the amount of idiocy sprout on this thread is amazing. the initial article was not good but the comments are worse.
First it's not a law, but a proposal by the equivalent of a RIAA lobbyist for changes in anti-piracy laws. The report was made at governement request but the writer is a longtime employes of the record labels. So far from being socialist, this is a capitalist wet dream.
The tax is a small part of the proposal and we already have an equivalent one on CDs and hard drives so that poor rich music companies can get back their losses due to piracy. More, it does not fund french culture but is paid (both the current tax and proposal) as a strict percentage of the royalties of the authors guilds. It so profit equally to french and foreign artists.
The most important part of the report is about the 3 strikes law (which did not work) and would be replaced by an automatic fine of 140€ per infraction. One of the campaign promises of the president was to drop hadopi law (anti piracy) but this proposal is overall worse.
I don't think you understand the issue here. Taxing everyone in order to fund the arts is fine, unless you are a philistine. But this isn't that. It's taxing selectively foreign goods that their people are buying. One consequence will to make those products slightly less competitive. That is protectionism of a sort.
To quote the original Reuters article:
Quote:
The proposed tax would mirror fees already paid by television users, TV and radio broadcasters and Internet service providers to fund art, cinema and music in France, but which Google, Apple and Amazon are now exempt from paying.
So, it is just the opposite of selectively taxing foreign goods. It is about ending an exemption. And it is not unique in any way. E.g. Germany has been asking computer and smartphone users to pay public TV fees for these devices for years (approx. $218 per annum), for the sole reason that public TV content was accessible through the Internet (wether you actually accessed it or not).
"Protectionism" per definition would require local goods to be made more competitive than local products. This is not the case here. EU law would not allow consumption taxes on only US, or non-French, tablets. It will either affect all devices of this type, or none of them.
This is the same kind of patriotic warbbling that comes out of some of the lesser-minded US politicans. It wouldn't be so desperately sad if it wasn't for the fact that French culture is so pervasive all over the world. They're not "Defending" French culture, they're stagnating it.
What evidence do you have that French culture is so pervasive around the world? Remembered, yes, but were talking about current culture, not just what was done in the past. And you can't use the French language spoken in former colonies, because that was forced upon them
Sure you are! Denying it doesn't change it. No one says you have to like what's produced. That what art is all about. If you don't understand that, and don't think government should have a hand in financing it, then you are a philistine. It becomes obvious, despite the denial.
I don't despise art, beauty, spirituality and intellect. I just don't believe that government should be funding any art. I believe that artists should be able to produce whatever they want, just not with my money.
So, it is just the opposite of selectively taxing foreign goods. It is about ending an exemption. And it is not unique in any way. E.g. Germany has been asking computer and smartphone users to pay public TV fees for these devices for years (approx. $218 per annum), for the sole reason that public TV content was accessible through the Internet (wether you actually accessed it or not).
"Protectionism" per definition would require local goods to be made more competitive than local products. This is not the case here. EU law would not allow consumption taxes on only US, or non-French, tablets. It will either affect all devices of this type, or none of them.
Perhaps you noticed that the taxes are on content, and the people accessing it? This is totally different. It's a tax on the physical products foreign companies are importing into the country. I wouldn't mind if all companies who have those products were taxed equally, including those very large French companies such as Thompson, which has been bailed out by the French government serval times over the years, and has never had to pay it back. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The problem for the Frence cultural protectionist agencies is that their own people prefer American entertainment to their own. If they must prevent this foreign invasion from taking over by taxing or regulating it, then the effort will fail. What they need is to allow their own people to compete. And if they aren't good enough, well, that's just too bad.
Well, if you allow competition, it must be on fair grounds. As someone pointed out, domestic market sizes are totally different between France and the US. Let’s say the cost of a season is the same in both countries. In the US, 30 or 40 channels will buy it, and that will even eventually pay it back completely. In France, maybe 3 or 4 channels at most, because our # of TV channel – well – is commensurate with the size of our country, that is a mere US state. So the US producer, having already refilled his pocket with a bucketful of clams, can easily sell its product abroad at a rebated price, something a French producer cannot afford if he wants to earn some bucks.
Thus, the smallest country, France, has to resort to taxes in order to compensate for the bias and restore fairness. The amount levied could then be used to fuel new domestic productions.
Do you think it is fair for American companies to compete with Chinese concurrents, given that the hourly wage over there is less than a third that of the US?
Surely the Fox News Channel has blurred the definition of socialism. Calling someone is a socialist, for them, is just a more polite way of saying "Commie Bastard". A country having social services does not make it socialist. Please turn off the TV and do some reading.
The prime minister of France is definitely a socialist thug, as he belongs to the socialist party.
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democrat Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Surely the Fox News Channel has blurred the definition of socialism. Calling someone is a socialist, for them, is just a more polite way of saying "Commie Bastard". A country having social services does not make it socialist. Please turn off the TV and do some reading.
You are aware that the Socialist party in France was elected to power?
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democratic Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Your definition of radical is not the same as mine, apparently. And why the thug comment? Because I consider all socialists to be enemies, and I view them to be a threat to all free people.
That post made no sense. You seem to have contradicted yourself in it.
I have? My point was this: If there is a country that has reduced taxes to zero or rates that are favorable in comparison to France or the US (just to name a few), and you are a wealthy person, you will likely choose the lower-tax country to protect your wealth.
I personally am not exceedingly wealthy, therefore I have less reason to change my citizenship to country "X" should such an option become available. However, as the wealthy flee countries that continue to enact huge taxes on them, they will create alternatives if there are none on land. I know of several seasteading projects that are seeking investors.
If the wealthy largely flee the high tax countries, who do you think will be stuck to pay the bills?
You are aware that the Socialist party in France was elected to power?
Yes. Although the current president is from the Socialist Party the legislature is fairly evenly divided between socialists and conservatives. France is a democracy much like the US.
Perhaps you noticed that the taxes are on content, and the people accessing it? This is totally different. It's a tax on the physical products foreign companies are importing into the country. I wouldn't mind if all companies who have those products were taxed equally, including those very large French companies such as Thompson, which has been bailed out by the French government serval times over the years, and has never had to pay it back. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Yeah, I did. The problem in Reuters' reporting is that they already judged it from the view point of US companies, while the original event (the proposal by Pierre Lescure, who is not a government politician, and nobody has granted him his wish so far) was not singling out foreign companies at all. All French media (e.g. Le Monde) was quoting him as suggesting this tax for tablets, smartphones and other "connected devices". The company "Apple" was not mentioned by him, he was talking about "manufacturers, distributers and importers" of such devices, which clearly includes local goods meeting this criteria.
P.S. (Edit): E.g. The Verge got it right, their headline is: "French proposal would tax smartphones and tablets to fund cultural projects" without any insinuations of protectionism.
Of course, if you're an American and not wholly ignorant of your own history, you should show a little gratitude, not to mention respect, to the French. Without their help, the outcome of that little skirmish often referred to here as the Revolutionary War might well have been entirely different.
Let us not forget WW I and WW II which should make America even, if not ahead, as far as to who should be considered indebted to who.
We're still not as bad as other countries. In fact, we're not protectionistic enough. If we retaliated every time a country enacted some law or regulation intended to keep our products out, or at a disadvantage, and it happens far more often than you know, perhaps they would stop doing it. But we don't.
Except that you do, just by a different means. Instead of the government, it's the collusion between media (marketing), distribution, and content creation companies (often all one in the same company under different names). Combine that with lobbying to keep legislation out which would prevent such collusion, and you have a lock on the means to get most cultural products out to the average person (not counting the small percentage of people who actively seek out more diverse content).
However, as the wealthy flee countries that continue to enact huge taxes on them, they will create alternatives if there are none on land. I know of several seasteading projects that are seeking investors.
Personally I prefer the US over any country I have visited. Why live somewhere you don't like just because the taxes are lower? You can't take it with you and life is too short. Countries with sophisticated social, economic policies, governments and educational systems tend to have higher rates of taxation. Oh well, they are still the most desirable places to live in my opinion.
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democratic Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Your definition of radical is not the same as mine, apparently. And why the thug comment? Because I consider all socialists to be enemies, and I view them to be a threat to all free people.
Yep. You call center left liberals radical and extreme right wing conservative fringe racists, normal. We're as different as night and day.
So? This is an Apple-centric website. What do we care about anyone else?
Would you prefer every headline be like this:
Apple bests Samsung in patent lawsuit. Samsung loses to Apple in patent lawsuit. Microsoft was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Adobe was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Dell was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Google was not involved in the patent lawsuit. HP was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Acer was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Nokia was not involved in the patent lawsuit. GlaxoSmithKline was not involved in the patent lawsuit. RIM was not involved in the patent lawsuit.
It's meaningless. We don't care about the other information. If we wanted to know about it, we'd go to websites about those companies.
Originally Posted by isaidso
Please explain to me why when someone posts a headline that says "Workers at Apple's overseas factories commit suicide due to working conditions", it's considered as inaccurate (serving purpose of FUD).
Because Apple has no overseas factories, first and foremost. That's probably the biggest issue with that headline.
Yet the headline above from AI is just fine with you? You think it's accurate, not hyperbolic.
Be… cause the iPad and iPhone… could… be subject to the new tax.
Are you really missing something somewhere, or are you just trolling?
You could complain if the headline said "Apple's iPads, iPhones could be THE ONLY PRODUCTS subject to new French 'culture tax'", but it doesn't. It says what it says because they're the only products that matter within the context of this website. Sheesh.
I'll see if I can make this clearer for you.
There is so much targeting and attacking of Apple in the media, and particularly in the story headlines. Apple, Apple, Just Apple.
But with this issue, that is not the case. This is not about Apple. And yet, the headline is slyly couched to give the initial impression that Apple is once again being singled out.
If you don't see that headline as Apple being singled out (or in other words "hit bait") then you're just lost.
Maybe you just can't think of a headline that more accurately describes the reality of this issue. But it is inaccurate, and misleading.
Yes. Although the current president is from the Socialist Party the legislature is fairly evenly divided between socialists and conservatives. France is a democracy much like the US.
In a way, the opposition between socialism and capitalism is now obsolete. With every western nation stooping under the weigh of debt, true power has passed from governments to banks. If the banks decide suddenly to cut off oxygen (loans), no political power whatsoever could avoid a country to choke. It’s not that I like that – I mourn the days where politicians were all but meek – but it’s an inescapable fact.
Yep. You call center left liberals radical and extreme right wing conservative fringe racists, normal. We're as different as night and day.
Yep, I guess we can agree that we're as different as night and day. More racists are found on the left by the way, so if there's one thing we can agree upon, it's that we're different.
Comments
the amount of idiocy sprout on this thread is amazing. the initial article was not good but the comments are worse.
First it's not a law, but a proposal by the equivalent of a RIAA lobbyist for changes in anti-piracy laws. The report was made at governement request but the writer is a longtime employes of the record labels. So far from being socialist, this is a capitalist wet dream.
The tax is a small part of the proposal and we already have an equivalent one on CDs and hard drives so that poor rich music companies can get back their losses due to piracy. More, it does not fund french culture but is paid (both the current tax and proposal) as a strict percentage of the royalties of the authors guilds. It so profit equally to french and foreign artists.
The most important part of the report is about the 3 strikes law (which did not work) and would be replaced by an automatic fine of 140€ per infraction. One of the campaign promises of the president was to drop hadopi law (anti piracy) but this proposal is overall worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't think you understand the issue here. Taxing everyone in order to fund the arts is fine, unless you are a philistine. But this isn't that. It's taxing selectively foreign goods that their people are buying. One consequence will to make those products slightly less competitive. That is protectionism of a sort.
To quote the original Reuters article:
Quote:
The proposed tax would mirror fees already paid by television users, TV and radio broadcasters and Internet service providers to fund art, cinema and music in France, but which Google, Apple and Amazon are now exempt from paying.
So, it is just the opposite of selectively taxing foreign goods. It is about ending an exemption. And it is not unique in any way. E.g. Germany has been asking computer and smartphone users to pay public TV fees for these devices for years (approx. $218 per annum), for the sole reason that public TV content was accessible through the Internet (wether you actually accessed it or not).
"Protectionism" per definition would require local goods to be made more competitive than local products. This is not the case here. EU law would not allow consumption taxes on only US, or non-French, tablets. It will either affect all devices of this type, or none of them.
What evidence do you have that French culture is so pervasive around the world? Remembered, yes, but were talking about current culture, not just what was done in the past. And you can't use the French language spoken in former colonies, because that was forced upon them
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Sure you are! Denying it doesn't change it. No one says you have to like what's produced. That what art is all about. If you don't understand that, and don't think government should have a hand in financing it, then you are a philistine. It becomes obvious, despite the denial.
According to wiki - In the fields of philosophy and æsthetics, the term philistinism describes the social attitude of anti-intellectualism that undervalues and despises art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect;
I don't despise art, beauty, spirituality and intellect. I just don't believe that government should be funding any art. I believe that artists should be able to produce whatever they want, just not with my money.
Perhaps you noticed that the taxes are on content, and the people accessing it? This is totally different. It's a tax on the physical products foreign companies are importing into the country. I wouldn't mind if all companies who have those products were taxed equally, including those very large French companies such as Thompson, which has been bailed out by the French government serval times over the years, and has never had to pay it back. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Well, if you allow competition, it must be on fair grounds. As someone pointed out, domestic market sizes are totally different between France and the US. Let’s say the cost of a season is the same in both countries. In the US, 30 or 40 channels will buy it, and that will even eventually pay it back completely. In France, maybe 3 or 4 channels at most, because our # of TV channel – well – is commensurate with the size of our country, that is a mere US state. So the US producer, having already refilled his pocket with a bucketful of clams, can easily sell its product abroad at a rebated price, something a French producer cannot afford if he wants to earn some bucks.
Thus, the smallest country, France, has to resort to taxes in order to compensate for the bias and restore fairness. The amount levied could then be used to fuel new domestic productions.
Do you think it is fair for American companies to compete with Chinese concurrents, given that the hourly wage over there is less than a third that of the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Surely the Fox News Channel has blurred the definition of socialism. Calling someone is a socialist, for them, is just a more polite way of saying "Commie Bastard". A country having social services does not make it socialist. Please turn off the TV and do some reading.
The prime minister of France is definitely a socialist thug, as he belongs to the socialist party.
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democrat Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Surely the Fox News Channel has blurred the definition of socialism. Calling someone is a socialist, for them, is just a more polite way of saying "Commie Bastard". A country having social services does not make it socialist. Please turn off the TV and do some reading.
You are aware that the Socialist party in France was elected to power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democratic Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Your definition of radical is not the same as mine, apparently. And why the thug comment? Because I consider all socialists to be enemies, and I view them to be a threat to all free people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That post made no sense. You seem to have contradicted yourself in it.
I have? My point was this: If there is a country that has reduced taxes to zero or rates that are favorable in comparison to France or the US (just to name a few), and you are a wealthy person, you will likely choose the lower-tax country to protect your wealth.
I personally am not exceedingly wealthy, therefore I have less reason to change my citizenship to country "X" should such an option become available. However, as the wealthy flee countries that continue to enact huge taxes on them, they will create alternatives if there are none on land. I know of several seasteading projects that are seeking investors.
If the wealthy largely flee the high tax countries, who do you think will be stuck to pay the bills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
You are aware that the Socialist party in France was elected to power?
Yes. Although the current president is from the Socialist Party the legislature is fairly evenly divided between socialists and conservatives. France is a democracy much like the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Perhaps you noticed that the taxes are on content, and the people accessing it? This is totally different. It's a tax on the physical products foreign companies are importing into the country. I wouldn't mind if all companies who have those products were taxed equally, including those very large French companies such as Thompson, which has been bailed out by the French government serval times over the years, and has never had to pay it back. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Yeah, I did. The problem in Reuters' reporting is that they already judged it from the view point of US companies, while the original event (the proposal by Pierre Lescure, who is not a government politician, and nobody has granted him his wish so far) was not singling out foreign companies at all. All French media (e.g. Le Monde) was quoting him as suggesting this tax for tablets, smartphones and other "connected devices". The company "Apple" was not mentioned by him, he was talking about "manufacturers, distributers and importers" of such devices, which clearly includes local goods meeting this criteria.
P.S. (Edit): E.g. The Verge got it right, their headline is: "French proposal would tax smartphones and tablets to fund cultural projects" without any insinuations of protectionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Of course, if you're an American and not wholly ignorant of your own history, you should show a little gratitude, not to mention respect, to the French. Without their help, the outcome of that little skirmish often referred to here as the Revolutionary War might well have been entirely different.
Let us not forget WW I and WW II which should make America even, if not ahead, as far as to who should be considered indebted to who.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We're still not as bad as other countries. In fact, we're not protectionistic enough. If we retaliated every time a country enacted some law or regulation intended to keep our products out, or at a disadvantage, and it happens far more often than you know, perhaps they would stop doing it. But we don't.
Except that you do, just by a different means. Instead of the government, it's the collusion between media (marketing), distribution, and content creation companies (often all one in the same company under different names). Combine that with lobbying to keep legislation out which would prevent such collusion, and you have a lock on the means to get most cultural products out to the average person (not counting the small percentage of people who actively seek out more diverse content).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
However, as the wealthy flee countries that continue to enact huge taxes on them, they will create alternatives if there are none on land. I know of several seasteading projects that are seeking investors.
Personally I prefer the US over any country I have visited. Why live somewhere you don't like just because the taxes are lower? You can't take it with you and life is too short. Countries with sophisticated social, economic policies, governments and educational systems tend to have higher rates of taxation. Oh well, they are still the most desirable places to live in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterben
France as a whole country is a joke. Billionaires are leaving France because of their higher tax policy on rich.
They better go back to making that Junk Wheat bread and baguette to protect their culture. They look good in kitchen making junk lol
If I lived in France and was flat-assed broke I'd still leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
In France, the Socialist Party is center, left, much like The US Democratic Party, the key term is "center", meaning not radical. Why the thug comment? Is that another Fox-ism?
Your definition of radical is not the same as mine, apparently. And why the thug comment? Because I consider all socialists to be enemies, and I view them to be a threat to all free people.
Yep. You call center left liberals radical and extreme right wing conservative fringe racists, normal. We're as different as night and day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by isaidso
But the issue is not Applecentric.
So? This is an Apple-centric website. What do we care about anyone else?
Would you prefer every headline be like this:
Apple bests Samsung in patent lawsuit. Samsung loses to Apple in patent lawsuit. Microsoft was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Adobe was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Dell was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Google was not involved in the patent lawsuit. HP was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Acer was not involved in the patent lawsuit. Nokia was not involved in the patent lawsuit. GlaxoSmithKline was not involved in the patent lawsuit. RIM was not involved in the patent lawsuit.
It's meaningless. We don't care about the other information. If we wanted to know about it, we'd go to websites about those companies.
Originally Posted by isaidso
Please explain to me why when someone posts a headline that says "Workers at Apple's overseas factories commit suicide due to working conditions", it's considered as inaccurate (serving purpose of FUD).
Because Apple has no overseas factories, first and foremost. That's probably the biggest issue with that headline.
Yet the headline above from AI is just fine with you? You think it's accurate, not hyperbolic.
Be… cause the iPad and iPhone… could… be subject to the new tax.
Are you really missing something somewhere, or are you just trolling?
You could complain if the headline said "Apple's iPads, iPhones could be THE ONLY PRODUCTS subject to new French 'culture tax'", but it doesn't. It says what it says because they're the only products that matter within the context of this website. Sheesh.
I'll see if I can make this clearer for you.
There is so much targeting and attacking of Apple in the media, and particularly in the story headlines. Apple, Apple, Just Apple.
But with this issue, that is not the case. This is not about Apple. And yet, the headline is slyly couched to give the initial impression that Apple is once again being singled out.
If you don't see that headline as Apple being singled out (or in other words "hit bait") then you're just lost.
Maybe you just can't think of a headline that more accurately describes the reality of this issue. But it is inaccurate, and misleading.
within the context of this website.
That's just weak and ridiculous.
In a way, the opposition between socialism and capitalism is now obsolete. With every western nation stooping under the weigh of debt, true power has passed from governments to banks. If the banks decide suddenly to cut off oxygen (loans), no political power whatsoever could avoid a country to choke. It’s not that I like that – I mourn the days where politicians were all but meek – but it’s an inescapable fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Yep. You call center left liberals radical and extreme right wing conservative fringe racists, normal. We're as different as night and day.
Yep, I guess we can agree that we're as different as night and day. More racists are found on the left by the way, so if there's one thing we can agree upon, it's that we're different.