4 ms·

My thoughts are that this is a moot point. They are being anti-competitive and are beginning to be shown to be in courts of law, at least in the <snark> free wo

My thoughts are that this is a moot point. They are being anti-competitive and are beginning to be shown to be in courts of law, at least in the <snark> free world </snark>[0][1]. In all seriousness the USA seems to have lost all appetite to pursue anti-trust cases, whereas it seemed rather keen on it in the early-mid 20th century. Regarding the tax avoidance, I notice Suckerberg and Thiel and their sub-Randian tax free fruitopian ideas. Perhaps we should let them avoid tax, and at the same time deny them the capital and property protecting powers that the state was designed for. No more copyright, patents, no access to courts at all. No criminal protection either, from hackers/DDOSers et al. At the same time if they want to use our state educated employees they can pay a special transfer fee to buy them of the state school system. There has developed a cult of 'I did this whole thing myself', which massively downplays the role society has in allowing the formation of a corporation and providing the protection of property and capital. None of which is free, and why should the regular Joe payroll tax payer pick up the tab? [0]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-braces-for-record-breaking-1bn-fine-from-eu https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac... [1]http://www.techradar.com/news/new-standards-for-the-indian-online-market-as-google-gets-sued http://www.techradar.com/news/new-standards-for-the-indian-o... edit: I feel like I should have expressly mentioned limited-liability. Imagine if the investors in a private equity outfit hat to pick up the tab of all of the start-ups that go bankrupt? That is libertarian

jstanley 9y ago
Just because tax-funded services play a role in somebody's success doesn't mean that person morally owes arbitrary amounts of money to the government. Taxes are proportional to earnings, but the amount of money you cost the government is not. Why should you start paying more just because you were successful? If you actually wanted to implement "Suckerburg" and Thiel's "fruitopian" ideas, you should charge them a reasonable price based on the services they use, rather than based on how much money they earn. I suspect they pay substantially more taxes than most of us do.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  >arbitrary amounts of money... No proportional amounts of money >Taxes are proportional to earnings, but the amount of money you cost the government is not You don't think Google places rather more demand on the government than me? For instance I go to court occasionally to collect debts from customers. These are single 10 minute sessions before a judge. Compare this to Oracle Vs Google. Or we have a fleet of 11 delivery vehicles using the highways that society created, Amazon has hundreds. We have 100 employees that the state brought up, kept healthy (Yeah I know this is different in the US), educated and delivered to us at 16 ready to work. Google has 74k employees, Amazon has 566k. Then there is regulation, I am not in a position to abuse the market, these guys are and should pay for the arbitration and oversight that this needs. > charge them a reasonable price based on the services they use Yes, a reasonable price, hundreds of millions of dollars every year in every territory where they operate.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Why do you believe the taxes should be proportional to what they earn rather than what they cost the government?
    - paulryanrogers 9y ago
      Not the OP but one reason to tax by earnings could be to capture unmeasured externalities, like fewer choices in the absence of competition. (Although that example would assume earnings strongly relates to marketshare.)
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      Because the profits a company makes are a good proxy for the amount they cost the government, because larger companies require much more state intervention. I think I covered that above already. Turning the question back on you, how would you measure the cost to the government? Per patent, per line of copyrighted material you are protecting? Per mile driven, per minute the regulator had to spend on them? Per employee they take on? Per police call perhaps? Per crime they were a victim of? Per minute the politicians had to spend on them? Per the amount of debt that the government is allowing them to run up, whilst offering limited liability? That sounds like a pretty expensive return to fill out?
isoskeles 9y ago
> At the same time if they want to use our state educated employees they can pay a special transfer fee to buy them of the state school system. You may not have known this, but those people aren't owned by the state. They can't be sold. Or are you advocating for something else...? Maybe you think it's better than libertarianism?
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  That is a complete straw man and you know it.
  - isoskeles 9y ago
    You should use your words in a better way if you'd like to convey why these companies should have to "buy" "employees" who were educated by the state. You should also explain how these companies are more special than others and why they in particular need to pay. You should also explain how they should pay in some way meaningfully different from the taxes we already pay. But mostly, I am curious about what you actually mean about buying students. I'm not being obtuse, I don't understand what you meant because I'm sure you're not really advocating what it sounds like.

jstanley 9y ago

Just because tax-funded services play a role in somebody's success doesn't mean that person morally owes arbitrary amounts of money to the government. Taxes are proportional to earnings, but the amount of money you cost the government is not. Why should you start paying more just because you were successful? If you actually wanted to implement "Suckerburg" and Thiel's "fruitopian" ideas, you should charge them a reasonable price based on the services they use, rather than based on how much money they earn. I suspect they pay substantially more taxes than most of us do.

jimnotgym 9y ago
>arbitrary amounts of money... No proportional amounts of money >Taxes are proportional to earnings, but the amount of money you cost the government is not You don't think Google places rather more demand on the government than me? For instance I go to court occasionally to collect debts from customers. These are single 10 minute sessions before a judge. Compare this to Oracle Vs Google. Or we have a fleet of 11 delivery vehicles using the highways that society created, Amazon has hundreds. We have 100 employees that the state brought up, kept healthy (Yeah I know this is different in the US), educated and delivered to us at 16 ready to work. Google has 74k employees, Amazon has 566k. Then there is regulation, I am not in a position to abuse the market, these guys are and should pay for the arbitration and oversight that this needs. > charge them a reasonable price based on the services they use Yes, a reasonable price, hundreds of millions of dollars every year in every territory where they operate.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Why do you believe the taxes should be proportional to what they earn rather than what they cost the government?
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    Not the OP but one reason to tax by earnings could be to capture unmeasured externalities, like fewer choices in the absence of competition. (Although that example would assume earnings strongly relates to marketshare.)
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    Because the profits a company makes are a good proxy for the amount they cost the government, because larger companies require much more state intervention. I think I covered that above already. Turning the question back on you, how would you measure the cost to the government? Per patent, per line of copyrighted material you are protecting? Per mile driven, per minute the regulator had to spend on them? Per employee they take on? Per police call perhaps? Per crime they were a victim of? Per minute the politicians had to spend on them? Per the amount of debt that the government is allowing them to run up, whilst offering limited liability? That sounds like a pretty expensive return to fill out?

isoskeles 9y ago

> At the same time if they want to use our state educated employees they can pay a special transfer fee to buy them of the state school system. You may not have known this, but those people aren't owned by the state. They can't be sold. Or are you advocating for something else...? Maybe you think it's better than libertarianism?

jimnotgym 9y ago
That is a complete straw man and you know it.
- isoskeles 9y ago
  You should use your words in a better way if you'd like to convey why these companies should have to "buy" "employees" who were educated by the state. You should also explain how these companies are more special than others and why they in particular need to pay. You should also explain how they should pay in some way meaningfully different from the taxes we already pay. But mostly, I am curious about what you actually mean about buying students. I'm not being obtuse, I don't understand what you meant because I'm sure you're not really advocating what it sounds like.