US Says India, Italy, and Turkey Digital Taxes Are Discriminatory, But Won't Take Any Actions For Now (techcrunch.com) 39
Digital services taxes adopted by India, Italy, and Turkey in recent years discriminate against U.S. companies, the U.S. Trade Representative said on Wednesday. From a report: USTR, which began investigations into the three nation's digital services taxes in June last year, said it found them to be inconsistent with international tax principles, unreasonable, and burdening or restricting U.S. commerce. In its detailed reports, which the office has made public, USTR studied how these digital taxes affected companies including Amazon, Google, Facebook, Airbnb, and Twitter. USTR said it conducted these investigations on the ground of Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974.
"Inconsistent with international tax principles" (Score:4, Insightful)
Does "inconsistent with international tax principles" equal "against international tax law?"
If not, the US can go fuck itself. These are sovereign nations.
Telling 25% of your suppliers to go fuck themselve (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is 25% of the total global economy.
It's also 25% of the imports and exports - most every country depends on trade relations with the US.
Telling 25% of your customers and 25% of your suppliers to "go fuck themselves" is generally considered unwise.
In addition, ultimately just over half of the defense capabilities protecting these nations consists of US troops and equipment via NATO or direct US bases in those countries. That is, essentially the US funds their defense so they don't have to. That's bill
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't stop Trump for imposing tariffs on everything imported as a "internal security matter".
The other nations started comparing notes and trading amongst themselves because of the big F-U the Trump administration decided to show the world.
Trump started saying no to other country's exports, and those countries started putting tariffs on US goods in retaliation. Apparently bourbon and whiskey sales
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, telling your trading partners to go fuck themselves hurts EVERYONE.
For those unfamiliar, imagine I live in a coastal swamp and you live in a near desert, which happens to have lots of oil. You buy shellfish and rice from me, I buy beans and corn from you, and also oil. I'm up to my ears in shellfish so I'm happy to sell them to you cheap. You've got more oil than you could ever use, so you sell me fuel for cheap.
If one of us starts shutting down trade, now you're trying to raise your own rice and shel
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine there is another person on another coastal swamp that up to now hasn't been able to sell their surplus shellfish because you are under bidding them. Those desert dwellers that you have stopped selling to will be more than willing to sell their oil to this new player so that they can still have access to the shellfish you have gotten them accustomed to.
So you restricting trade may affect your economy but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily affect the dessert dweller's economy and may actua
Re: (Score:2)
> there is another person on another coastal swamp that up to now hasn't been able to sell their surplus shellfish because you are under bidding them. ...
> So you restricting trade may affect your economy but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily affect the dessert dweller's
Note the desert dwellers in your scenario are now paying more for their shellfish. Which leaves them less money to buy other things. So it's bad for the desert dwellers and bad for the swamp dwellers - bad for everyone involv
Re: (Score:2)
Could you point out where exactly I stated that anyone would be paying more for shellfish? Sure I stated that you had been outbidding them but if you stop selling shellfish there inherent reason that the second swampers need to sell their shellfish at a higher price than the first swampers that have stopped selling to the desert folk. All that your hypothetical situation proves is that trade restrictions will hurt the side that implements the restrictions. There is no guarantee that the side that the trade
Re: (Score:2)
Could perhaps rephrase this sentence to clarify it, because I'm not sure if I'm getting your meaning:
Sure I stated that you had been outbidding them but if you stop selling shellfish there inherent reason that the second swampers need to sell their shellfish at a higher price than the first swampers that have stopped selling to the desert folk.
It seems to me you said:
Party A buys from B rather than C because C charges more.
Party A is forced to buy from C when they can no longer buy from B.
Therefore, A is no
Re: (Score:2)
Initially A buys from B rather than C because B was able to make a better deal than C (the outbidding part).
B now decides that they are going to stop selling to A for some reason.
A can now go to C and make a deal to purchase the goods from them at the same price that they were paying B.
If C has an excess of shellfish and needs to get rid of them they could decide that it is better to sell at B's price rather than A deciding they don't want to pay more and C's excess just rots on the docks (even though they
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess C *could* randomly change their mind and lower their price just when they should do the opposite.
If they weren't able to sell at that price before, or not willing to take the loss, I don't see any reason they'd suddenly start producing at a lower cost *precisely when they are in a position increase, not decrease* their price.
To me that's kind like saying "shaving doesn't get rid of your beard. Maybe just as you finish shaving, somebody tackles you and glues hair to your face". I guess anything
Re: (Score:2)
If A isn't willing to pay more and C isn't willing to let their product go to waste it could be a beneficial deal for both sides (isn't that supposed to be the whole point of trade). There could also be D, E, F, G, H... out there looking to sell their goods that helps keep the price at the level that B was offering it at.
Re: (Score:2)
> If A isn't willing to pay more and C isn't willing to let their product go to waste it could be a beneficial deal for both sides (isn't that supposed to be the whole point of trade).
But you already specified that C isn't willing to sell for the low price! Which is typically because it's lower than their cost of production.
You said: ...
Assume A buys from B *because B is willing to sell at a lower cost than C is*.
Maybe C is willing to sell at the same cost B is.
You've changed your mind in the middle of y
Re: (Score:2)
In the interim that B has been selling to A there are thousands of things that could change in C's situation so that when B stops selling to A, C can now make a profitable trade with A at the same cost that B was selling. If you don't see that as plausible then I guess I will just have to concede that we both have different opinions on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, an infinite number of other, unrelated things can change the market.
Regardless, the trade barrier caused A to no longer be able to buy from the lowest-priced seller, C.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake up to reality. With friends like the USA who needs enemies, you already have them, once you back is turned.
Re: (Score:2)
These are sovereign nations.
What does that have to do with anything?
Sure, it's true, but you're missing the point if you think this is a legal issue that hinges on things like national sovereignty. It isn't and doesn't. This is international politics, plain and simple. Reports like these get released as a form of posturing on the world stage. In this case, it's the US putting pressure on those other countries so that they can get concessions. The US is simply showing some of their cards in an attempt to declare that they have the uppe
Re: (Score:2)
The actual reports (Score:4, Informative)
Read the actual reports here [ustr.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but, unless — and until — the awareness is raised, the healing cannot begin...
But I made no claims as to whether Trump was successful — my point was, this is, what he wanted to fix.
Which still allows countries to cheat... Sponsoring your manufacturers may be against the rules, so China sponsors shipping to America. For
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump wants fair trade? Trump... wants... fair trade?
Is this some twisted joke?
Trump is a populist demagogue who runs protectionist tariff schemes for his ignorant nationalists. It's apparently been long enough that no one remembers the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which helped so much to destroy the entire world economy.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This claim is being disputed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Profit is created by ...
Fair Trade demands profit is created by natural monopoly, AKA Comparative Advantage. The US said "comparative advantage" alot in the 1980s because they had a monopoly on ICT hardware and software, until they outsourced it to China and India.
Natural monopolies are rare, requiring most capitalists to steal from their employees (which by definition, is anti-capitalistic), suppliers, or customers, AKA what the market will bear.
The real problem: Abusive behaviours that the UK and US governments incited, are no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So Indians can't come to USA and work for companies that are selling in India. And Indians can't work in India because only USA can print dollars.
That 2% tax is a joke. Gooogle/Amazon should be banned like they did in China if India want to maintain soveignity.
USTR "won't take any action for now" because it is US companies are busy dumping their funds in India running local competitors into the ground. Then they will take action.
Re: (Score:2)
This is, what Trump wanted — and continues to want — to fix. He is not "anti-trade" [foreignaffairs.com] — he wants fair trade.
Protectionist measures are not inherently unfair. Free trade is not inherently fair.
When did the US EVER trade fairly?? (Score:2)
This had nothing to do with actual fairness. ... until China replaced them and then some.
Only with Trump's definition. Where he and his buddy narcissistes get *everything* and get so say everything, just like the US always used to treat the world after the Soviets were gone,
Case in point: The oil price "surge" of the 2000s was actually just because the US had pressured the OPEC to sell oil below its cost, at the cost of exploiting the population. The Saudis said: "We're gonna need a fair price!" The US said
Re: (Score:1)
Largely off-topic, and without citations... Meh...
Lighthizer is a JOKE (Score:1)
The USTR spends more time trying to tie other nations' hands than doing anything useful. For years and multiple administrations Robert Lighthizer, USTR, has "worked hard" to do nothing for the American people, but to help Big Pharma and Big Content lock up IP.
F the USTR.
E
Threatening ye olde freedom... to take our freedom (Score:2)
Ain't that what libertarianism is all about to certain people...
(I know its intentions are better. But so are communism's. Still became a tool of evil.)
Call us when the CIA hasn't meddled in literally ALL the countries's economies for the profit of their own corporations. No need to even mention Trump's more primitive schemes.
Really this here comes down to: Your businesses enjoy our country's facilities, your businesses are gonna pay their share of the costs. And our businesses will do the same for you. Dea
Invoices from amazon / google / Fb (Score:1)