4 ms·

I don’t think we should get to tell Apple what the % is, they’re a private company. However, i am ok with adjusting the amount we charge them for use of public

I don’t think we should get to tell Apple what the % is, they’re a private company. However, i am ok with adjusting the amount we charge them for use of public services - their reliance on the rule of law, that we’re not at war etc. etc. becomes more valuable in absolute terms to a company, the more payments it accepts within a jurisdiction. I think it’s totally fair to invoice for govt services based on the value of them to the company. To be clear this would not be like taxes on profits, i’m proposing an invoice against receipts.

mjuarez 6y ago
Isn’t that why sales taxes exist?
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  No, that’s paid by the consumer
kryptiskt 6y ago
There is no market force to provide for proper price discovery of those services. It's only fair to regulate it if Apple is unwilling to subject that business to competition.
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  Jurisdictions become participants in a market for access to their buyers. I dont agree with your condition of fairness but i woukd point out Apple has already established vehement unwillingness to compete on app stores anyway.
mbreese 6y ago
That would introduce a level of red-tape that would make any bureaucrat faint. Can you imagine billing any company for the cost of government services directly? Billing for the “rule-of-law”? That would be a completely unworkable system. Plus, if you did this, what would stop the company from increasing their percentage in order to pay for your new taxes? But what you’re describing is the logic behind a progressive income tax. The more money you make — the more important the system (rule of law, security, etc) becomes to you, so the more you should pay. At least, that’s the theory...
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> That would introduce a level of red-tape Jurisdiction X hereby decrees the tariffs for tax year 20/21 as: Receipts not more than $X = tariff of $Y Receip... ?

mjuarez 6y ago

Isn’t that why sales taxes exist?

CraigJPerry 6y ago
No, that’s paid by the consumer

kryptiskt 6y ago

There is no market force to provide for proper price discovery of those services. It's only fair to regulate it if Apple is unwilling to subject that business to competition.

CraigJPerry 6y ago
Jurisdictions become participants in a market for access to their buyers. I dont agree with your condition of fairness but i woukd point out Apple has already established vehement unwillingness to compete on app stores anyway.

mbreese 6y ago

That would introduce a level of red-tape that would make any bureaucrat faint. Can you imagine billing any company for the cost of government services directly? Billing for the “rule-of-law”? That would be a completely unworkable system. Plus, if you did this, what would stop the company from increasing their percentage in order to pay for your new taxes? But what you’re describing is the logic behind a progressive income tax. The more money you make — the more important the system (rule of law, security, etc) becomes to you, so the more you should pay. At least, that’s the theory...

CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> That would introduce a level of red-tape Jurisdiction X hereby decrees the tariffs for tax year 20/21 as: Receipts not more than $X = tariff of $Y Receip... ?