5 ms·

> All money made on the white market in any country is facilitated by that government, and taxes are paid on all profits to pay for the services which allowed t

by bko 7y ago

> All money made on the white market in any country is facilitated by that government, and taxes are paid on all profits to pay for the services which allowed the profit to be made. So any taxation is justified? > It's not arbitrary to expect businesses to pay for services they benefit from. Any digital company with revenue of more than €750m ($850m; £670m) - of which at least €25m is generated in France - would be subject to the levy. That sounds arbitrary.

oeoeo00 7y ago
Welcome to social rule making. All of it based upon what’s agreeable to the negotiators. Was just reading about term limits in the Constitution are set at a number the decision for which was negotiated by those invited to the party. Absolutely no argument given at the time addressed age or anything real. Just how many 4 year terms they felt was long enough. It’s the same with all cultural laws and norms.
i_am_proteus 7y ago
'Progressive' taxation (taxing higher individual incomes at higher rates) seemed arbitrary when it was introduced, too.
dclowd9901 7y ago
> So any taxation is justified? Yes. We have income tax in the US. It's the same thing. Google doesn't have to pay the tax if they're not operating in the country. It says right there that if their revenues are +$25m a year, they are subject to the tax. Conversely, the US can also levy taxes against French digital services, and maybe they should. My guess is the cost of not operating in France is much higher than the tax to do so, so that would be a silly maneuver. Tangentially, I find it hilariously hypocritical that the Trump administration is whining about unfair tariffs on digital services.
praptak 7y ago
> So any taxation is justified? A corp will raise prices to whatever level the market will bear. Why shouldn't a society do the same with taxes?
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Because it's short sighted to over tax your citizens from both sides?
  - bmelton 7y ago
    To this extent, countries compete on taxation and value-add for services. Perhaps country A charges more in taxes, but offers more education to its people, and a more educated workforce to hire from, while country B offers fewer of those amenities in exchange for lower taxes. Inter-country competition helps to keep them honest, and corporations get to choose the luxury of where they operate from and do business out of.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      That's a very thoughtful reply to my off the cuff response. Corporations and people do get to shop both taxes and benefits, but most individuals seem to treat them like a genetic condition. There's value in competition, because it's about the closest we've been able to get to evolution. The issue comes about when competition is lopsided - I can understand the complaint here from the French, but I don't care at all for their solution.
    - umeshunni 7y ago
      What's missing is the luxury for individuals to also choose their countries based on the same parameters.
- CountSessine 7y ago
  A corp will raise prices to whatever level the market will bear. Why shouldn't a society do the same with taxes? A corp exists in a competitive market and can rarely raise prices to "whatever level the market will bear". If I don't like their prices, I use their competitor. What competitor does my mandatory government and it's confiscatory tax agency have? What alternative do I have but to hand over half my work to them to be frittered away on foreign wars and grants for indolence and incompetence?
ineedasername 7y ago
>so any type of tax is justified? That's a straw man. You're leaping from "some type of tax is justified" which is quite a bit more reasonable than "any tax". And if you want to say it's a slippery slope or some such, well, ever single action if extrapolated to the extreme can be a viewed as such. If 3% is reasonable and then it's proposed to goes up and up, fight the increase, not the initial reasonable action. Of course this may be putting words in your mouth, so I won't attribute it to you, only that I preempt a logical counter to mine.
- sverige 7y ago
  All taxes are a slippery slope. Name one that has ever been repealed. Income tax in the U.S. started out as a modest 3% on only the highest incomes and look where that has ended up: full on wealth redistribution. We can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but not whether there's a slippery slope when it comes to implementing a new tax.
  - oblio 7y ago
    Tithe. And even if I couldn't name a tax that was repealed, many are way lower than in the past. Peasants would rebel because they'd be taxed to (literal!) death.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    > All taxes are a slippery slope. Name one that has ever been repealed. Income tax in the U.S. started out as a modest 3% on only the highest incomes and look where that has ended up: full on wealth redistribution. > We can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but not whether there's a slippery slope when it comes to implementing a new tax. Dude what? Wealth redistribution? Lots of countries have much higher taxes that actually redistribute that wealth. Don't call our system socialist, it isn't. Have you ever lived in socialism (I have)? It isn't even here in California!
  - corneliusphi1 7y ago
    In 1944 the highest US tax bracket was 94%
JAlexoid 7y ago
> That sounds arbitrary. Administrative burden limits are not arbitrary. They are used in many places all over the world.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  That does not make it not arbitrary, there is no logic in that statement.

by bko 7y ago

oeoeo00 7y ago

Welcome to social rule making. All of it based upon what’s agreeable to the negotiators. Was just reading about term limits in the Constitution are set at a number the decision for which was negotiated by those invited to the party. Absolutely no argument given at the time addressed age or anything real. Just how many 4 year terms they felt was long enough. It’s the same with all cultural laws and norms.

i_am_proteus 7y ago

'Progressive' taxation (taxing higher individual incomes at higher rates) seemed arbitrary when it was introduced, too.

dclowd9901 7y ago

> So any taxation is justified? Yes. We have income tax in the US. It's the same thing. Google doesn't have to pay the tax if they're not operating in the country. It says right there that if their revenues are +$25m a year, they are subject to the tax. Conversely, the US can also levy taxes against French digital services, and maybe they should. My guess is the cost of not operating in France is much higher than the tax to do so, so that would be a silly maneuver. Tangentially, I find it hilariously hypocritical that the Trump administration is whining about unfair tariffs on digital services.

praptak 7y ago

> So any taxation is justified? A corp will raise prices to whatever level the market will bear. Why shouldn't a society do the same with taxes?

vorpalhex 7y ago
Because it's short sighted to over tax your citizens from both sides?
- bmelton 7y ago
  To this extent, countries compete on taxation and value-add for services. Perhaps country A charges more in taxes, but offers more education to its people, and a more educated workforce to hire from, while country B offers fewer of those amenities in exchange for lower taxes. Inter-country competition helps to keep them honest, and corporations get to choose the luxury of where they operate from and do business out of.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    That's a very thoughtful reply to my off the cuff response. Corporations and people do get to shop both taxes and benefits, but most individuals seem to treat them like a genetic condition. There's value in competition, because it's about the closest we've been able to get to evolution. The issue comes about when competition is lopsided - I can understand the complaint here from the French, but I don't care at all for their solution.
  - umeshunni 7y ago
    What's missing is the luxury for individuals to also choose their countries based on the same parameters.
CountSessine 7y ago
A corp will raise prices to whatever level the market will bear. Why shouldn't a society do the same with taxes? A corp exists in a competitive market and can rarely raise prices to "whatever level the market will bear". If I don't like their prices, I use their competitor. What competitor does my mandatory government and it's confiscatory tax agency have? What alternative do I have but to hand over half my work to them to be frittered away on foreign wars and grants for indolence and incompetence?

ineedasername 7y ago

>so any type of tax is justified? That's a straw man. You're leaping from "some type of tax is justified" which is quite a bit more reasonable than "any tax". And if you want to say it's a slippery slope or some such, well, ever single action if extrapolated to the extreme can be a viewed as such. If 3% is reasonable and then it's proposed to goes up and up, fight the increase, not the initial reasonable action. Of course this may be putting words in your mouth, so I won't attribute it to you, only that I preempt a logical counter to mine.

sverige 7y ago
All taxes are a slippery slope. Name one that has ever been repealed. Income tax in the U.S. started out as a modest 3% on only the highest incomes and look where that has ended up: full on wealth redistribution. We can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but not whether there's a slippery slope when it comes to implementing a new tax.
- oblio 7y ago
  Tithe. And even if I couldn't name a tax that was repealed, many are way lower than in the past. Peasants would rebel because they'd be taxed to (literal!) death.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  > All taxes are a slippery slope. Name one that has ever been repealed. Income tax in the U.S. started out as a modest 3% on only the highest incomes and look where that has ended up: full on wealth redistribution. > We can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but not whether there's a slippery slope when it comes to implementing a new tax. Dude what? Wealth redistribution? Lots of countries have much higher taxes that actually redistribute that wealth. Don't call our system socialist, it isn't. Have you ever lived in socialism (I have)? It isn't even here in California!
- corneliusphi1 7y ago
  In 1944 the highest US tax bracket was 94%

JAlexoid 7y ago

> That sounds arbitrary. Administrative burden limits are not arbitrary. They are used in many places all over the world.

AdrianB1 7y ago
That does not make it not arbitrary, there is no logic in that statement.