in 1970, and it's been destructive.

    Search "shareholder value myth" or, for people too lazy, here's a sample : (and no, it's not a solitary article by Cornell Law school, you can find numerous other articles and descriptions of the changing philosophy of corporations since 1970. And the negative results thereof, btw ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynn Stout, Cornell Law school
    History

    Although many contemporary business experts take shareholder primacy as a given, the rise of shareholder primacy as dominant business philosophy is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of the twentieth century, large public companies followed a philosophy called managerial capitalism. Boards of directors in managerial companies operated largely as self-selecting and
    autonomous decision-making bodies, with dispersed shareholders playing a passive role. What’s more, directors viewed themselves not as shareholders’ servants, but as trustees for great institutions that should serve not only shareholders but other corporate stakeholders as well, including customers, creditors, employees, and the community. Equity investors were treated as an important corporate constituency, but not the only constituency that mattered. Nor was share price assumed to be the best proxy for corporate performance.

    Go back further, to the very beginnings of business corporations, and we see even greater deviations from shareholder primacy. Many corporations formed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were created specifically to develop large commercial ventures like roads, canals, railroads, and banks. Investors in these early corporations were usually also customers. They structured their companies to make sure the business would provide good service at a reasonable price – not to maximize investment returns.

    So where did the idea that corporations exist only to maximize shareholder value come from?

    Originally, it seems, from free-market economists. In 1970, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman published a famous essay in the New York Times arguing that the only proper goal of business was to maximize profits for the company’s owners, whom Friedman assumed (incorrectly, we shall see) to be the company’s shareholders.

    Even more influential was a 1976 article by Michael Jensen and William Meckling titled the “Theory of the Firm.”

    This article, still the most frequently cited in the business literature, repeated Friedman’s mistake by assuming that shareholders owned corporations and were corporation’s residual claimants. From this assumption, Jensen and Meckling argued that a key problem in corporations was getting wayward directors and executives to focus on maximizing the wealth of the corporations’ shareholders.
    This is not a solitary piece of writing. Research the history of corporations and this "shareholder value" crap and you will find a lot more - all by respected researchers, not pompous Alzheimer victim looneytunes like thermite.

    As confirmation, anyone older can remember "investment" stocks and "growth" stocks. Nowadays all same-same - rip the guts out of the company to jack up the share price. This is not how corporations always behaved. It's recent (historically, anyhow. Sheesh, 1970 was fifty years ago !)

    The article quoted above for one reference : https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/...alue%20myth%22

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,318
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    422
    Likes (Received)
    1673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michiganbuck View Post
    RE: Under the 1944 convention there can be no tax on kerosene in any country in the world,

    If no tax then why is it about $3.50 a gallon?
    Average Kerosene Prices - NYSERDA
    Yeah, no kidding. The statement made by that guy is just plain false.

    The 1944 Chicago Convention only prevents jurisdictions from taxing the fuel that was already onboard the plane when it lands. It does not prevent taxing fuel put in the plane on the ground, and almost all jurisdictions tax the fuel when it goes in.

    Jet fuel taxes pay for a lot of the airport and ATC costs in the US, and most states have their own rates just like gas taxes.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3546

    Default

    I have in-laws living in France and it seems a tough place to make a living.
    Guess France needs to double tax on everything.. and likely they would not be well off.

    With a new baby coming being the second child they had to ask the government if they could get a bigger apartment... and they are both working.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3142
    Likes (Received)
    3561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Umm, no. Read all the psychology you like, it's not nostalgia. Both you and ol' brown eyes are mistaken.
    whatever beliefs makes you feel good, I deal in reality. There is no shortage of people who will write about how they wish the world was or spun to their belief system/agenda. The fact is people haven't changed, have and still do predictably act in their own best economic interests. If anything that basic human behavior was more openly acceptable in days past. Accept for management flaws like agency risk (often very detrimental to shareholder value), business only ever has or will act in its best interests, which is (sans things like agency risk) synonymous with shareholder value. If you don't get how its the same thing, dismiss your prejudices and think more deeply on it.

    Business has never, and should never be expected to, adhere to some fantasy world of altruistically support a social goal. Business is to create shareholder value and that means sustainable and growing long term profits. It's just a naive fantasy expecting anything else. Instead you get business to be a part of accomplishing social goals by creating rules that push business objectives into better alignment with them. You get business aligned with social goals not by a personal dreamworld of altruistic intents, but my making that path less painful/more rewarding than the alternatives.
    Last edited by Mcgyver; 07-12-2019 at 03:53 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    not pompous Alzheimer victim looneytunes like thermite.
    *yawn* Whatever.

    But YOU are still WRONG.

    Selective quoting doesn't change the realities in life.

    Mind.. I'm good with that. I LIKE you being wrong!



    I'd like it even more you had to suffer greatly off the consequences of your idiocy, but I ain't greedy. There's still time.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sunny South West Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10178
    Likes (Received)
    3036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    *yawn* Whatever.

    But YOU are still WRONG.

    Selective quoting doesn't change the realities in life.

    Mind.. I'm good with that. I LIKE you being wrong!



    I'd like it even more you had to suffer greatly off the consequences of your idiocy, but I ain't greedy. There's still time.

    Y'know, somedays I swear you and EG are just you arguing with yourself... But the writing styles are too disparate.

    Always good entertainment, though.

  11. Likes barbter liked this post
  12. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3546

    Default

    QT:[ The fact is people haven't changed, have and still do predictably act in their own best economic interests. If anything that basic human behavior ...]

    It seems common people are so easily led that they make very big mistakes. More so lately with the media pumping so much feelings and opinions that people tend to follow.

  13. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michiganbuck View Post
    QT:[ The fact is people haven't changed, have and still do predictably act in their own best economic interests. If anything that basic human behavior ...]

    It seems common people are so easily led that they make very big mistakes. More so lately with the media pumping so much feelings and opinions that people tend to follow.
    Here's one:

    Prominent liberal church ousts pastor after alleged sex toy shopping spree | Fox News

    Now... I don't actually give a damn how 40-year old wimmin' I ain't never met nor expect to have any truck with get their batteries-included rocks off...

    ...the only thing that bugged ME was this one asking a $100,000 raise on top of an already $250,000 salary plus $8,000 PER MONTH "housing allowance" ==> US $ 346,000 / yr.

    And we can't afford to pay a decent wage to a machinist?

    They can CALL that a "church". Looks like a criminal enterprise to me, and run by damned fools to boot, they ain't even got the manners to keep shut about how MUCH they is ripping-off the sheep in their flock!

  14. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,318
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    422
    Likes (Received)
    1673

    Default

    ^^^ Sounds like fleecing the flock is good work if you can get it...

  15. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    464
    Likes (Received)
    5007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    . . . 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 ...
    Milton Friedman. A personal point of contention for about the past 30 years.

    Friedman said the sole purpose of a corporation was to make profits for shareholders. Now, while capital is one input to a company - and at risk - so are new hires betting their careers, towns providing infrastructure and (increasingly) tax breaks, suppliers offering credit, home owners financing schools in the hope kids will become properly educated, etc. etc. Ultimately, it is customers that pay all the bills -- and a believe Drucker had it right when he said the main duties of a company were to find (and keep) their customers.

    To be fair, part of Friedman's thinking was that corporations (back when they weren't "people") shouldn't be doing things like making charitable donations (or, today, perhaps poltical bribes). He thought shareholders could and should make their own donations. However, we've had about four decades of MBA's raised on the only-profits-for-shareholders mantra, swallowing it hole, and then (some) using it to justify screwing customers and most anyone else for a buck. Probably more than half forgot the notion of running a business for the long-term, rather than gaming the next quarter's P&L statement and their own bonuses.

    On edit: didn't finish the thread before replying. E.G's neurons must have kicked in. I used to have a Drucker v. Friedman presentation for clients, in hopes they'd put customers first.

  16. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    464
    Likes (Received)
    5007

    Default

    To the original point, seems fair enough to me that France and other countries would want to count a "digital presence" by companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu etc. etc.) as at least somewhat like a physical presence. And it's a reasonably level playing field -- all businesses above a size threshold (including one HQ'd in France) pay that tax on profits.

    Digital companies can reach into every French home courtesy of the WWW, offer up products and advertising the same as some local store or media outlet, and take a cut off the top. Same issue, in a way, as states seeing their hometown merchants decimated and wanting to apply sales tax revenues.

    Yes, for customers' sakes, the taxes should be low. 3% seems about right to me.

    Imagine that Chinese internet providers put Apple, Facebook, and Google out of business. Now all the ad revenues go back to China -- and both our local and Internet suppliers can't compete because of paying their own local-state-national taxes. That OK?

    As for whether France pulls this off, they probably need EU-wide agreement on a shared tax scheme. Given how little Europeans seem to agree on these days, the move may come with as much pain for France as gain in the short term.

  17. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3339
    Likes (Received)
    3546

    Default

    part of Friedman's thinking was that corporations (back when they weren't "people") shouldn't be doing things like making charitable donations (or, today, perhaps poltical bribes).

    I agree to that unless the action benefits the corporation..sharholder's profits should not go to the whim of
    people share holders elected to run the outfit.

    like Starbucks saying "If you don't support the gay agenda then we don't want your business."

    That was just stupid because Starbucks is about Coffee not agendas.

    I bet most shareholders thought that was not very smart.

  18. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Milton Friedman. A personal point of contention for about the past 30 years.
    Yes, "recently", but... the concept is the same for dominant religions, state actors, Feudal structures - even sole despots eg; the odd "good King" in history. Anyone who understood the benefit of healthy and happy shared efforts with reasonably wise direction.

    Friedman said the sole purpose of a corporation was to make profits for shareholders. Now, while capital is one input to a company - and at risk - so are new hires betting their careers, towns providing infrastructure and (increasingly) tax breaks, suppliers offering credit, home owners financing schools in the hope kids will become properly educated, etc. etc. Ultimately, it is customers that pay all the bills -- and a believe Drucker had it right when he said the main duties of a company were to find (and keep) their customers.
    ACK. "stakeholders" not just "shareholders".

    To be fair, part of Friedman's thinking was that corporations (back when they weren't "people") shouldn't be doing things like making charitable donations (or, today, perhaps poltical bribes). He thought shareholders could and should make their own donations. However, we've had about four decades of MBA's raised on the only-profits-for-shareholders mantra, swallowing it hole, and then (some) using it to justify screwing customers and most anyone else for a buck.
    Far worse than that. What we had to "teach against" was the tendency - much the same period of time - for the buggers to DIVERT resources of the stakeholders to their own personal gain.

    Small Corp, the founder & owner USUALLY considers it a right and privilege to do as he pleases.

    Larger one, they justify it off the belief the wealth would not exist at all, were it not for their unique and magnificent contribution. The Aubrey McClendon example.

    Both examples SHOULD BE pushed back into the "sole proprietor" corner - unlimited personal liability to go along with unlimited behaviour patterns, AND NOT permitted to hide disregard for the rules, raise OPM capital, then dodge the bullet they actually EARNED off truant actions, but were shielded from under a body corporate or LLP/LLC roof.

    Whatsisface-the-Bolshevik wants to damn the very concept of the corporation.

    I just want to jail a lot more of the Director-level and above parasites to clear the air for the far more numerous and responsible ones who have always been good citizens, all counts.

    Including rather a lot "right here on PM".

    We know what we have and have not done.

  19. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3142
    Likes (Received)
    3561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Milton Friedman. A personal point of contention for about the past 30 years..
    You are like they guy pissed at the weatherman because he observes its raining

    To be fair, part of Friedman's thinking was that corporations (back when they weren't "people") shouldn't be doing things like making charitable donations
    Forget about whatever Friedman may or may not have believed, the debate is about the nature of creating shareholder value and what companies do. That creating shareholder value is why companies exist has ZERO to do with whether the should or do give to charity. Rational thought suggests a business should only ever be expected to give to charity if they think the PR to whatever is greater than the cost. Personally I don't want a company I invest giving to charity unless it does so.

    Giving to charity hardly has to be against the creation shareholder value. I give at my business, because it supports things important the staff and customers who part of the community I get goodwill from stakeholders such as employees customers and vendors which ultimately benefits my business's growth and profits (and hence the shareholders value). Frankly its stupid to expect otherwise; that giving cannot be part in building value or that giving should be done if doesn't add value somehow. Now, yesterday or tomorrow.

  20. #39
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Don’t these companies currently have taxes they must charge already? Seems the three percent is a added thing. Plus it is more permanent than a tariff like taxes we see here seem to never end on the most part. There comes a time where these kinds of things overwhelms economies or crippling them.

  21. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Don’t these companies currently have taxes they must charge already? Seems the three percent is a added thing. Plus it is more permanent than a tariff like taxes we see here seem to never end on the most part. There comes a time where these kinds of things overwhelms economies or crippling them.
    We've passed it already in the EU. Jury is still out, US & Canada, but "probably".

    Inertia & debt games hide it, so it takes a long time for the decline to be be understood to have already happened.

    Argentina is worth a deep-dive as an example that is "just enough de-coupled" to demonstrate how that plays-out when not well-hidden in a larger pool.


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
  •