5 ms·

They took the wrong approach. The simple answer was to tax the companies you want to pay, and then give the money to the people you want to give money to. Inste

They took the wrong approach. The simple answer was to tax the companies you want to pay, and then give the money to the people you want to give money to. Instead they put together this rube goldberg machine and facebook is noping out.

pasc1878 3y ago
Unfortunately in all countries (except one) Meta et all have no income on which to be taxed as the costs to support the operation in your country are oddly outweighed by the payment for using the name they have to make to the country where Head Office is.
- acover 3y ago
  Do you have to tax income? Can't you tax social media companies $2 per user per year that have more than 1 million members or by any other metric you like?
- martin8412 3y ago
  You just tax them on gross income if their UBO isn't in a country with a tax agreement.
  - pasc1878 3y ago
    But most countries DO have a tax agreement with USA or China which is where most of the multinationals are based.
- toast0 3y ago
  Tax on ad revenue based on location of user rather than income then. If you want to play nice with local companies, have it offset against income tax, so it's revenue neutral with respect to local broadcasters and billboards, but not for international companies that transfer price all their Canadian income elsewhere.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  The income generating event occurs where someone sees their ads. There's a simple experiment that would prove this: Prohibit Meta from displaying any adverts on any screens in Canada. When they complain about loosing money, say; OK you can show the ads, but we're taxing you on that money/incone you said you were loosing.
tetrep 3y ago
All the parties involved primarily make money with ads. Facebook is (in)famous for their privacy invading trackers. Why not leverage FB's creepy stalker tech to mandate revenue sharing for ads related to / shown near or around the news articles shared on FB? It shouldn't be any technically different than affiliate marketing, but instead of a product being purchased, it's ads being viewed, and it triggers whenever someone shares a URL to one of the covered news agencies.
gruez 3y ago
>The simple answer was to tax the companies you want to pay, and then give the money to the people you want to give money to. The problem is that they don't want to impose a general tax, and imposing a tax on social media companies only looks suspiciously like a shakedown, so they made this rube goldberg machine to launder it.

pasc1878 3y ago

Unfortunately in all countries (except one) Meta et all have no income on which to be taxed as the costs to support the operation in your country are oddly outweighed by the payment for using the name they have to make to the country where Head Office is.

acover 3y ago
Do you have to tax income? Can't you tax social media companies $2 per user per year that have more than 1 million members or by any other metric you like?
martin8412 3y ago
You just tax them on gross income if their UBO isn't in a country with a tax agreement.
- pasc1878 3y ago
  But most countries DO have a tax agreement with USA or China which is where most of the multinationals are based.
toast0 3y ago
Tax on ad revenue based on location of user rather than income then. If you want to play nice with local companies, have it offset against income tax, so it's revenue neutral with respect to local broadcasters and billboards, but not for international companies that transfer price all their Canadian income elsewhere.
pg_1234 3y ago
The income generating event occurs where someone sees their ads. There's a simple experiment that would prove this: Prohibit Meta from displaying any adverts on any screens in Canada. When they complain about loosing money, say; OK you can show the ads, but we're taxing you on that money/incone you said you were loosing.

tetrep 3y ago

All the parties involved primarily make money with ads. Facebook is (in)famous for their privacy invading trackers. Why not leverage FB's creepy stalker tech to mandate revenue sharing for ads related to / shown near or around the news articles shared on FB? It shouldn't be any technically different than affiliate marketing, but instead of a product being purchased, it's ads being viewed, and it triggers whenever someone shares a URL to one of the covered news agencies.

gruez 3y ago

>The simple answer was to tax the companies you want to pay, and then give the money to the people you want to give money to. The problem is that they don't want to impose a general tax, and imposing a tax on social media companies only looks suspiciously like a shakedown, so they made this rube goldberg machine to launder it.