Oh, those crazy Frenchies: Facebook faces family photo tax in France Facebook should pay the French government for hosting the holiday photos and status updates of the French people, a new report commissioned by the French government has suggested. The new 200-page report* on taxing the digital economy - commissioned by four French Cabinet Ministers - proposes that France should tax data …
As has been pointed out that with Google, Facebook etc, we're the product, so the idea of taxing these companies for the work we do (i.e. increasing their data store and therefore the value of the companies) is very attractive.
No doubt the companies concerned though will pay for expensive lawyers to tie it up in the courts for ever and a day, and then weasel accountants to point out that the data is actually added in Ulan Bator therefore it doesn't count as work in France, and the companies will continue to export their profits and import losses.
Zut alors, or more likely, merde alors.
Pretty sure that the apple growers wouldn't be able to move all their apples to Switzerland (or wherever it is that facebook chooses to do business from) before selling them.
Besides which, wages (and Income Tax) would constitute collecting revenue on picking the apples.
Saying "If you don't like it just don't use the services" is comparable to saying if you don't like driving laws, then don't drive. 100 years ago, driving might have been a privilege and an unnecessary luxury of the well-to-do, but that is no longer the case. Unless you live in an urban area, in order to be competitive in current times, to gain a job, to keep that job, and to buy food you need to be able to drive. Legally it still considered a privilege, and not a right. But could any first world country survive at its current level of output and sustainability if all the automobiles were removed? Of course not, too much of our current social processes have been built on the assumption of the ability to drive as a default. The internet is the same thing. We have ingrained too much of our personal and professional processes of our lives on the assumption that the ability to communicate via the internet is a given. Without that standard in place, it would herald a complete restructuring of present first world society.
Therefore you can't just say "if yer don't like da interweb rulez, then jus don't use it like"
MORE TO THE POINT about your comment on google and free content:
First, there is no escaping google. Google collects information about you personal details, and your habits through sites that have no connection of ownership to google. Run Ghostery, and allow the blocker bubble to be visible, then surf around and see just how many seemingly random sites are collecting information for google. So to "not use google" would be like not using the internet.
Second, free content does not warrant free rape of anything and everything in return. Google is free because it has to be, not in exchange for user data. If google started charging membership fees, its usage would dry up and it would collapse. Google may rattle is saber all it wants about how it NEEDS to pimp out your data in order to pay its bills all it wants. But its obvious that a free for user model is its only available business model. Its profits may be reduced if increased user protections were put in place, but they wouldn't go starving.
In summation:
You're a moron. And your argument is even more moronic.
I though the general consensus on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/22/hmrc_foi/ (and the raft of comments saying how the UK couldnt make new tax laws etc) was that countries cant decide to make new tax laws? (rather than the explicit statement that countries cant lower taxes below a minimum threshold which the legislation seems to state)
Is this different now?
Confused, Tonbridge Wells.
"...but if these greedy tax avoiding companies actually paid a fair amount in the first place then the craziness wouldn't be needed." So who gets to say what is "fair"? An impartial expert on commerce, or some dozy European socialist politician that needs to fund the latest bailout for Greece due to the vote-buying policies of said socialist politicians? It's pretty obvious from your previous posts that you think the latter is just fine as it is a "greedy", capitalist, Yankee company doing the paying.
What is fair is that these fat bastards pay the same amount of fucking tax that you or I do. If corporations are going to have the rights of human beings, they can damn well accept the responsibilities that go with them.
Living in Australia, I pay 16 - 20% of my salary in income tax, without even considering the 11% GST I pay on everything I buy. The article states that the likes of Amazon, Google and Apple make around 2.5 to 3 billion euro a year and pay an average tax of only 4 million euro. That's 0.13 to 0.16 percent tax.
I earn just enough to live on, and I'm paying a fifth of my salary in tax. These fat "greedy capitalists" you refer to make more than they know what to do with, and they're paying LESS THAN A FUCKING HUNDREDTH of that.
If that sounds fair to you, I can only say that would make you someone I'd never want to meet.
"What is fair is that these fat bastards pay the same amount of fucking tax that you or I do....." Sorry if no-one explained it to you, but the employees of those "fat bastard capitalist companies" actually pay income tax on their earnings just like everyone else, and the top bods pay MORE tax than you because they are on higher rates of tax than you. The shareholders pay tax when they liquidate their share holdings, and the companies pay tax on stuff they purchase (such as buildings, etc.) with the profits they make. So quit repeating the dogma you've been spoonfed, it's just the vitriolic politics of envy. In the case of the UK:
"The top 1% of income earners in the Uk pay 28% of the total income tax take. As they earn 13% of all the income, that means they pay twice as big a share of the tax as their share of the income. The bottom half of all earners in the UK pay 10% of the total income tax. The sum they pay in total is less than the amount paid out in Housing Benefit, which goes to this wide group of people."
"I'd respond to your post, Matt, if I believed you capable of understanding the response...." What, Socialist Weekly doesn't have a section on dealing with objections? Oh, I forgot, you're not allowed to object or have an opinion of your own amongst The Herd Of The Faithful. We really need a sheeple icon for the deluded like you that can only unquestioningly bleat what they are told to bleat.
"....But the last time somebody mangled my surname in a pathetic insult like that was when I was 12....." That was probably the last time you mixed with someone that had an opinion of their own. TBH, I'm rather disappointed, I've always found Aussies I've met to be a bit too motivated and capable for the socialist mantra, but then I suppose that just goes to show the ones with the ability have long-since left Oz.
"......Fucking grow up." Or what, you'll thream and thream until you go blue? Looks like there is zero chance of you actually posting any form of coherent argument so here's to your imminent self-Smurfing. If you wish to be shown any respect try posting something to add to the discussion rather than the new chorus from the green-eyed monster uberloser set.
This post has been deleted by its author
Or, they might just ignore it.
Any French judge would need the very best of luck to get any Google employee of note sent across the Atlantic.
I don't think actually blocking it would work either - someone would quickly coin the phrase "Maginot Firewall" as the blocks are sidestepped easily.
Why would companies leave France if they are still making profit after the new taxes?
Because if France get away with it, then other tax-loving countries (like ours) will follow suit. Our public are currently acting in a fashion that seems demented to me; flat out demanding taxation from the government. They could totally put this into action here.
"Our public are currently acting in a fashion that seems demented to me; flat out demanding taxation from the government. "
Quite the opposite. The public is demanding that their taxation be reduced by collecting the missing billions from multi-nationals using fraudulent companies. Every penny Vodafone avoids is a penny we have to pay in their place.
@Robert Long 1:
"Quite the opposite. The public is demanding that their taxation be reduced by collecting the missing billions from multi-nationals using fraudulent companies. Every penny Vodafone avoids is a penny we have to pay in their place."
So where does vodafone get it's money from? Oh yes, that's right, you! So is taxing companies more a good thing? NO, it'll just result in more inflation.
"So where does vodafone get it's money from? Oh yes, that's right, you! So is taxing companies more a good thing? NO, it'll just result in more inflation."
Don't be so stupid.
Vodafone don't get any money off me as I'm not a customer. You're saying that everyone in the country should subsidize Vodafone (and Amazon etc) regardless of whether they use their products or not.
"......You're saying that everyone in the country should subsidize Vodafone (and Amazon etc)....." Please do explain how you or anyone else is "subsidizing" Vodafone or Amazon? Where the make use of public utilities they pay for them with business rates. When they but property or equipment for their offices they pay for it with money just like other companies and taxes on those purchases. If the politicians can't extract enough tax from such companies then they need to change the tax laws, but to suggest they are being subsidized is simply untrue.
""......You're saying that everyone in the country should subsidize Vodafone (and Amazon etc)....." Please do explain how you or anyone else is "subsidizing" Vodafone or Amazon?"
If a company is paid by people not using its services then what else can you call it but a subsidy? Not being charged for something is the same as being paid, and Vodafone for one is not being charged the tax they themselves thought they were due. That means that everyone who is paying their tax is supporting Vodafone whether they are customers or not.
I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.
"If the politicians can't extract enough tax from such companies then they need to change the tax laws"
Or, enforce the ones we have equally regardless of who the tax-payer is or how many dinners at the Ritz they buy for the head of HMRC.
".....If a company is paid by people not using its services then what else can you call it but a subsidy?...." You still failed to produce an example of this. Are you claiming Voda or any of these other target companies charged non-customers for a service that wasn't used by that customer? Please supply some form of evidence such as a link to an article to support this claim.
"....Not being charged for something is the same as being paid...." Not really, that's actually like saying if I skip out on paying a dinner bill I've somehow taken extra money out of the restaurant till. Sure, they have lost money on the bill I did not pay, but I have not stolen extra on top. You are trying to make one offence into something twice as bad. Again, if you think that is the case, please supply some details.
"....and Vodafone for one is not being charged the tax they themselves thought they were due...." Tax due is calculate by the HM Revenue & Customs, not Voda. When contracting an accountant and I often thought I should be paying a certain amount of tax only for HMRC to disagree (on one happy occasion asking for less and twice others later coming back and admitting they had asked for too much!). Voda may think they actually should have paid more or they may just have said that for the press, but the reality is the Government sets the tax laws and HMRC collects the tax, so if they are not asking Voda for more at the time then Voda are in the clear as long as they have not illegally hidden information from HMRC. So, are you accusing Voda or any of the other companies of illegal tax evasion or of HMRC illegally colluding in tax evasion? Again, please do supply some evidence, otherwise I'll just have to assume it's just groundless bleating.
"You still failed to produce an example of this. Are you claiming Voda or any of these other target companies charged non-customers for a service that wasn't used by that customer?"
They were given a government subsidy in the form of being let off a huge whack of the tax that Vodafone thought they were due. The charge was indirect, but all the more of a subsidy because it was given by the government and thus we had no choice in the matter.
"....Not being charged for something is the same as being paid...." Not really, that's actually like saying if I skip out on paying a dinner bill I've somehow taken extra money out of the restaurant till.
No. Firstly, that's just inherently different because you're focusing on the restaurant, I'm saying that in a case like that YOU have effectively been paid because you have received goods without paying for them. Secondly, even if we were talking about the restaurant, it would still be different because it brings in questions of Wholesale and Retail. But I suspect you knew that and were trying to confuse the issue.
"So, are you accusing Voda or any of the other companies of illegal tax evasion or of HMRC illegally colluding in tax evasion? "
Yes. That's exactly what I'm accusing them of. Corruption of a public servant. Specifically of Dave Hartnett.
I'm not going to indulge your childish pretence of innocence any further, Matt. You know fine well what this is all in reference to, so stop being a dick.
This has already happened in the low-cost airline sector.
A couple of years ago, St. Michael of O'Leary closed Paddyair's bases in France because the French Govt. went after Ryanair's staff employment contracts which I understand were drafted under Irish law. Several, until then, very lucrative and useful internal routes were lost, as were local jobs, and of course, nos amis francaises had to revert to travelling on the relatively expensive TGV. (owned by the French Govt.) Unlike, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Romania where there are excellent networks of intercity bus routes, there are very few or none, within France. Consequently, if you look at a map of low-cost flight/travel routes in France, they are, in the majority, from French airports to external destinations. Compared with the rest of Europe, France, internally, is like a big black hole.
That is what is going to happen with the web in France if they carry on with this proposal. I have no problems about Governments' seeking reasonable tax revenues, but the Elysee has really got to understand that the time has come to open up the French digital (and general) economy, or more and more potential investors will avoid the country like the plague and existing ones will close down operations.
L'affaire Depardieu has already proved that!
ref. excellent intercity bus routes in Germany, they don't exist. They're nearly extinct. Yeah, you see an occasional Eurolines coach sneaking along a motorway, from Poland to the UK, but that's about it. Ah, well, plus those coach services operated by Deutsche Bahn, natuerlich!
As to Romania... well, it's a country with a stunning scenery, but modern roads and modern long-distance coaches are not something they would have plenty of :)
Regards Romania, I have to disagree!
Have been there and used such services. (Roads are another story!) Point being there are plenty low cost transport services to choose from.
As regards Germany, I would have agreed with your comments until a few days ago when I came across:
https://www.berlinlinienbus.de
http://www.deinbus.de/
http://www.reisebus24.de/
Ryanair's behaviour is (fortunately or otherwise) not normally an indicator of how sane, rational companies behave.
If I was running a company making $2bn a year in France, and the French government passed a law increasing my tax burden from £50m to £500m, I would still be making £1.5bn profit and I hope any attempt I made to close down this massive profit stream by leaving the country would be blocked by the board and I would be shipped off to a lunatic asylum.
It wouldnt even matter if other countries joined in as long as the profit of doing business in that country remained, it would be sensible to remain.
Now if the French tax impacted my ability to make profit in (for example) Germany, then it would be another matter - however, this doesnt appear to be what the French are proposing.
The reverse of the argument is true - the French government are faced with providing national infrastructure and support to a company that retains a significant proportion of its profits off-shore and out of the hands of the country providing it. So, from France's point of view, it may be a valid argument that if Amazon (or whoever) leaves, the resulting black hole will be filled by local companies who pay more in taxes - Amazon (or whoever) leaving ends up being a net benefit to the economy, if not directly to the public who may well pay more for some items.
The services Amazon (and the rest) provide are massively profitable so it makes sense for local providers to pick up the slack when they sulk and stop doing business in France. Some may even develop enough skill and local support that they can then challenge Amazon (and the rest) elsewhere.
BTW: In reality, if intercity flight routes in France were lucrative, other airlines would have picked them up by now and be making good money. The sad fact is they were only lucrative by shafting the employees and passengers.
"BTW: In reality, if intercity flight routes in France were lucrative, other airlines would have picked them up by now and be making good money. The sad fact is they were only lucrative by shafting the employees and passengers."
Some have, others have gone to heavily subsidized TGV routes, so only the French taxpayer gets shafted.
> BTW: In reality, if intercity flight routes in France were lucrative, other airlines would have picked them up by now and be making good money.
Airline routes can only be run by airlines if they get a _licence_ to do so. No airline can just stick a plane at an airport and start selling tickets.
@Richard Plinston
Airline routes can only be run by airlines if they get a _licence_ to do so. No airline can just stick a plane at an airport and start selling tickets.
Erm, who said anything different to that?
The point as I read it was that if the Ryanair routes had been so lucrative (given that the argument was Ryanair was miffed at a tax increase and surrendered a profitable business in protest), which means that any other airline would have been able to pick up the business and make a profit.
Of course they need operating licences and the like, but that is part of their business - if they dont know how to go about getting that, then they shouldnt be an airline.
Alternatively, the routes arent particularly profitable (for whatever reason) and Ryanair simply wanted to be able to make a protest while retreating from a loss.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
