France approves digital tax measures against Apple despite US pressure

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 186
    M KabirM Kabir Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    "The Greece population is effectively taken hostage by the EU and have to slave labour to earn the money the EU wants back."

    Wrong.It was the Greek politicians who took too much credit, lived lavishly, sent their population to retirement at 55 whereas the Germans changed retirement age from 63 to 67. There were lots of lies and corruption at play. I am not defending EU, I dont like it either. But a lot of the Greek problems were made by the Greek politicians, and the Greek people are paying the price. 
    edited July 14 anantksundaramentropysCarnage
  • Reply 62 of 186
    M KabirM Kabir Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    "I firmly believe the government can be run generously with a 10% income tax collection (and no sales tax). We just need to change our attitudes about tax and the responsibilities of the government." Run, and generously? So wrong. It won't probably cover free medical for every citizen in a deveopled country. Oh, wait! USA doen'st provide free health care for all. "Pay 10% flat tax" is normally an argument from the high to very high income groups - nothing wrong about you here. A non-married person earning 70K pays >45% in taxes, medicare, social insurances etc in Germany , sales taxes come on top of that. France should be not far from that. For that - medicare, education and many many others are free or close to free for all of the citizens. Its unaccepatable that big companies earning billions pay less than 10-15% through loopholes.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 63 of 186
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,450member
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    I agree with almost all you stated.
    The EU is forced upon its citizens (with no option to vote on it) by politicians aiming to get a very profitable second career at the EU parliament (effectively selling out the interests of their own country).
    The Greece population is effectively taken hostage by the EU and have to slave labour to earn the money the EU wants back.
    The EU army is the latest move to get the power to enforce draconian law (dictatorship) on its member states.
    We have to do everything possible to prevent this from happening ...
    macpluspluscat52seanj
  • Reply 64 of 186
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,450member
    iCave said:
    georgie01 said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    On one hand you may be correct, but on the other hand (one you were not speaking about...) taxes just in general are outrageously high and collecting these is just another failed attempt at governing. These taxes are a burden put on citizens not out of fair altruism by recouping money lost through ‘loopholes’ in tax laws, but rather out of a general attitude of turning toward increased taxes in an attempt to make up for inefficiency and greed.

    We’ve gotten so used to this that we’re barely phased by it (outside of temporary moaning and complaining) even though everyone knows this is just a money grab.

    I firmly believe the government can be run generously with a 10% income tax collection (and no sales tax). We just need to change our attitudes about tax and the responsibilities of the government.
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.

    Coming to this particular topic, it appears that even if the corporation tax is 5% and there is a legal loophole to pay 4% instead, companies still tend to try to save that 1%. Looking that way, this is a sane solution.

    There are no 'too high' or 'too low' taxes.  A society needs some revenue to cover its social expenses and this society has to look after itself, just as corporations look at their own profit motive. Taxation is a good way to implement this.
    It's only lip service. 
    Wait till you get seriously ill and find out that the incredible high taxes and social ‘premies’ you paid during 30 years of work evaporate instantly to zero because some asshole Arbo doctor forces you to quit your job (in the Netherlands your ‘state owned’ when you get ill) by requiring you to sign a human rights violating document - effectively approving mental treatment and survey - while ignoring all needs and suffering you have.
    Don't expect to get money from any other social institution afterwards, you can effectively drop dead, no one is even interested. The UWV (a Dutch social conglomerate with a very high rate of misuse scandals) requires medical examination at a specific location and decides in an arbitrary way who's to get money ...
    When it very very taxing to get there (when you have PTSD for example) your case is simply dropped and your left without any income.
    Social doesn't work, taxes are to be avoided at all cost to prevent a group of people to arbitrarily redistribute it.
    The alternative, insurances, with money that stays ‘in your pocket’ and isn't state owned is the solution. 
    cat52
  • Reply 65 of 186
    knowitall said:
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    The EU is forced upon its citizens (with no option to vote on it) by politicians aiming to get a very profitable second career at the EU parliament (effectively selling out the interests of their own country).
    Are you from a country within the EU? In that case you missed an election only two months ago: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/elections
    edited July 14 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 66 of 186
    MrDavidFTurnerMrDavidFTurner Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    This seems like a good tax measure and other countries should consider it. Why??

    The problem is that the big five tech firms and other multinational play tax and accounting games at a global level to get around playing there fair share of local taxes.

    In Australia most of the big tech firms pay virtual no tax despite making billions of dollars in our country. Not because they aren’t profitable but because they just move the money around to make it look like they make no money.... rubbish.

    This is unfair to local businesses that don’t have the ability / scale of business to do this and thus pay a tax rate closer to 30% in Australia vs the virtually nothing that these companies pay.

    The second problem with this is that these companies are generating money in other nations while providing little back. These companies use our airports our roads our infrastructure yet pay virtually nothing to help keep it going despite using it.. just take take take.

    This helps funnel billions of dollars back to a few rich Americans in Silicon Valley. I get why you would be pro this happening if you’re American, cause it is good for the US. For the rest of the world it’s not great and nations are looking for a way to fix this. 

    It’s a difficult problem for a country to solve as a country can only make tax laws over there own area. Trying to get a global tax agreement between nations to stop this is extremely difficult so good on France for saying enough is enough.... you won’t pay your fair share, fine we will start going after your revenue. I hope many more do


    GeorgeBMacgatorguy
  • Reply 67 of 186
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    Huh?   You don't pay sales tax?   Do you live in a cave somewhere?
  • Reply 68 of 186
    M KabirM Kabir Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    knowitall said:

    It's only lip service. 
    Wait till you get seriously ill and find out that the incredible high taxes and social ‘premies’ you paid during 30 years of work evaporate instantly to zero because some asshole Arbo doctor forces you to quit your job 
    I won't generalize. I am sure you are talking about a valid problem in the Netherlands someone needs to take care of.
    But fact is, in most North EU lands one gets very good medical care, even one doesn't have much in pocket. I know personally a Asian student who during his masters got fully paid for a very difficult heart sergery and 4-5 months hospital stay. At that time he hardly paid a thousand EUR total in the system. You can imagine how much the total cost was. He is now completely OK, has paid enough last 15-20 years in the social system, and I dont think he will ever regret paying medical insurance or taxes. And that one gets through the University degree without much debt in also a plus here. Now when everybody is paying for the system, the BIG Techs must also. Pushing money to the Caymen Isands, Ireland or Malta shouldn't allow them to avoid taxes. 
    edited July 14 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 69 of 186
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    crowley said:
    dougd said:
    Awww Apple has to pay some tax boo hoo
    “Some”? 3% of revenues for a company with a 20% pre-tax profit margin is a 15% tax rate. For a company with 3% margin, it’s a 100% tax rate

    You like spending other people’s money, eh?
    Sorry, but you are mixing up national economy with international. Those are two totally different things. Company revenue, -profits, and -taxes are all part of one country’s economy system, while sales are taking place inside another country’s economy system. They definitely do not connect in the same way as if they were taking place in the same country/state. Which is also why these French taxes won’t necessarily affect consumer prices in France any more than in all other countries.

    To calculate the profit you need to deduct the costs connected to only the sales for that particular foreign country – which is really tough. But for digital services that would basically be the cost of sales plus some small extra data warehouse costs, which amounts to nearly nothing in the cases above.
    Your post makes no sense at all, I am afraid. Just no sense, at multiple levels. 
    It's a little confusingly worded, but in there is the heart of the problem, profit doesn't really mean anything on a national level when you're talking about multi-national companies, they have too many avenues to obfuscate that, especially in the EU because of its free movement rules.  That's exactly why throwing a couple of extra percentage points on corporation tax in France wouldn't be effective, because Apple books the majority of its corporate profits outside of France.

    It's a structural problem in the EU (not wholly dissimilar from cross-state business in the USA) that is a long way from being solved, but this French solution is an interesting prospect.
      I think the problem being addressed here is cross border digital services:  Where a company with headquarters, data centers and its tax base residing in one country but which reaps ts revenue and profit from digital services in another country.

    It's a growing problem that many have said needs to be addressed -- unless you're a TeaParty member or part of Grover Norquist's cult, in which case ALL taxes for any reason and by any means are evil because, according to the ideology: "the evil government is stealing your money for its own nefarious purposes".

    And yes,  I agree that we here in the U.S. will / are facing the same problem here in cross state services.   It's akin to a digital company setting up services in a low tax state but then providing its services to higher tax states without having to pay taxes.  The only justification for that lies in anti-tax ideology.
    crowley
  • Reply 70 of 186
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,194member
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    You are mixing different things up.

    Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.

    Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).

    There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.

    There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?

    Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.

    Ukraine?

    Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.

    It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.

    And for something weird, defence and EU related:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/14/jet-powered-flyboard-soars-over-paris-for-bastille-day-parade

    edited July 14 GeorgeBMacsingularityCarnage
  • Reply 71 of 186
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    This seems like a good tax measure and other countries should consider it. Why??

    The problem is that the big five tech firms and other multinational play tax and accounting games at a global level to get around playing there fair share of local taxes.

    In Australia most of the big tech firms pay virtual no tax despite making billions of dollars in our country. Not because they aren’t profitable but because they just move the money around to make it look like they make no money.... rubbish.

    This is unfair to local businesses that don’t have the ability / scale of business to do this and thus pay a tax rate closer to 30% in Australia vs the virtually nothing that these companies pay.

    The second problem with this is that these companies are generating money in other nations while providing little back. These companies use our airports our roads our infrastructure yet pay virtually nothing to help keep it going despite using it.. just take take take.

    This helps funnel billions of dollars back to a few rich Americans in Silicon Valley. I get why you would be pro this happening if you’re American, cause it is good for the US. For the rest of the world it’s not great and nations are looking for a way to fix this. 

    It’s a difficult problem for a country to solve as a country can only make tax laws over there own area. Trying to get a global tax agreement between nations to stop this is extremely difficult so good on France for saying enough is enough.... you won’t pay your fair share, fine we will start going after your revenue. I hope many more do

    All Apple sales are taxed in Europe with VAT. As for company profits, since Apple is a US corporation it is US where that corporation tax is due. What would you feel if EU begins taxing Australian corporations just because they export goods and services to EU?

    Local subsidiaries of Apple are already paying their corporation tax in the countries where they are established. This is not those profits EU is trying to hunt. EU is in the pursuit of root Apple’s profits.
    edited July 14 cat52
  • Reply 72 of 186
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    avon b7 said:
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    You are mixing different things up.

    Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.

    Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).

    There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.

    There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?

    Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.

    Ukraine?

    Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.

    It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.

    What about Gibraltar?  B) 
    edited July 14
  • Reply 73 of 186
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    avon b7 said:
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    You are mixing different things up.

    Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.

    ...

    Ukraine?

    Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.

    It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.

    First, Avon said Europe, not EU.  Yugoslavia is Europe.

    Second, the EU couldn’t defeat Russia so joining the EU doesn’t do much for the security of the Ukraine.  Joining NATO would but only because of the US.

    Each EU “battle group” is 1500 personnel...ie battalion sized.  There’s two available at any given time to deploy.  There are 18 total.

    There is the Euro corps in Strasbourg...a cadre force of 1000 intended to be filled out in time of war by the French and Germans...to brigade strength to which other brigades may be attached...or not.

    There are two other EU corps:

    The German/Dutch corps...nominally 30,000 troops but current has 0 units assigned and just a HQ.  

    The Multinational corps located in Poland.  It is essentially the Polish 12th infantry division with some other stuff added to it.

    These units are also part of NATO.  There are 4 additional European NATO Battlegroups deployed in the Baltic’s.  Facing down the modernized Russian 1st Guards Tank army. 50,000 troops, 800 tanks, etc.

    Poland has more operational combat power than Germany.  Mostly because it understands.  Maybe 30% of Germany’s tanks are operational.

    The US has 15 heavy armored brigades...of which 5 are fully modernized.  4700 troops, 90 MBT, 150 IFVs.  Takes two months or 10 days to get to Europe.

    Airpower is fortunately faster to deploy.

    Nope.  The US has been paying for the security of Europe since WWII.  Partly for our own advantage but mostly to the benefit of the EU.  If they had to carry their own weight many of the social programs would be vastly smaller.
    cat52
  • Reply 74 of 186
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,378member
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    Huh?   You don't pay sales tax?   Do you live in a cave somewhere?
    Groan... for the THIRD time now...

    Read the friggin’ thread, man. 
    cat52
  • Reply 75 of 186
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,378member
    Marvin said:
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    It’s just another sales tax.  See my comments above.
    It seems to differ from sales tax in the sense that it's not charged to the consumer during business operation but is charged at the end of year like income tax. Companies could of course raise prices in response but they can raise prices at any time just as they can in an attempt to avoid all tax but raising prices might allow competitors to undercut them and reduce their sales. While a 3% revenue tax could be damaging to a business, it gets offset against their corporate income tax, similar to how repatriation tax works:

    https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/03/tnf-france-draft-proposal-for-digital-services-tax.html
    https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/French_Government_submits_draft_bill_on_digital_services_tax_to_Council_of_Ministers/$FILE/2019G_000737-19Gbl_Indirect_France - Draft bill on digital services tax.pdf

    If companies pay the expected amount of income tax, they won't notice a difference. It's a measure to prevent companies avoiding paying their corporate income tax. Companies are obviously irked by it because there are no loopholes to exploit here.
    It’s more complicated than that, Marvin. Taxing revenue opens up a new can of worms. As I mentioned using an example before, it discriminates against different kinds of businesses that have inherently different income producing abilities: it is a 15% income tax rate on 20%-margin businesses (e.g., Apple), but a 100% tax rate on a 3%-margin business (e.g., digital retailing). It would be a ridiculously high tax rate on money-losing large businesses such as Uber and AirBNB. It would also discriminate massively against early-stage businesses that are making little or no money — after all, it does not take that much to get to 28M euros in revenues. 

    This is will be litigated. There will be retaliation. Bottom line, it’ll create a completely new can of worms vis-a-vis international trade and international business. They will have to withdraw it, but I predict it won’t become law. 
    cat52
  • Reply 76 of 186
    Why would France even care about what Lighthizer said about "fairness" etc? The Trump administration doesn't act based on facts. It's all about Trump's whims and personal preferences, which are almost always uninformed and uneducated. 
    GeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 77 of 186
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,017member
    Marvin said:
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    It’s just another sales tax.  See my comments above.
    It seems to differ from sales tax in the sense that it's not charged to the consumer during business operation but is charged at the end of year like income tax. Companies could of course raise prices in response but they can raise prices at any time just as they can in an attempt to avoid all tax but raising prices might allow competitors to undercut them and reduce their sales. While a 3% revenue tax could be damaging to a business, it gets offset against their corporate income tax, similar to how repatriation tax works:

    https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/03/tnf-france-draft-proposal-for-digital-services-tax.html
    https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/French_Government_submits_draft_bill_on_digital_services_tax_to_Council_of_Ministers/$FILE/2019G_000737-19Gbl_Indirect_France - Draft bill on digital services tax.pdf

    If companies pay the expected amount of income tax, they won't notice a difference. It's a measure to prevent companies avoiding paying their corporate income tax. Companies are obviously irked by it because there are no loopholes to exploit here.
    It’s more complicated than that, Marvin. Taxing revenue opens up a new can of worms. As I mentioned using an example before, it discriminates against different kinds of businesses that have inherently different income producing abilities: it is a 15% income tax rate on 20%-margin businesses (e.g., Apple), but a 100% tax rate on a 3%-margin business (e.g., digital retailing). It would be a ridiculously high tax rate on money-losing large businesses such as Uber and AirBNB. It would also discriminate massively against early-stage businesses that are making little or no money — after all, it does not take that much to get to 28M euros in revenues. 

    This is will be litigated. There will be retaliation. Bottom line, it’ll create a completely new can of worms vis-a-vis international trade and international business. They will have to withdraw it, but I predict it won’t become law. 
    These are number shenanigans.  This 3% revenue tax has fundamentally the same effect as an increase of 3% on the sales tax, which France already has.  You wouldn't care if France raised its sales tax rate, so why care about this?  In addition, you maintain that all taxes are born by the customers, so the business you name will just raise prices by whatever amount is required to make up - why are you concerned about the prices consumers pay in France?  Or in the case of Facebook and Google, why are you concerned about the prices advertisers pay?

    Frankly, Uber, AirBnB and other low margin disruptors haven't exactly acted in a way that casts a bright light on their business models, and have invited a reckoning.  And taxation that discriminates against large businesses will create a climate that favours small business, so hurrah for that.

    You're also being disingenuous about early stage business that earn more that 28 million euros, since the change also requires them to earn more than 750 million euros globally.  That's not an early stage business.
  • Reply 78 of 186
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,194member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    iCave said:
    I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
    Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
    Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU. 

    As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!

    That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.

    I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7
    You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe.
    When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront.
    As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted.
    Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.

    The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.

    You are mixing different things up.

    Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.

    ...

    Ukraine?

    Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.

    It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.

    First, Avon said Europe, not EU.  Yugoslavia is Europe.

    Second, the EU couldn’t defeat Russia so joining the EU doesn’t do much for the security of the Ukraine.  Joining NATO would but only because of the US.

    Each EU “battle group” is 1500 personnel...ie battalion sized.  There’s two available at any given time to deploy.  There are 18 total.

    There is the Euro corps in Strasbourg...a cadre force of 1000 intended to be filled out in time of war by the French and Germans...to brigade strength to which other brigades may be attached...or not.

    There are two other EU corps:

    The German/Dutch corps...nominally 30,000 troops but current has 0 units assigned and just a HQ.  

    The Multinational corps located in Poland.  It is essentially the Polish 12th infantry division with some other stuff added to it.

    These units are also part of NATO.  There are 4 additional European NATO Battlegroups deployed in the Baltic’s.  Facing down the modernized Russian 1st Guards Tank army. 50,000 troops, 800 tanks, etc.

    Poland has more operational combat power than Germany.  Mostly because it understands.  Maybe 30% of Germany’s tanks are operational.

    The US has 15 heavy armored brigades...of which 5 are fully modernized.  4700 troops, 90 MBT, 150 IFVs.  Takes two months or 10 days to get to Europe.

    Airpower is fortunately faster to deploy.

    Nope.  The US has been paying for the security of Europe since WWII.  Partly for our own advantage but mostly to the benefit of the EU.  If they had to carry their own weight many of the social programs would be vastly smaller.
    Did you read the post I was replying to?

    Here it is (my bold):

    "...ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe."

    Unless otherwise stated in my post, EU and Europe are interchangeable. That should be crystal clear to a person who lives in a place called "North America" and which provides for the same contextualisations.

    Europe means EU!

    Now, the 'otherwise stated' was duly and clearly pointed out with reference to Yugoslavia.

    Surprising you managed to fudge things up.

    You seem trapped in an old school thinking of 'tanks and battalions'. The world has moved on. The Russians will not invade Europe (let me clarify that for you: EU). Even if it had NO defence capacity!

    Why? Because strategically the U.S would not allow it. It would be to much to lose so the whole thing becomes moot. That is the reality. 

    However, Europe (yes, EU again) is planning for a unified defence platform but for reasons of strategic goals too. Just like the U.S (and Russia and China). It will happen. The last relevant EU meeting on this was last month (.pdf https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39786/st10048-en19.pdf)

    Ukraine is strategic to the EU as the EU is to Ukraine. 

    A Ukraine falling under the umbrella of the EU would automatically provide it with protection from Russia. No military hardware required.

    Russia will huff and puff just like Trump huffs and puffs but the EU will chart its own military course but in line with its own objectives, not those who try to impose their own requirements from the outside.
    edited July 14 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 79 of 186
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,378member
    crowley said:
    Marvin said:
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    It’s just another sales tax.  See my comments above.
    It seems to differ from sales tax in the sense that it's not charged to the consumer during business operation but is charged at the end of year like income tax. Companies could of course raise prices in response but they can raise prices at any time just as they can in an attempt to avoid all tax but raising prices might allow competitors to undercut them and reduce their sales. While a 3% revenue tax could be damaging to a business, it gets offset against their corporate income tax, similar to how repatriation tax works:

    https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/03/tnf-france-draft-proposal-for-digital-services-tax.html
    https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/French_Government_submits_draft_bill_on_digital_services_tax_to_Council_of_Ministers/$FILE/2019G_000737-19Gbl_Indirect_France - Draft bill on digital services tax.pdf

    If companies pay the expected amount of income tax, they won't notice a difference. It's a measure to prevent companies avoiding paying their corporate income tax. Companies are obviously irked by it because there are no loopholes to exploit here.
    It’s more complicated than that, Marvin. Taxing revenue opens up a new can of worms. As I mentioned using an example before, it discriminates against different kinds of businesses that have inherently different income producing abilities: it is a 15% income tax rate on 20%-margin businesses (e.g., Apple), but a 100% tax rate on a 3%-margin business (e.g., digital retailing). It would be a ridiculously high tax rate on money-losing large businesses such as Uber and AirBNB. It would also discriminate massively against early-stage businesses that are making little or no money — after all, it does not take that much to get to 28M euros in revenues. 

    This is will be litigated. There will be retaliation. Bottom line, it’ll create a completely new can of worms vis-a-vis international trade and international business. They will have to withdraw it, but I predict it won’t become law. 
    These are number shenanigans.  This 3% revenue tax has fundamentally the same effect as an increase of 3% on the sales tax, which France already has.  You wouldn't care if France raised its sales tax rate, so why care about this?  In addition, you maintain that all taxes are born by the customers, so the business you name will just raise prices by whatever amount is required to make up - why are you concerned about the prices consumers pay in France?  Or in the case of Facebook and Google, why are you concerned about the prices advertisers pay?

    Frankly, Uber, AirBnB and other low margin disruptors haven't exactly acted in a way that casts a bright light on their business models, and have invited a reckoning.  And taxation that discriminates against large businesses will create a climate that favours small business, so hurrah for that.

    You're also being disingenuous about early stage business that earn more that 28 million euros, since the change also requires them to earn more than 750 million euros globally.  That's not an early stage business.
    If basic arithmetic = ‘number shenanigans’, well..... ‘Nuff said. 
    cat52
  • Reply 80 of 186
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    avon b7 said:
    roake said:
    pjs_socal said:
    I am surprised that it took EU countries this long to enact these kinds of taxes. It’s common knowledge that Apple (with help from Ireland) took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws to reduce their tax burden. Of course, Apple has done nothing illegal, but it’s completely within each country’s rights to change tax laws to close those loopholes.
    So imagine if every UN country charged Apple an additional 3% on gross revenue.
    Where would the problem be? It's a decision each sovereign state must weigh up. And in this case it isn't 'Apple', it's companies that go above a specific limit.
    Taxing revenues is unheard of. And stupid. Only pre-tax profits are typically taxed. 

    If a company like Walmart or GM were taxed at 3% of revenues, they’d have no profits left. This ill-advised EU move opens up a completely new front in a likely serious trade war. 

    I predict they’ll have to back off. 
    Huh?   You don't pay sales tax?   Do you live in a cave somewhere?
    Groan... for the THIRD time now...

    Read the friggin’ thread, man. 
      Idid....   I'm asking where's that cave you live in where you don't need to pay sales tax?
Sign In or Register to comment.