4 ms·

See this is what I don't like about these kind of tech companies. They act like they're special and deserve special treatment. They aren't and they don't. A co

See this is what I don't like about these kind of tech companies. They act like they're special and deserve special treatment. They aren't and they don't. A company is fully within their right to choose how it spends money but the taxation should work on an individual nation basis. Why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue generated in country B?

ucaetano 9y ago
Not sure I get your point. This is how accounting works, you need to allocate the actual costs of creating and operating a business. And this isn't any special for tech. Tech companies are not asking for special treatment, they are currently treated like any other company in accounting terms. Governments are trying to treat them in a special way. If you have a company that makes a chair in France for $20, ships it to Spain (let's day for free) and sells it in Spain for $0, how much profit did this company generate in each country? This is exactly the same accounting as the tech companies, but their services have a very high fixed cost and a null variable cost, while the chair maker is the opposite.
- downunderman 9y ago
  But it wasn't sold for $0 in Spain. Its not right to be able to write off revenue from expenses of another country. Taxes are a cost of business. Again I don't get why it seems reasonable that country A gains at the expense of country B's loss. Why would country B want your business when you contribute nothing to their country/ economy?
  - tylersmith 9y ago
    Why would people in country B care about what the State itself or the vocal majority wants? Business is primarily done through companies, not countries. If avoiding the "cost of business" that is taxes is possible without getting a gun to the face it's how all rational businesses would act.
    - downunderman 9y ago
      The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the same infrastructure the parasite gets for nothing. If anything the people of country B should care more.
      - tylersmith 9y ago
        There is an alternative where the "parasite" and the others both pay for infrastructure voluntarily instead of at the point of a gun. The dregs of society can just deal with it while valuable people live without being shaken down by State thugs.
        downunderman 9y ago
        I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        Go ahead and close your country for foreign companies then, that has worked out well in exactly 0 times in history. Your "parasite" analogy doesn't make any sense. Trade relationships add value to both sides, but if you wish your people to have a worst product for a higher price, go ahead and ban competition.
        downunderman 9y ago
        How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses. All these charity efforts have done is undermine the local clothes and shoes production and market making it impossible for people to build businesses and create jobs. If I open up a new fictitious nation to all trade and allow them all tax write off on investment in other countries then I don't get a prosperous nation. I get a basket case that cant compete with foreign existing industry, can't develop competitive local industry or employment, and likely stuck in debt because tax revenue would be so low.

ucaetano 9y ago

Not sure I get your point. This is how accounting works, you need to allocate the actual costs of creating and operating a business. And this isn't any special for tech. Tech companies are not asking for special treatment, they are currently treated like any other company in accounting terms. Governments are trying to treat them in a special way. If you have a company that makes a chair in France for $20, ships it to Spain (let's day for free) and sells it in Spain for $0, how much profit did this company generate in each country? This is exactly the same accounting as the tech companies, but their services have a very high fixed cost and a null variable cost, while the chair maker is the opposite.

downunderman 9y ago
But it wasn't sold for $0 in Spain. Its not right to be able to write off revenue from expenses of another country. Taxes are a cost of business. Again I don't get why it seems reasonable that country A gains at the expense of country B's loss. Why would country B want your business when you contribute nothing to their country/ economy?
- tylersmith 9y ago
  Why would people in country B care about what the State itself or the vocal majority wants? Business is primarily done through companies, not countries. If avoiding the "cost of business" that is taxes is possible without getting a gun to the face it's how all rational businesses would act.
  - downunderman 9y ago
    The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the same infrastructure the parasite gets for nothing. If anything the people of country B should care more.
    - tylersmith 9y ago
      There is an alternative where the "parasite" and the others both pay for infrastructure voluntarily instead of at the point of a gun. The dregs of society can just deal with it while valuable people live without being shaken down by State thugs.
      - downunderman 9y ago
        I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      Go ahead and close your country for foreign companies then, that has worked out well in exactly 0 times in history. Your "parasite" analogy doesn't make any sense. Trade relationships add value to both sides, but if you wish your people to have a worst product for a higher price, go ahead and ban competition.
      - downunderman 9y ago
        How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses. All these charity efforts have done is undermine the local clothes and shoes production and market making it impossible for people to build businesses and create jobs. If I open up a new fictitious nation to all trade and allow them all tax write off on investment in other countries then I don't get a prosperous nation. I get a basket case that cant compete with foreign existing industry, can't develop competitive local industry or employment, and likely stuck in debt because tax revenue would be so low.