The effect of Taxation on American High tech by France of three percent - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 262
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    452
    Likes (Received)
    4907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    You are like they guy pissed at the weatherman because he observes its raining . . .
    McG, there's a direct line between Friedman's notion that shareholders were the only stakeholders worth rewarding and guys like this:

    Martin Shkreli: A Lesson In Social Capital

    . . . Shkreli advertised himself as a cocky capitalist whose job was to maximize shareholder value . . .

    While Friedman was likely still a business god while you were finishing up your MBA, the whole notion of multiple stakeholders, a balanced scorecard, etc. has emerged as a better way to get less short-term thinking and more long-term-company-and-customer thinking. And, you still might want to read the book noted months ago at just what the Harvard B-school had been teaching to our now-captains-of-industry.

    Friedman wasn't reporting the business "weather." He was trying to shape it. And, sadly, succeeded in ways he probably never imagined - witness the flood of corporate malfeasance, especially in the US, over the past few decades.

    To your own point -- donations are good if they advance company profits -- not all that much a stretch from "donations" to bribes. You probably know the difference, maybe worry about, um, breaking the law. Not so all execs -- many of them (like Shkreli) disciples of Friedman.



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,246
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    508
    Likes (Received)
    1369

    Default

    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.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,598
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3051
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    If the tendency to fix failing systems of government is to tax then why not 8 % tax or 10%? Seems already there is a high rate of taxation. I have not found out what competitors in France are being strong armed by US companies. Plus too it is always said the US should have something other countries wish to buy and then this tax.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    If the tendency to fix failing systems of government is to tax then why not 8 % tax or 10%? Seems already there is a high rate of taxation. I have not found out what competitors in France are being strong armed by US companies. Plus too it is always said the US should have something other countries wish to buy and then this tax.
    The rates, ultimately, are up to what the populace of the taxing authority will put up with.

    They won't come out of the "offshore" operations of the firms being taxed. They will be extracted from the FRENCH customers of the firms being taxed.

    If that cannot easily be done, then operations subject to French tax will be curtailed such that the populace will have to seek alternatives. Or do without.

    Nothing new. The world is chock-full of examples of goods and services not available in all jurisdictions, ELSE charged at different rates.

    That's not an air-freight, containership, or internet bandwidth issue.

    it's part of what we bean-counters are paid for.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    452
    Likes (Received)
    4907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    If the tendency to fix failing systems of government is to tax then why not 8 % tax or 10%? Seems already there is a high rate of taxation. . . .
    There isn't a high rate of taxation on companies like Apple. And France probably isn't the poster child of "failing systems of government." Compared to the US, it has a lower budget deficit, yet has health care for all its citizens. It's kids score a bit higher in math and science and its old folks live a couple years longer on average. Wouldn't be my choice of a place to live, but we shouldn't be throwing stones.

    And Internet companies do use a significant amount of resources that various governments pay for. As an example, France paid for the education and health care of something like 160,000 Apple employees. It subsidizes the electricity cost of the servers Apple uses. (FWIW, in the US, something like 10% of all electricity is now running the "cloud.") Apple gets a cut from all its products sold in France -- delivered on highways and across bridges built by the French. Simply put, Apple and other companies like it are using resources they're not paying for - both here and abroad.

    Entirely reasonable for any government to ask Internet-enabled companies some reasonable sum to pay their way.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,781
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3310
    Likes (Received)
    3506

    Default

    Outfit like Amazon paying no tax and doing so well, while putting many people out of jobs could pay .5 to 1% in tax on gross to still be successful and pay something for use of high ways and and other tax paid for stuff.

    Still,
    Taxes will never be fair...we are lucky to have jobs and be doing as well as we are. I have few complaints.

    QT: [ And France probably isn't the poster child of ] from what I know about France (and that is not very much) it seems working class people have it a little better in the USA.

    Agree we don't have free health care.That is one bummer. still our girls play a good game of soccer.

    Oh, it seems french ladies try to stay trim and pretty better than many in the USA. ( My wife keeps herself trim and pretty. ( I am thankful for that.)

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Entirely reasonable for any government to ask Internet-enabled companies some reasonable sum to pay their way.
    So if they are not "paying their way", just what is it they HAVE been paying for in their bandwidth invoices?

    And if there is no tax on Apple products and services in France, not even VAT, why aren't their products cheaper there, too?

    Mac Prices France - Mac Original Prices: EveryMac.com

  8. Likes Spinit liked this post
  9. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    So if they are not "paying their way", just what is it they HAVE been paying for in their bandwidth invoices?

    And if there is no tax on Apple products and services in France, not even VAT, why aren't their products cheaper there, too?

    Mac Prices France - Mac Original Prices: EveryMac.com
    Please link to a "bandwidth invoice"- I have never gotten to see one.
    Apple is selling physical products in France, and is not in the same category as Google.
    Apple avoids paying taxes in france the same way it does here- by sending royalties and fees and IP charges to its wholey owned subsidiaries in lower tax countries, and deducting those expenses from its income it declares to the French government.
    Why would it sell its products cheaper in france if it is paying less corporate tax?
    Apple just lost their lawsuit to quit funneling sales thru its phony Irish front, and is now charging tax on retail sales in France.
    Apple agrees to pay €500M to end 10-year French tax battle - 9to5Mac

    The French, like the US government, subsidize electricity- in our case, thru things like the BPA, the TVA, Hoover Dam, and other generating sources, as well as subsidized grid infrastructure. The BPA was built, in part, to supply over 20 aluminum smelters with fixed price below market electricity, which it did from the 30s thru the 80s. At that point, other countries offered the aluminum companies even cheaper power, and they started moving.
    The BPA responded by offering below market (sometimes even below cost) power to the internet server industry. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google alone consume, as mentioned, a gigantic percentage of US electricity at bargain rates. NO "bandwidth invoices". Instead, government giveaways.
    France, also generates a lot of its electrical power in government subsidized power plants, at well below what private market rates would be.
    The internet is not paid for by Facebook or Amazon or Google- their customers each pay monthly fees to sign on.
    So the tax is an attempt to capture some of that profit from the internet giants surfing on other peoples electricity and internet fees.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,598
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3051
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Here there are many companies who import and even have factories here. The cost of infrastructure is supported by taxes which pay for it and has not as I know of set a higher tax on the goods from foreign owned companies. These companies often add a lot of value and appreciation from us. Of course when increasing taxes here the tendency has always been to tax American companies. The 3% tax here would be resisted as a tax extra because the companies that are digital internet ones fall in a category of internet business and we have not levied extra taxes besides sales tax and low corporate taxes so far.

    We think not taxing this allows the growth of this business and that seems to be a valid belief.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Please link to a "bandwidth invoice"- I have never gotten to see one.
    Someone else is paying for your connectivity, then? My invoices come from Comcast and AT&T for the US, two other telcos, a cable and a fibre-to-the flat provider in Hong Kong.

    When I still ran servers, they came - rationed, budgeted, and sold in increments local or international not the same - from the facility providers, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland.

    The invoices that paid what became my retirement pension were sent OUT - from various Cable & Wireless business entities to those who wanted cable or satellite bandwidth.

    "Seen them?" Pilgrim, I was one of the designers of the databases and billing systems that created them then rolled-up the data for management on a global basis, more currencies than a few.


    You didn't REALLY think that all those mega-miles of underseas and overland cables, laser, microwave, and satellite links and the routers, cloud servers, and power on them were paid for by "advertisers", did you?

    DDB & O were, in fact, one of the Fortune 400 customers we served.

    Otherwise, advertisers only ride on the BACK of those who DO pay the bills.

    Their first, most widely-advertised, and biggest lie is that THEY are providing their victims with all this "free stuff" that could not exist without ..unblocking your ad blocker.. yadda, yadda.

    That's not only a lie, it is the exact opposite of reality. Theft. Sold as a virtuous necessity. We did say "advertisers?' Since when where that lot in the "truth" business?

    Block the advert/malware, migrate-off to saner sites that abuseth-not your eyes, ears, and screen real-estate, free-up the majority of the b/w and TIME as was being wasted, and find a society's costs go DOWN, not UP. Less stealing from each other in the name of "free WiFi" and the like.

    Try it. You may LIKE it. Or at least enjoy a good deal more cash and free time to go like something else that's more fun than yet-another inane and irrelevant "targeted advert" pop-up.


  12. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Someone else is paying for your connectivity, then? My invoices come from Comcast and AT&T for the US, two other telcos, a cable and a fibre-to-the flat provider in Hong Kong.

    When I still ran servers, they came - rationed, budgeted, and sold in increments local or international not the same - from the facility providers, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland.

    The invoices that paid what became my retirement pension were sent OUT - from various Cable & Wireless business entities to those who wanted cable or satellite bandwidth.

    "Seen them?" Pilgrim, I was one of the designers of the databases and billing systems that created them then rolled-up the data for management on a global basis, more currencies than a few.


    You didn't REALLY think that all those mega-miles of underseas and overland cables, laser, microwave, and satellite links and the routers, cloud servers, and power on them were paid for by "advertisers", did you?

    DDB & O were, in fact, one of the Fortune 400 customers we served.

    Otherwise, advertisers only ride on the BACK of those who DO pay the bills.

    Their first, most widely-advertised, and biggest lie is that THEY are providing their victims with all this "free stuff" that could not exist without ..unblocking your ad blocker.. yadda, yadda.

    That's not only a lie, it is the exact opposite of reality. Theft. Sold as a virtuous necessity. We did say "advertisers?' Since when where that lot in the "truth" business?

    Block the advert/malware, migrate-off to saner sites that abuseth-not your eyes, ears, and screen real-estate, free-up the majority of the b/w and TIME as was being wasted, and find a society's costs go DOWN, not UP. Less stealing from each other in the name of "free WiFi" and the like.

    Try it. You may LIKE it. Or at least enjoy a good deal more cash and free time to go like something else that's more fun than yet-another inane and irrelevant "targeted advert" pop-up.

    you are confusing the sale of internet access, which is paid for by consumers primarily, with the fact that the business the internet companies do online is basically untaxed and uncharged for. Yes, Google and Facebook USE the internet- but they dont pay regular monthly bills to do it, like we do. The telcos invest in infrastructure, and charge end consumers for it.
    Here is an older article that discusses this-
    YouTube'''s Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net | WIRED

    here is a similar article from this year-
    YouTube Bandwidth Costs >> Internet Speed Test

    Google actually builds and owns a significant amount of global internet infrastructure- far from paying for it, it profits from it.
    Amazon is similar- Amazon makes MORE money from selling internet usage than it does selling socks and batteries.
    I would guess this may be true in Europe as well- I know Amazon has major "services" sites all over Europe.
    So they are profiting, not paying.
    They are, in effect, sending out those invoices, which is probably another thing the French are thinking of taxing.

    I am not sure what "free stuff" you are talking about- I pay, monthly, for a website, several email addresses, internet access, and I pay Amazon a yearly fee.
    I understand very well what is free, and what is not. I actually have three wi-fi networks on my farm here, all owned and maintained by me.

    As for being paid for by advertisers- well, no, I dont really believe that, either.
    As I said, I know that we, as US taxpayers, help subsidize the server farms power needs.
    Then, I know that we, as taxpayers, pay a big portion of the profits of Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, in the form of the Feds using their server farms. Current estimates are that, including "black" security usage, the Feds spend somewhere around $7 Billion on cloud services and internet subcontracting, the vast majority of which is from the big 3. Thats BILLION, with a B.
    Amazon has huge server farms all around the NSA/CIA/DIA nexus in DC, most of which are, conveniently enough, invisible on Google Earth. Wonder why?

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    452
    Likes (Received)
    4907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Here there are many companies who import and even have factories here. The cost of infrastructure is supported by taxes which pay for it and has not as I know of set a higher tax on the goods from foreign owned companies. These companies often add a lot of value and appreciation from us. Of course when increasing taxes here the tendency has always been to tax American companies. The 3% tax here would be resisted as a tax extra because the companies that are digital internet ones fall in a category of internet business and we have not levied extra taxes besides sales tax and low corporate taxes so far.

    We think not taxing this allows the growth of this business and that seems to be a valid belief.
    Not entirely sure I understand your points, Spinit - but I think there are three of them (?):

    1) (Unlike France) we don't place extra taxes on foreign companies.

    So, first of all, France is taxing all internet companies (including French and US ones) the same for having a presence in their country. It's a level playing field for large internet companies, recognizing that the old "must have a physical office to be taxed" rule doesn't make sense in a digital world.

    Second the US, does, of course under the current regime jack up taxes as it wishes on foreign companies. Witness the other thread on tariffs.

    2) Internet companies (e.g. Apple) are already paying their way around the world?

    Not usually, as noted by multiple posters above.

    3) We think that having no or low taxes helps a business grow.

    Yep, that's often done in the early stages. Problem is the incentives to help $1 million industries grow into $1 billion industries start becoming counter-productive when there are near $1 trillion-valued companies using taxpayer funded resources and armies of lobbyists to increase profit margins. Personally, I'm a fan of many high tech companies - including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and even happy we have an Ebay, IBM, and Microsoft. However, time is past that taxpayers need to subsidize these companies profit margins (just as it is past for subsidizing, say, coal and oil companies). They need to pay their share for the resources (educated workers, their medical care, roads, bridges, airports, consumer protections, energy, etc.) they use.

    Might add that the notion of venture capital (and it's one I agree with) is that we fund a dozen promising startups (people, businesses, industries) in the hopes that one will become wildly successful, a few do OK, and recognize that while most might make valiant efforts, they will never really make it into the starting lineup.

    Then, the wildly successful ones are essentially taxed at high rates (by venture capitalists cashing out and other "investors" like taxpayer funded schools, infrastructure and R&D that gave them an opportunity to succeed) to allow the next round of investments.

    The wildly successful in life -- whether they be individuals or companies -- are expected to help fund a next round of investment. As in nature -- the seed crop for a next generation has to come from those given fertile opportunities for their own growth. A 3% tax (and as history has shown even much higher) has practically no effect on individual or corporate motivation to succeed, but it can provide a bit of investment for the future.

    Indeed, the next Larry Page and Sergei Brin (but in some other industry?) will probably start just like them -- blessed with a good education, opportunity, and a fertile business environment -- but no real expectation of becoming multi-billionaires. Could be we have to "plant" thousands of smart and motivated grad students at Stanford, and have a bit of good fortune to build a great team along the way, to get one Google (or Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or whatever the next immensely successful company becomes.).

  14. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    you are confusing the sale of internet access, which is paid for by consumers primarily, with the fact that the business the internet companies do online is basically untaxed and uncharged for. Yes, Google and Facebook USE the internet- but they dont pay regular monthly bills to do it, like we do.
    Sorry. Dead wrong.

    Despite the fact that they parasitize the rest of us like all Hell would not hold still for to not pay ENOUGH of the bills:

    Study: Google uses 21X more bandwidth than it pays for | ZDNet

    NINE YEARS AGO, already...

    OK.. it used to be my "Day job" and still pays the pension, so mayhap I keep one weary eye on it more than some, but really.. anyone can find this stuff... just .. ta da... "Google it!"

    Google STILL has some of the costliest infrastructure - bandwidth, router, server, FM site and power bills ever seen in the Universe. Amazon's ACS is another. Their spend DWARFS the economies of entire nations.

    That they then SELL those services doesn't mean they do not PAY the carriers, because they very seldom are permitted to also be (own, or otherwise control..) the "facilities based" carriers. The FM sites, yes. The "backbone" fiber, only "sometimes".

    Few players much smaller can do their own submarine or terrestrial cables (or launch satellites..) AT ALL. And oh, BTW, fiber - nor its routes and civil permits, let alone the routers ON it - doesn't build itself out for free, either. Nor the private satellites:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ons-bezos-says

    Not that it matters as to "confusing".

    The money leaves your pocket or that of your business. Those who get a payment FROM an advertising firm get an indirect share out of what YOU spent. "Customers" are whom pays, y'see. Not generous Leprechauns with pots of gold.

    Or will until the next election when everything anyone wants will become "free" by hooverment fiat, regardless.

    Wonder if I can get a new d**k that actually works out of Medicare for All?

    But y'know government.

    Bound to be an "implant", reversed 180 degrees.. and miss the proper landing site at that.


  15. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Sorry. Dead wrong.

    Google has some of the costliest infrastructure - bandwidth, router, server, FM site and power bills ever seen in the Universe. Amazon's ACS is another. Their spend DWARFS the economies of entire nations.

    That they then SELL those services doesn't mean they do not PAY the carriers, because they very seldom are permitted to also be (own, or otherwise control..) the "facilities based" carriers. The FM sites, yes. The fiber, only "sometimes".

    Few players much smaller can do their own submarine cables AT ALL. And oh, BTW, it doesn't lay itself for free, either.
    First- the net profit is what counts- so if you pay for some internet carriers, then deduct that from your taxes, and pay zero taxes, as Amazon does, you come out richer in the end.
    But you obviously havent been reading anything I link to- living the fact free life of 40 year old reality again.

    Google, for example owns all or a controlling part of close to 9% of the worlds capacity of underwater cables as of a year ago. More, now.
    Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are all buying them as well.

    Since you are the big undersea cable expert, I am sure you are familiar with this map- Which shows the 2 Pacific asia/USA cables Amazon now owns partially.
    And the 9 subsea cables Facebook owns portions of.
    And the four that Microsoft has invested in and controls.

    This is What Our 2019 Submarine Cable Map Shows Us About Content Provider Cables

    These four companies, which control most of the worlds internet capacity, are doing exactly what you are denying- buying the cables. And, yes, CONTROLLING them. None of those 4 companies are buying to be silent partners. You can bet they are getting free or reduced rates for usage.

    You talk about "small" players- well everybody EXCEPT the big 4 are smaller players, and non-big 4 ownership and control of infrastructure is shrinking yearly. Almost every new cable will be owned partially and controlled by the big 4.
    In the last couple of years, the big 4 have been responsible for 4/5 of all undersea cable construction. 80%.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...er-booms-again

    The world just keeps changing.

  16. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    406
    Likes (Received)
    1630

    Default

    Everyone pays for their bandwidth. The backbone providers and tier 1's have peering agreements that allow each other's traffic to transit their networks without fees. So to the extent that Google has become one of those tier 1's (if true), it seems logical that they would enter into the same kind of agreement that say Verizon and Century Link have.

    But if you want to park a server farm on the backbone, a DS3 is going to cost you more than a T1. If you own the backbone, then you would just be paying yourself...

    The GAFA tax singles out 4 big companies and treats them differently than all other companies. I'm no defender of big tech, but I prefer to see all companies treated the same.

    What the French are doing is going after these companies because they have engaged in legal tax avoidance schemes. Instead of singling out these companies they should work to change the laws and eliminate the tax havens. Go after Ireland for the back taxes Apple should have paid- maybe Ireland will change it's behavior.

  17. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    Everyone pays for their bandwidth. The backbone providers and tier 1's have peering agreements that allow each other's traffic to transit their networks without fees. So to the extent that Google has become one of those tier 1's (if true), it seems logical that they would enter into the same kind of agreement that say Verizon and Century Link have.

    But if you want to park a server farm on the backbone, a DS3 is going to cost you more than a T1. If you own the backbone, then you would just be paying yourself...

    The GAFA tax singles out 4 big companies and treats them differently than all other companies. I'm no defender of big tech, but I prefer to see all companies treated the same.

    What the French are doing is going after these companies because they have engaged in legal tax avoidance schemes. Instead of singling out these companies they should work to change the laws and eliminate the tax havens. Go after Ireland for the back taxes Apple should have paid- maybe Ireland will change it's behavior.
    France has been going after Ireland for the last ten years- and they just won the suit- as I linked to just above.
    Apple agrees to pay €500M to end 10-year French tax battle - 9to5Mac

    Of course, this only works if you have trade agreements, treaties, and an international network of countries that obey those treaties.
    Some countries want to back out of all such agreements- in whcih case, the only way to eliminate those tax havens would be militarily, which I dont think most people want.
    As Rodney King said- why cant we all get along?

  18. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Google, for example owns all or a controlling part of close to 9% of the worlds capacity of underwater cables as of a year ago. More, now.
    Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are all buying them as well.
    Well maybe there is hope for you yet?

    You admitted "BUYING".

    Hinting they are NOT "free". Someone is being PAID.

    That money ultimately comes out of the pocket of a consumer, somewhere.

    Not because he made a purchase off a pop-up advert. How often have any of us done that? Because he paid to be connected to the network that conveyed it, sale or no.



    T'was ever thus.

    C&W Marine was more reliably profitable at laying and maintaining the cables - largely of OTHERS, latter years - than C&W Plc was at earning money off the USE of them.

  19. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Well maybe there is hope for you yet?

    You admitted "BUYING". Hinting they are NOT "free".



    T'was ever thus.

    C&W Marine was more reliably profitable at laying and maintaining the cables - largely of OTHERS - than C&W Plc was at earning money off the USE of them.
    Cable and Wireless is now a small subsidiary of Liberty Latin America- they own things like cable tv networks in Puerto Rico, too.
    The entire corporation as an annual revenue of around $4 Billion US.

    The big 4, who are ravenously buying the undersea cables of the world, have an annual revenue, combined, of well over $300 Billion dollars.

    You really think that buying those piddly little cable companies is somehow going to impact the bottom line of the big 4?
    Or that they will then send themselves "bandwidth invoices"?

    They dont pay for their internet usage now. WE do.
    They wont pay for it after they own the majority of the worlds internet infrastructure, either- we will.

    Your remembered profits of the dim past are, literally, chicken feed today.

    We live in an era of giants, and they dont get bills in the mail, they send em.

    At least you have admitted you are wrong that the big 4 cannot own the infrastructure, if only by omission of continuing to argue that obviously obsolete point.

  20. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    They dont pay for their internet usage now. WE do.
    They wont pay for it after they own the majority of the worlds internet infrastructure, either- we will.
    Finally.

    That's what I've been trying to tell you, all along! Consumers PAY. One way or another.

    Thank you!


    OH.. BTW.. all that "net zero" billing monkey-motion in between?

    Finance.... and regulatory .. have a look at whom a Google or the like MUST deal with (ITU members)... are the parts that funded the stock options and the pension. We just bought the technology, and even then only when we couldn't rent or lease it cheaper.

    As do those "big players" of the present cycle. And they surely do pay for it as well as collect..



    BTW: A taste of counterpoint to FANG's dominance:

    JSTOR: Access Check

  21. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    406
    Likes (Received)
    1630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    France has been going after Ireland for the last ten years- and they just won the suit- as I linked to just above.
    Apple agrees to pay €500M to end 10-year French tax battle - 9to5Mac
    I read that piece. France didn't go after Ireland, they went after Apple. In the other case, the EU decided that the tax scheme Ireland created was illegal, and they ordered Ireland to collect the tax from Apple.

    I'm saying if you want Ireland to change their behavior, make Ireland pay the penalty- they created the tax haven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Of course, this only works if you have trade agreements, treaties, and an international network of countries that obey those treaties.
    Some countries want to back out of all such agreements- in whcih case, the only way to eliminate those tax havens would be militarily, which I dont think most people want.
    So you're saying that France would go to war with Ireland to make Apple pay taxes in Europe?

    Lol. I'm not sure France could even take Ireland. Couple of real military powerhouses there.

    On the other hand, Apple might be able to take France...


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
  •