5 ms·

I mean this is a tax problem first and foremost isn't it? The problem being that it's hard for countries to enforce regulations in a virtualized, globalized eco

by simias 8y ago

I mean this is a tax problem first and foremost isn't it? The problem being that it's hard for countries to enforce regulations in a virtualized, globalized economy. It's true that it's not just about tax, you also have issues regarding what is and isn't legal in a given country (nazi apology is illegal in France for instance, but good luck enforcing that on the web. Similarly the super harsh "no nudity" rule on american websites is often seen as abusive over here for instance). I mean you seem to agree on that point yourself so it seems that they're not completely wrong to try and fix that. >They’re just a bunch of jealous incompetent insufferable pompous politicians than don’t understand a thing about the private sector Talking about knee-jerk reactions. I strongly dislike this type of empty populist diatribe, that's how we give up on democracy and end up with incompetent fools at the government, just out of spite. Screaming "tous pourris" is not improving anything and is frankly insulting for the many elected officials who are genuinely trying to improve things. Regardless of what they did or didn't do there would be people like you who scream bloody outrage because they're obviously stupid people who understand nothing about nothing. Meanwhile you're not the one trying to balance the budget of a country within the EU. >let’s fix the tax heavens in Europe then And how do you propose we do that? Have Le Maire go to the various tax heavens (which in this particular instance would have to include Ireland) and tell them to tax more? How many bottles of Bordeaux would he have to bring to seal the deal? Having a uniform tax code across the EU would be awesome but it's not like we're anywhere close to something like that.

Shivetya 8y ago
having a uniform tax code would pretty much doom the small economies to not having opportunity to grown unless it was "granted to them" as a favor by the same union government. the ability of member states to set their own taxes is about the only protection they have handling down turns and getting new industry. their currency was given up and without the ability to print money they need other means to mitigate adverse changes to their economies. it is one reason Greece was trapped so long in their misery, bound up by EU laws and stuck with a currency they had no control over. In the US it works by forcing states to compete on regulation and taxes which benefits everyone. because onerous taxation on one group will certainly follow with others because once that line is crossed it becomes to easy to keep doing so. Indirect taxes are a politicians best friend because you have ready bogeymen and no apparent affect on the public though in reality they are paying the end result
- lambdadmitry 8y ago
  I'm not sure that blaming Greece problems on the EU instead of unsustainable social policies and populist and/or corrupt politicians is fair. After all, a populist with more knobs to their country's economy is still a populist and, if anything, will bury the country's economy even faster.
  - spacecity1971 8y ago
    Spoken like a true German. Read Varoufakis Adults in the Room, and then maybe you'll be less likely to parrot banking sector propaganda.
- simias 8y ago
  I agree that "uniform" wasn't the right word, I was thinking more about cooperating and managing taxes as a whole (in order to find a compromise that would benefit everybody). It doesn't mean that everybody would have the same taxes but at least there would be some level of coherency. >In the US it works by forcing states to compete on regulation and taxes which benefits everyone. Everyone except the environment at least, it's often the first regulation to go. This kind of competition gives an edge to rich people and big companies who can afford to relocate if they dislike the way they're taxed or regulated somewhere, meanwhile low-skilled workers and small companies can't generally move a thousand of km away on a whim. In Europe this is even worse because we have cultural and language barriers. Even for an educated worker moving from London to Berlin to Paris to Prague is not a simple thing at all. The only ones who benefit from this infighting are large companies and rich people who can more easily relocate their income in order to get the best deal possible. See the whole Amazon HQ2 thing for an example of that in the US, you end up with a huge company getting great benefits that no small player could ever dream of. How is that fair and how does that benefit everyone? How does tech giants moving to Ireland to pay less taxes benefit everyone? It benefits Ireland arguably, but overall the EU gets less money than we otherwise would. I mean just for the sake of the argument we could imagine that the EU as a whole would agree to tax these tech giants a certain amount, bigger than what Ireland makes them pay now. Then we give the Irish exactly the same amount they're currently receiving and we redistribute the rest within the EU. Wouldn't we be objectively better off in this scenario? Now of course that would be a weird arrangement but you see my point, the real winners here are Google and Facebook, not Ireland, Germany or Poland.
bsaul 8y ago
I’m pro europe, but let’s face it, if we can’t get any kind of cooperation between state members regarding taxes, then maybe it’s time to rethink the inside mechanicsm of the union ( which may include restart from scratch with fewer countries). This revenue tax won’t change anything. It’s just ransom, and i hate feeling like my representatives make me look like a lazy thief. I’d even prefer something like what china is doing : since google is a monopoly in europe, which makes it impossible for competitor to compete, let’s impose tarifs or prevent them from doing business in europe as long as they haven’t split, or a true local competitor has emerged. At least this would be very specific to one very particular case. Not the kind of gigantic tax on a whole economy.
- plandis 8y ago
  What does Google have a monopoly on? Do you not have access to iOS? Do you not have access to DuckDuckGo and Bing?
  - bsaul 8y ago
    http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/europe/2016 http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/eur...
    - SilasX 8y ago
      I don't think "monopoly" is best judged by "current market share", but by whether a) it's easy for users to switch, and b) whether having that market share is self-reinforcing in a way that prevents competitors from entering. The parent's point was that a) is not true for Google as a search engine. b) doesn't seem to be true either; while money and experience can make you provide better search results, you don't get an advantage just from a high current percentage of searches. In a trivial sense you can "SilasX has a monopoly on SilasX's labor" or "Joe Schmoe has a monopoly on hot dogs sold at Elm & Main St". That's not the monopoly anyone cares about. What matters is whether it's difficult to bring online the alternatives to employing my labor or buying a hot dog in that vicinity. In that respect, Google's monopoly on search is not the worrisome kind of thing we associate with monopolies.

by simias 8y ago

Shivetya 8y ago

having a uniform tax code would pretty much doom the small economies to not having opportunity to grown unless it was "granted to them" as a favor by the same union government. the ability of member states to set their own taxes is about the only protection they have handling down turns and getting new industry. their currency was given up and without the ability to print money they need other means to mitigate adverse changes to their economies. it is one reason Greece was trapped so long in their misery, bound up by EU laws and stuck with a currency they had no control over. In the US it works by forcing states to compete on regulation and taxes which benefits everyone. because onerous taxation on one group will certainly follow with others because once that line is crossed it becomes to easy to keep doing so. Indirect taxes are a politicians best friend because you have ready bogeymen and no apparent affect on the public though in reality they are paying the end result

lambdadmitry 8y ago
I'm not sure that blaming Greece problems on the EU instead of unsustainable social policies and populist and/or corrupt politicians is fair. After all, a populist with more knobs to their country's economy is still a populist and, if anything, will bury the country's economy even faster.
- spacecity1971 8y ago
  Spoken like a true German. Read Varoufakis Adults in the Room, and then maybe you'll be less likely to parrot banking sector propaganda.
simias 8y ago
I agree that "uniform" wasn't the right word, I was thinking more about cooperating and managing taxes as a whole (in order to find a compromise that would benefit everybody). It doesn't mean that everybody would have the same taxes but at least there would be some level of coherency. >In the US it works by forcing states to compete on regulation and taxes which benefits everyone. Everyone except the environment at least, it's often the first regulation to go. This kind of competition gives an edge to rich people and big companies who can afford to relocate if they dislike the way they're taxed or regulated somewhere, meanwhile low-skilled workers and small companies can't generally move a thousand of km away on a whim. In Europe this is even worse because we have cultural and language barriers. Even for an educated worker moving from London to Berlin to Paris to Prague is not a simple thing at all. The only ones who benefit from this infighting are large companies and rich people who can more easily relocate their income in order to get the best deal possible. See the whole Amazon HQ2 thing for an example of that in the US, you end up with a huge company getting great benefits that no small player could ever dream of. How is that fair and how does that benefit everyone? How does tech giants moving to Ireland to pay less taxes benefit everyone? It benefits Ireland arguably, but overall the EU gets less money than we otherwise would. I mean just for the sake of the argument we could imagine that the EU as a whole would agree to tax these tech giants a certain amount, bigger than what Ireland makes them pay now. Then we give the Irish exactly the same amount they're currently receiving and we redistribute the rest within the EU. Wouldn't we be objectively better off in this scenario? Now of course that would be a weird arrangement but you see my point, the real winners here are Google and Facebook, not Ireland, Germany or Poland.

bsaul 8y ago

I’m pro europe, but let’s face it, if we can’t get any kind of cooperation between state members regarding taxes, then maybe it’s time to rethink the inside mechanicsm of the union ( which may include restart from scratch with fewer countries). This revenue tax won’t change anything. It’s just ransom, and i hate feeling like my representatives make me look like a lazy thief. I’d even prefer something like what china is doing : since google is a monopoly in europe, which makes it impossible for competitor to compete, let’s impose tarifs or prevent them from doing business in europe as long as they haven’t split, or a true local competitor has emerged. At least this would be very specific to one very particular case. Not the kind of gigantic tax on a whole economy.

plandis 8y ago
What does Google have a monopoly on? Do you not have access to iOS? Do you not have access to DuckDuckGo and Bing?
- bsaul 8y ago
  http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/europe/2016 http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/eur...
  - SilasX 8y ago
    I don't think "monopoly" is best judged by "current market share", but by whether a) it's easy for users to switch, and b) whether having that market share is self-reinforcing in a way that prevents competitors from entering. The parent's point was that a) is not true for Google as a search engine. b) doesn't seem to be true either; while money and experience can make you provide better search results, you don't get an advantage just from a high current percentage of searches. In a trivial sense you can "SilasX has a monopoly on SilasX's labor" or "Joe Schmoe has a monopoly on hot dogs sold at Elm & Main St". That's not the monopoly anyone cares about. What matters is whether it's difficult to bring online the alternatives to employing my labor or buying a hot dog in that vicinity. In that respect, Google's monopoly on search is not the worrisome kind of thing we associate with monopolies.