Macron Says France and US Have Reached a Deal To End a Standoff Over a French Tax on Big Internet Companies (reuters.com) 106
France and the United States have reached a deal to end a standoff over a French tax on big internet companies, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday. From a report: U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened to hit back with tariff action after France passed a law earlier this year that would impose a 3% tax on revenues earned on digital services in France. Macron told reporters that companies that pay the tax would be able to deduct the amount once a new international deal on how to tax internet companies is found next year.
Trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
3% is pretty small, compared to the billions of dollars that these companies avoid getting taxed on by the dodge of pretending to be incorporated in tax haven countries.
Re:Trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many areas of internet business with less than a 3% margin. Taxing revenue is always stupid and wrong. If you don't want shenanigans with profits, then do a VAT. That's not the most straightforward thing for advertising spending, but I'm sure France already has a system in place for charging VAT for advertising, and this can just be an extension. Obviously for companies like Amazon, a special "American company tariff" VAT on sales is as straightforward as can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you can still use a VAT-style system for ads shown in France, rather than a revenue-based system. It's not a huge difference between the two for advertising, but it is for other "American internet company" businesses other than advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
but it is for other "American internet company" businesses other than advertising.
The other target is companies that work as intermediaries (Uber, Amazon, AirBnB). It appears that they are also avoiding taxation by playing tricks with offshoring the transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
France already charges VAT on ad purchases and it appears that companies are just evading it by establishing an American subsidiary and using it to buy ads.
If it is happening the way you describe, they could already regulate that.
I'm guessing though that rather than defend your claim you'd prefer to change the wording.
The reason it is obvious that the words used don't describe the context; they're not only trying to tax things that French companies did to avoid French taxes, they're trying to tax a much broader group than that.
It is movable goalposts all the way down.
Re:Trivial (Score:5, Informative)
The reason it is obvious that the words used don't describe the context; they're not only trying to tax things that French companies did to avoid French taxes, they're ....
No, they're trying to tax things that non French companies did to avoid French taxes, like incorporating in the Cayman Islands [investopedia.com] and assigning all their revenue from France to the mailbox there.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's to prevent French companies from doing the same? French companies have plenty of tax breaks and workarounds that foreign companies don't have access to. By simply overtaxing local companies, they have become less competitive in a global market, the only way around that is to reduce taxes so you can bring in more companies and collect income tax on their employees.
If you're just going to protect your own companies at any cost, you'll reduce investment in your own country. It's why the Trump tariffs
Re: (Score:2)
So what's to prevent French companies from doing the same? French companies have plenty of tax breaks and workarounds that foreign companies don't have access to.
So do companies in Britain, China, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Canada, Russia, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Thailand, Indonesia, etc, ...., and, would you believe it, in America too! Whoda thunk it?!?! Every country out there gives it's own domestic industry advantages over foreign competitors in every way they possibly can. That's just the way things are.
Re: (Score:2)
By simply overtaxing local companies
You don't seem to understand what is being taxed here. It's not the companies but rather the end product / service. A local company locally can't get around this. A multi-national corporation can. The switch from being a local and a multi-national is a major barrier reserved for larger and wealthier companies.
This isn't a French vs the rest of the world thing. It's a rich not paying taxes while the poor getting stuck with them thing. The answer to this is never to simply remove taxes from the poor, unless y
Re: (Score:2)
If it is happening the way you describe, they could already regulate that.
How exactly? France doesn't regulate ads on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is happening the way you describe, they could already regulate that.
I'm guessing though that rather than defend your claim you'd prefer to change the wording.
The reason it is obvious that the words used don't describe the context; they're not only trying to tax things that French companies did to avoid French taxes, they're trying to tax a much broader group than that.
It is movable goalposts all the way down.
Seems to me they are trying to tax companies that do a large amount of business in France and pay no French taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
VAT on music streaming will always be $0 because they will say that they get the song for $10 and sell it in France for $10. Taxing revenues is currently the only way for France to get something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trivial (Score:5, Interesting)
For each company involved, VAT is a tax on gross profits. Thus the name. Each company in the supply chain pays according to its value-add. So, if you're manufacturing something with a tiny margin over the cost of the raw materials, you don't get taxed more than your profit. Ideally the government gets their entire desired percentage of the revenue at retail, but the difference between VAT and sales tax is very important as the amount grows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the right company pays each portion of it, and that's all the difference in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of ads, the "consumer" is likely a non-French company, so it's win-win from France. Nothing like taxing citizens of another nation!
Re: (Score:2)
First - VAT is not a tax on gross profits. A company that pays VAT must collect VAT from customers and then give the VAT to the government and when it pays VAT to suppliers it collects the VAT that it paid back from the government. This is a key principle of VAT - the company, in effect, collects the tax on value added and gives it to the government, but does not pay this from their own pocket. The tax is
Re: (Score:2)
the company, in effect, collects the tax on value added and gives it to the government,
Fair point: in real-world products, gross profits deduct the cost of manufacturing and shipping, while the company pays VAT on those costs. For digital goods, however, it's about the same.
when it pays VAT to suppliers it collects the VAT that it paid back from the government
Right, that's the mechanism for a reason.
Second - for companies such as Google or Amazon, they have very little "value added" in France, because they pay so many fees to their corporate parent (licensing, use of IP, research contributions, consulting, use of infrastructure) who is conveniently located in a tax haven,
And this is the reason. If their "costs" are all licensing fees paid to an entity that doesn't pay VAT, then they end up paying the VAT% on all of their revenue, as there's nothing to offset it.
If their costs are legitimate costs involving goods that are VAT-taxed, then they shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
VAT *is* a tax on revenue
No, it really isn't. It's easy to spot the difference.
If your widget comes through me before moving along the chain, and it costs me $1000 to do my part of work but I charge $1001, VAT is NOT calculated against that $1001 in revenue.
It is calculated on the $1 in gross profits.
$30 and $0.03 are a pretty big difference.
If VAT was on revenue I would lose $29 on each widget I work on.
But it isn't. I gain $0.97 in profit instead of $1.00 on each widget. That isn't a loss, so much as a smaller gain than would
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the way it works is...
You buy the widget from your supplier and get charged VAT on the whole amount. Based on your example you would pay $1030 for each unit. You then do what you need to do with the widget and send it along the supply chain. You sell the widget for $1031.30. When it comes time to submit your taxes to the government you state that you need to submit $30.30 in taxes but you also have a credit of $30 from the VAT you paid when purchasing the widget. In the end you only need to submit
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
They are taxing revenue because these companies hide their profits and make them extremely difficult to calculate. Hiding revenue is much harder. If the companies stopped being dicks about it then the French wouldn't need to tax their revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxing revenue is always stupid and wrong
I don't know what's your basis for saying that, just know that when I work on a contract in France I get taxed 25% for URSAFF, then 10% CET and THEN I get normal personal taxes (more than 10% in my current bracket). I don't see why those companies should be able to compete for free. Please explain.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many areas of internet business with less than a 3% margin
Which is why profit margin is added after taxes. Basically: Sales price = buy price + overhead + taxes + profit margin.
That is literally economics 101. I learnt that in the first half of the first semester.
Of course, if you didn't include taxes in your price calculation so far, assuming you can just dodge them, then now you will have to raise your price or swallow the difference. Just like the people who competed fairly and didn't dodge the taxes. If that means the loss of your competitive advantage, than o
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is a 3% tax on revenue, not income. It's obscene.
billion dollar companies pay no taxes [Re:Trivial] (Score:2, Informative)
This is a 3% tax on revenue, not income. It's obscene.
That's because companies hire accountants to do the bookkeeping so that no matter how much money they make, their income happens to be zero. (Or negative, if tax rebates are available.)
https://itep.org/60-fortune-500-companies-avoided-all-federal-income-tax-in-2018-under-new-tax-law/ [itep.org]
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/amazon-netflix-chevron-ibm-federal-taxes-trump-tax-law
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/amazon-netflix-chevron-ibm-federal-taxes-trump-tax-law
Re:billion dollar companies pay no taxes [Re:Trivi (Score:5, Informative)
People are thinking of it like Amazon pays artist X money for each sale, sells it for whatever they can get, deducts costs, and that's the profit that is taxed. But they have staged sales so the sale in France is based on some other sale in some tax haven, such that there's very little profit on that "last mile" into France.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a win, win . . . for everyone! Almost. (Score:2)
3% is pretty small, compared to the billions of dollars that these companies avoid getting taxed on by the dodge of pretending to be incorporated in tax haven countries.
Macron will declare that Trump backed off and gave in.
Trump will declare that Macron backed off and gave in.
So every politician wins here!
Oops . . . the ordinary common folks . . . ?
Well I guess they lost.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that this is 3% tax on revenue, which is actually a pretty big tax. Not to be confused with 3% tax on profits, which is indeed pretty small.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trivial (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, essentially, the libertarian argument against all taxes, and says nothing about this particular tax.
Turns out libertarians are idiots. Worse than idiots; they basically receive services but don't want to pay for them.
Re: Trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than idiots; they basically receive services but don't want to pay for them.
Otherwise known as a voters. Welcome to modern politics!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Turns out libertarians are idiots. Worse than idiots; they basically receive services but don't want to pay for them.
Umm no, that's the Democrats you're thinking of. Haven't you watched the debates?
Re: (Score:3)
Which serious Democrat candidate said anything about people receiving services for free? I watched the debates, and I didn't hear a single person say that.
Bernie & Liz both have said exactly how to pay (Score:3)
Remember: Everything has a cost, that includes doing nothing. Medicare for All already costs less than our current system. Bernie's Green New Deal isn't cheap, but the job growth will bring in a large amount of money and it will be real because these aren't "Give a rich guy money and hope he makes some jobs in the yacht building industry" these are New Deal style governmen
Re: Trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
3% isn't yours, nor is 1 fucking penny. You didn't earn it.
He says... using a computer powered by electricity that was built most likely with government money, and supplied through cables that pass through government controlled infrastructure, like above or below road, and installed by people who got a government supplied education, and travelled along government funded roads to get to work, in a country defended by police and a military, both of whom are paid for by the government.
But, sure... something for nothing, let the government build roads, let them educate me, let them invest in utilities, and defend me... but I want it all FOR FREE!!!!!! It's wrong of them to expect me to pay 1 cent towards any of this.
How much government gets paid, and what they spend their money on, is up for debate. The need for at least some government, and a need for that government to have money to operate on is not up for debate. If you don't fund government, there is no government. If there is no government, the man with the biggest stick is the new government, and he's not going to believe in democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for free. People give up a ridiculous amount of freedom and personal choice to maintain the concepts of government and authority. For something that is worth more than money could ever represent, It's hardly for free. In return for the loss of freedoms, and the self-deprecation it takes maintain the concept of authoritative hierarchies, that some kind of return in the form of social safety nets is not much to ask
You've had to provide a portion of your labour to participate in governed social groups ever since two people started cooperating. At no stage has simply giving up some 'freedom' covered the costs of participation.
In cave man days, your spoils (hunted/gathered) went to the group and was distributed in some way (not necessarily at all fairly).
It is much more efficient to use taxation of monetary earnings rather than bartering your service to all the groups that provide you services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trivial (Score:2)
Given this is a tax on revenue, it's effectively a tariff. France does crap like that though, they tax you on your theoretical net worth. In other words, they tax you on money that you don't even have, and may never realize as an income (for example, if you own shares in a company that goes south for whatever reason, then you'll never actually make the money that France claims you have.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3% isn't yours, nor is 1 fucking penny. You didn't earn it. You accuse others of being greedy while stealing what's theirs. Fuck off.
Taxes are the cost of doing business. If a government provides an infrastructure that enables commerce like currency, a system to petition and resolve contract disputes as in a civil court, and management of public property that is impractical to own privately. (like water, where I don't necessarily own every drop that passes through my creek)
Ideally if you have government controlling a few things you also need that government to be transparent and democratically elected. When it's driven by special interes
and i was so worried (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how would it look if that nice American tax cut the billionaires got in the US a little while ago then got gobbled up by this New French tax?
Macron is a dead meat (Score:1, Flamebait)
There is been no politician less popular in France than Macron is right now. This is former investment banker and oligarch who somehow became a minister of finance under the former "socialist" government. This guy has 0 chance of being reelected.
Re: (Score:2)
There is been no politician less popular in France than Macron is right now.
Sounds like Trump has found his soulmate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Trump has found his soulmate.
Trump is much more popular in his country than Macron is in its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is much more popular in his country than Macron is in its own.
I'm not sure that's physically possible in this space-time continuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Macron is a dead meat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Macron is a dead meat (Score:5, Informative)
His party (En Marche) is still the top party in France for the coming 2022 presidential elections by a small margin, as of May 28 2019.
The closest competitor is National Rally with Marine Le Pen, an extreme right-wing anti-immigration populist.
That's the trouble with labeling everyone who believes that illegal immigration deserves more than a small civil fine as extreme right wing. At this point I don't know if that means Le Pen just wants sensible border controls or if they're something more. I do know that as long as 'extreme right wing' gets casually tossed around it will become devoid of meaning. See racist and Nazi for how much impact a word can lose from incorrect and too frequent usage. A couple decades ago being called a Nazi was quite an insult. Now it usually means that you don't like how that person voted.
Marine Le Pen's father is Jean-Marie Le Pen. They have been the most well known extreme right-wing anti-immigration populists in europe for the last 40 years. OP can't be responsible to teach you this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the trouble with labeling everyone who believes that illegal immigration deserves more than a small civil fine as extreme right wing. At this point I don't know if that means Le Pen just wants sensible border controls or if they're something more. I do know that as long as 'extreme right wing' gets casually tossed around it will become devoid of meaning. See racist and Nazi for how much impact a word can lose from incorrect and too frequent usage. A couple decades ago being called a Nazi was quite an insult. Now it usually means that you don't like how that person voted.
Marine Le Pen's father is Jean-Marie Le Pen. They have been the most well known extreme right-wing anti-immigration populists in europe for the last 40 years. OP can't be responsible to teach you this.
GP does have a point, though.
People are now called "Nazi" who are a far cry from gassing jews and conquering the rest of the world for the master race. By throwing them in with the real crazies, you remove the barrier between them. By calling everyone who is a strong conservative a Nazi you make it easier for the real Nazis to get to those people whom you only label with that term.
We've seen this before, the other way around. When everyone who was slightly leftish was called a communist, the idea of communi
Re: (Score:2)
GP does not have a point in this thread as the nazi label was entirely his own conjecture and he was the only one guilty of misusing the term. OP didn't mention nazis and his labeling was perfectly apt.
Re: (Score:2)
By who and where, because I see plenty of people claiming these terms are over-used and losing meaning but can't recall serious commentators making ridiculous comparisons. Also why on earth does the line need to be drawn at the worst excesses of what they did as though earlier events like stoking up hatred of homosexuals, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, encouraging the hounding
Re: (Score:2)
By who and where, because I see plenty of people claiming these terms are over-used and losing meaning but can't recall serious commentators making ridiculous comparisons.
Clearly, you are not on Facebook.
I'm not talking about books written by political pundits or the evening news. I'm talking about the everyday use of the term by common people.
Also why on earth does the line need to be drawn at the worst excesses of what they did
Because that is why the term has become such a symbolism for evil.
If the nazis had stopped at hating gays and standing in front of jewish shops with banners, they would indeed have been no different from what the Republicans or that what-was-its-name Baptist Church people do. It is the very fact that they started WW2, build concentrati
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's current treatment of immigrants is not that far off from what the Nazis did to the jews and minorities, save for the Final Solution. People think that the Nazis had a monopoly of evil, but save for this last step and the efficiency granted by 20th century technology in executing the plan, their other policies were par for the course in European "Ancien Régime" governments tradition; and their racist and expansionist ideas were widespread in Europe's intellectual circles.
A reputable Germa
Re: (Score:2)
People think that the Nazis had a monopoly of evil, but save for this last step and the efficiency granted by 20th century technology in executing the plan, their other policies were par for the course in European "Ancien RÃf©gime" governments tradition; and their racist and expansionist ideas were widespread in Europe's intellectual circles.
I agree with that, except the limitation to Europe.
There was strong and powerful support for fascism in general and the Nazi ideology specifically in both South and North America, for example. The american Nazi party held huge rallies even after the war in Europe had already started. Filling Madison Square Garden to the last place is not something a fringe group does.
Europe's current treatment of immigrants is not that far off from what the Nazis did to the jews and minorities, save for the Final Solution.
To this, I massively disagree.
First, there is a huge difference between treating a part of your population who has been living, working, payin
Re: (Score:2)
> First, there is a huge difference between treating a part of your population who has been living, working, paying taxes and building businesses for hundreds of years peacefully in your middle the way that the Nazis treated the jews - and trying (badly, admittedly) to deal with an influx of immigrants who have decided that the laws don't apply to them and they don't need to apply for a visa to enter your country.
And here exactly is where your position becomes classist. Politics of third-world and emergi
Re: (Score:2)
And here exactly is where your position becomes classist.
spellchecker error? do you mean racist?
So, these Western countries suddenly are adding laws that restrict a whole class of persons, previously under their rule, from their freedom of movement; starting concentration camps and sending these peoples to dangerous destinations. I don't see those much different from Nazis doing the same thing to their targeted class of underpeople.
Ok, for the dense: The difference is that the laws Europe makes today apply on European soil to people who are not citizens of Europe. They apply to people who entered or are trying to enter a foreign country without the proper documents, or in other words: illegally. Being able to control who can cross your border and who can't is one of the core elements of national sovereignty.
The refugee laws like the 1951 convention, are quite open to interpretation, including the
Re: (Score:2)
spellchecker error? do you mean racist?
Eh, no, because that would imply that you care about the races of the people affected by the law. Your arguments are explicitly made starting from the class of people who was not born in European countries (or acquired their nationality), therefore classist.
Ok, for the dense: The difference is that the laws Europe makes today apply on European soil to people who are not citizens of Europe. They apply to people who entered or are trying to enter a foreign country withou
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, no, because that would imply that you care about the races of the people affected by the law. Your arguments are explicitly made starting from the class of people who was not born in European countries (or acquired their nationality), therefore classist.
Ok, got it.
Yes, it is luck to be born on Europe. And yes, my argument is basically a metaphorical equivalent between a nation and a house. My house, my rules, where "my" means "the people who live here", which can change as kids are born or move out or a spouse joins through marriage, but it is a clearly defined, finite number of people. And "my rules" includes the right to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.
Your argument is basically: "If someone has been stabbed in front of your house and is bleeding t
Re: (Score:2)
Morally, there are two responsibilities that can be in conflict. Let's go back to the house metaphor. I would agree that the crime in front of my house puts some moral obligations on me. As a witness and as a potential life-saver. At the same time, I have moral obligations towards my family. If the people who stabbed the guy are still around, for example, you would probably forgive me if I did not rush out to help the guy. I would risk my own life, and potentially that of my family. Likewise, if it was a ga
Re: (Score:2)
Nice metaphor. Except that for it to be accurate and representing the real world, you'd be financing the boss mob who stabbed the victim, and your mansion would have been built by your grandparent with the riches confiscated to their grandparents. I'd say that puts some moral obligations on you towards them, you can't rub them out with "I'm just protecting my family".
That is not strictly speaking true. My grandparents didn't confiscate any riches from anyone, I'm quite sure of that. Of course, metaphorically speaking Europe has profited from African colonies. But - the country they all want to - Germany - had very few colonies and only for a short time.
I'm sure someone in Germany is still profiting and financing criminals everywhere in the world, but that isn't me nor anyone related to me or anyone I know personally. So it's more like the owner of the house that I've re
Re: (Score:2)
That is not strictly speaking true. My grandparents didn't confiscate any riches from anyone, I'm quite sure of that. Of course, metaphorically speaking Europe has profited from African colonies.
African, American, Asian and Oceanian. Every other continent has been exploited by a combination of European military colonization and aggressive commerce tactics. Europe was the major world empire all over the modern era, even if it's now in decline.
So it's more like the owner of the house that I've rented is also
Re: (Score:2)
Or like you work for a company who voluntarily finances the mob, and therefore you support those policies as they provide your livelihood.
To a point. It's not like we have a choice of which country we are born in.
no matter how crooked the government, it *can* be changed by voting someone else.
I see you are not familiar with the political system. At least in my home country, a few large parties have slowly over decades eroded the system so much that it is virtually impossible for elections to change anything. Even if a completely new party would suddenly win the next election, they would be fighting thousands of uphill battles against entrenched, non-elected officals, rules that are written in favour of the major parties and structures and inofficial networks that have been in place for decades.
Germany is coordinating the riches of all Europe and benefiting greatly from the whole history of the continent.
So we are now at two layers of indirection. I should feel guilty because I was born into a country that profits from other countries who once had colonies in another continent where they profited from extracting wealth. Did I get that right?
Re: (Score:2)
People are now called "Nazi" who are a far cry from gassing jews and conquering the rest of the world for the master race.
This is something called hyperbole since the people who make this claim are usually those poorly attempting to form a counter argument against the people who never used the term at all.
Guess what, extreme right wing != Nazi, they are merely a superset.
Re: (Score:2)
It took the Nazi's a good decade from being a serious political force to doing that.
Have you actually read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ? I have, in the original German. He does not make a secret of his hatred of jews and his desire to do away with them (though gassing as a method seems a later idea), and he points out clearly that the German "race" needs more land and should take it by force.
Anyone surprised by anything the Nazis did clearly couldn't read.
When they started out they were basically advocating all the things people like Trump, Farage, and Le Pen do, thus it's an apt comparison.
Sorry, but you slept through history class. The SA was beating up people in the streets and aggressively protesting jewish businesses long bef
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are claiming they're the most "well known extreme rig
Re: (Score:3)
He's a 34% positive opinions (poll from 2 days ago), which is much better than his predecessor Hollande at the same time (17%) but worst than the one before - Sarkozy - at 45% (but Sarkozy was also at 35% after 18 month). After 2 years of his second term, Chirac (the president before Sarkozy) was also at 35%.
Remark that both previous president were not re-elected. Sarkozy lost to Hollande and Holland did not even try.
All in all, nothing abnormal considering what happened in the past 15 years.
LOL, yeah sure they have (Score:2, Offtopic)
They've reached a deal that will last until Trump burps or someone says "That's not a good deal!" and then he'll blow it up and fuck it over like every other thing he's done.
He's not a "win-win" guy, he's a "win-lose" guy and if he doesn't think he's 'winning' then he'll scream and pout and refuse to honor the deal. Kind of like the way he ran his three casinos into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is Macron announcing the deal, because it was his blunder. The "deal" is that France promises to give back any money they actually collect with this policy. That way, the local nationalists won't be able to complain that he gave in, but he was able to give in because the whole plan was stupid and France doesn't have the clout (eg, user base) to pull it off. France needs this to be a fake deal, because it was a fake policy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is Macron announcing the deal, because it was his blunder. The "deal" is that France promises to give back any money they actually collect with this policy. That way, the local nationalists won't be able to complain that he gave in, but he was able to give in because the whole plan was stupid and France doesn't have the clout (eg, user base) to pull it off. France needs this to be a fake deal, because it was a fake policy.
No, the deal is that if the OECD can come to a joint agreement on taxation, and if that tax is lower, the excess tax will be repaid.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is Macron announcing the deal, because it was his blunder. The "deal" is that France promises to give back any money they actually collect with this policy. That way, the local nationalists won't be able to complain that he gave in, but he was able to give in because the whole plan was stupid and France doesn't have the clout (eg, user base) to pull it off. France needs this to be a fake deal, because it was a fake policy.
No, the deal is that if the OECD can come to a joint agreement on taxation, and if that tax is lower, the excess tax will be repaid.
Quite smart of France really. The chances of a deal being reached quickly are slim with so many vested interests involved. My bet is any enforced changes will be years away still.
Re: (Score:2)
+1. As the EU can't agree (and it's not for lack of trying), the chance of OECD agreeing any time soon seems slim at best.
How did that play out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump takes hard-line and threatens France with tariffs on French goods if they even think about proceeding with the tax.
France & Trump work out a deal which involves France proceeding with the tax. Trump declares victory.
Woo-Hoo! America wins again.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait and see how that "new international deal" global effort works out
A French per email tax, per social media account tax, per GB of IPS data tax?
The more France and EU place taxes on US innovation, the more they fail.
The better the US freedoms look to French users seeking accounts/publishing/support/value.
France is free to tax tech and innovation all it wonts.
Tech is free to move around France.
French users will just have to g
Yeah Macaroon (Score:2)
Yeah Macaroon, I'm going to have to wait for the US to confirm. Sounds to me like France would indeed want to keep exporting wine and cheese to the biggest importer of French cheese and wine. Cheese is hard to make with our sanitary regulations (raw milk is not allowed), but wine we make perfectly adequately on our own.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah Macaroon, I'm going to have to wait for the US to confirm. Sounds to me like France would indeed want to keep exporting wine and cheese to the biggest importer of French cheese and wine. Cheese is hard to make with our sanitary regulations (raw milk is not allowed), but wine we make perfectly adequately on our own.
This from a munchkin from the land of chlorinated chicken. Have you ever wondered why the US chlorinates chicken to (unsuccessfully) remove harmful bacteria like E-Coli and Salmonella and the EU bans chlorination? It's because the US allows deplorable hygiene condition in it's food industry to boost corporate profits while the EU decided that the problem of E-Coli and Salmonella in your food is best solved by means of strict and proper hygiene in production facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty optimistic about next year. (Score:2)