4 ms·

This will lead the way so they can start taxing BMW and Mercedes to revive buggy whip manufacturing. Truly visionary.

by fleitz 17y ago

aarongough 17y ago
Haha, very much along the lines of what I was thinking. Isn't the idea behind capitalism that good businesses succeed, while bad businesses fail? What happens when all of the bad businesses are propped up by government subsidies? ^sigh^ whatever happened to letting the market decide...
- jonny_noog 17y ago
  ^sigh^ whatever happened to letting the market decide... It was realised that it was not the most effective method to maintain profits for those established individuals and organisations that have the clout to influence government policy. Let's hope that one day this changes, but I'm not holding my breath.
- onewland 17y ago
  I don't think we ever let the market decide EVERYTHING. See: airlines, military contractors, banks (before this crisis as well). I'm not even sure we're in a period where this is more pervasive than usual. That said, I agree that in 99% of cases corporate welfare is a terrible idea.
- joubert 17y ago
  The tax is to be levied irrespective of the (major) search engine used.
  - aarongough 17y ago
    But the money is still being used to prop up a market that cannot support itself. If it was a vital service (like maybe a utility service) then I could understand. But we are talking about the music industry!
    - joubert 17y ago
      But why should search engines be able to escape paying taxes on their advertising revenues, while the music industry must pay taxes on their revenues?
      - aarongough 17y ago
        You keep saying the same thing again and again. It's still not correct. The companies that own the search engines are already paying tax on their advertising revenue. See other person's comment above.
        joubert 17y ago
        But they're not paying tax in France, where, one can argue the advertising revenue originates as and when the user clicks on the ad since it is only then that the good is considered delivered (very different from traditional advertising).
        aarongough 17y ago
        One could argue that. But advertising is a product. If I sell a product to a person in France from my Canada based company, I do not have to pay taxes on that revenue in France. Why should this case be any different.
        joubert 17y ago
        Depends on where the sale is made (and in this case it would be hard to argue the sale is being made in Ireland, no?), and how residency is determined. The origination of revenue concept, residency, etc. in tax law is continuously being tested, both by governments and by companies, in a tug of war. Consider this case of affiliate advertising (which, although different in specifics from the French case, has the same tone and a similar legal path): http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/24/california’s-proposed-“amazon-tax-–-bad-for-california/ http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/24/california’s-proposed-“ama... In particular, this bit: "Here’s how it would work: If you have a web-based business in California and collect revenue by showing out-of-state companies’ ads on your site, Bill AB178 will claim that both you and the businesses you advertise on your site have residence in California, and are therefore required to pay California sales tax. For example, say your Santa Monica-based web site shows banner ads for Amazon.com. With Bill AB178 in place, Amazon.com would be classified as a California-based business based on the fact that your business draws affiliate advertising sales revenue. Amazon would then be required to collect sales tax on all sales into California. The idea behind the bill is that California could force out-of-state retailers to collect and pay California sales taxes." You can also read more about it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=4...
  - ericd 17y ago
    He was talking about the "creative industries hurt by the digital revolution" being the ones propped up by this, not the poor search engines.
    - joubert 17y ago
      But isn't the dying industry paying taxes on their revenues while the poor search engines are not paying taxes on their advertising revenues?
joubert 17y ago
Did you read the article? What you're saying is analogous to saying our govt't taxing of telephone calls will lead to us reverting back sending smoke signals from Manhattan to DC, or using carrier pigeons.
- fleitz 17y ago
  I believe that the taxes on phone calls are to pay for the Spanish-American War and not to subsidize the smoke signal industry. If the taxes on phone calls were put into place and the revenues given to the smoke signal industry, then YES I emphatically say that the objective is to lead us back to smoke signals.
  - joubert 17y ago
    Who is the smoke signal industry in the French online advertising tax case?
    - fleitz 17y ago
      I believe it is supposed to be content "producers" but this seems to be conflated with content distributors. From the article: "This may explain why the French first lady's producer, Patrick Zelnik, was tasked with leading the commission, which came up with the proposals. One of these suggests taxing internet service providers to raise tens of millions of pounds for developing the online music business and other creative sectors. The funds would go towards financing schemes such as a government-subsidised digital subscription for 15 to 24-year-olds to download music cheaply to wean them off illegal piracy."
- aarongough 17y ago
  Methinks some sarcasm was embedded in the tone of the original comment here...
  - joubert 17y ago
    But I think his sarcasm is an extension of the snide tone in the article, while missing the major point (which the journalist actually made in the introduction before diving into the culture-maintainance mumbo jumbo) - i.e. one set of companies are paying taxes on their revenue, while another industry isn't.

This will lead the way so they can start taxing BMW and Mercedes to revive buggy whip manufacturing. Truly visionary.

by fleitz 17y ago

This will lead the way so they can start taxing BMW and Mercedes to revive buggy whip manufacturing. Truly visionary.

Haha, very much along the lines of what I was thinking. Isn't the idea behind capitalism that good businesses succeed, while bad businesses fail? What happens when all of the bad businesses are propped up by government subsidies? ^sigh^ whatever happened to letting the market decide...

jonny_noog 17y ago
^sigh^ whatever happened to letting the market decide... It was realised that it was not the most effective method to maintain profits for those established individuals and organisations that have the clout to influence government policy. Let's hope that one day this changes, but I'm not holding my breath.
onewland 17y ago
I don't think we ever let the market decide EVERYTHING. See: airlines, military contractors, banks (before this crisis as well). I'm not even sure we're in a period where this is more pervasive than usual. That said, I agree that in 99% of cases corporate welfare is a terrible idea.
joubert 17y ago
The tax is to be levied irrespective of the (major) search engine used.
- aarongough 17y ago
  But the money is still being used to prop up a market that cannot support itself. If it was a vital service (like maybe a utility service) then I could understand. But we are talking about the music industry!
  - joubert 17y ago
    But why should search engines be able to escape paying taxes on their advertising revenues, while the music industry must pay taxes on their revenues?
    - aarongough 17y ago
      You keep saying the same thing again and again. It's still not correct. The companies that own the search engines are already paying tax on their advertising revenue. See other person's comment above.
      - joubert 17y ago
        But they're not paying tax in France, where, one can argue the advertising revenue originates as and when the user clicks on the ad since it is only then that the good is considered delivered (very different from traditional advertising).
        aarongough 17y ago
        One could argue that. But advertising is a product. If I sell a product to a person in France from my Canada based company, I do not have to pay taxes on that revenue in France. Why should this case be any different.
        joubert 17y ago
        Depends on where the sale is made (and in this case it would be hard to argue the sale is being made in Ireland, no?), and how residency is determined. The origination of revenue concept, residency, etc. in tax law is continuously being tested, both by governments and by companies, in a tug of war. Consider this case of affiliate advertising (which, although different in specifics from the French case, has the same tone and a similar legal path): http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/24/california’s-proposed-“amazon-tax-–-bad-for-california/ http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/24/california’s-proposed-“ama... In particular, this bit: "Here’s how it would work: If you have a web-based business in California and collect revenue by showing out-of-state companies’ ads on your site, Bill AB178 will claim that both you and the businesses you advertise on your site have residence in California, and are therefore required to pay California sales tax. For example, say your Santa Monica-based web site shows banner ads for Amazon.com. With Bill AB178 in place, Amazon.com would be classified as a California-based business based on the fact that your business draws affiliate advertising sales revenue. Amazon would then be required to collect sales tax on all sales into California. The idea behind the bill is that California could force out-of-state retailers to collect and pay California sales taxes." You can also read more about it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=4...
- ericd 17y ago
  He was talking about the "creative industries hurt by the digital revolution" being the ones propped up by this, not the poor search engines.
  - joubert 17y ago
    But isn't the dying industry paying taxes on their revenues while the poor search engines are not paying taxes on their advertising revenues?

joubert 17y ago

Did you read the article? What you're saying is analogous to saying our govt't taxing of telephone calls will lead to us reverting back sending smoke signals from Manhattan to DC, or using carrier pigeons.

fleitz 17y ago
I believe that the taxes on phone calls are to pay for the Spanish-American War and not to subsidize the smoke signal industry. If the taxes on phone calls were put into place and the revenues given to the smoke signal industry, then YES I emphatically say that the objective is to lead us back to smoke signals.
- joubert 17y ago
  Who is the smoke signal industry in the French online advertising tax case?
  - fleitz 17y ago
    I believe it is supposed to be content "producers" but this seems to be conflated with content distributors. From the article: "This may explain why the French first lady's producer, Patrick Zelnik, was tasked with leading the commission, which came up with the proposals. One of these suggests taxing internet service providers to raise tens of millions of pounds for developing the online music business and other creative sectors. The funds would go towards financing schemes such as a government-subsidised digital subscription for 15 to 24-year-olds to download music cheaply to wean them off illegal piracy."
aarongough 17y ago
Methinks some sarcasm was embedded in the tone of the original comment here...
- joubert 17y ago
  But I think his sarcasm is an extension of the snide tone in the article, while missing the major point (which the journalist actually made in the introduction before diving into the culture-maintainance mumbo jumbo) - i.e. one set of companies are paying taxes on their revenue, while another industry isn't.