4 ms·

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 understa

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...

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...