[danmaz74]

Let's see how this pans out. Maybe this time the UK will not play for the US team, given the outrage there about this issue, but I'm afraid that without a common EU position about this the US will be able to use their usual divide et impera tactics.

[patrickaljord]

I hope the US wins. I'd rather this money stays with Google and Amazon than it goes to the EU states. Why? Because the more profit Google and Amazon make, the more value they produce for society as in more work, better technology, better life etc. What does the state do with tax money? It spends it badly and ends up creating more debt. So, it creates the opposite of value, negative value or debt, and crony capitalism because everyone wants to influence the way this money is redistributed. To give you an idea of how bad it is here, people work until the 28th of July for the state here in France because of all the taxes, if you have a company it can be even worse.

EU states are already the most taxed ones in the world and they have the biggest national debts, it's clear here that the way to fix this is not "more tax" but "less spending". For the last 60 years, spending has been skyrocketing and taxes are at the highest and are killing jobs, innovations and whole economies. Why keep spending even more by making taxes even higher than they are, this is ludicrous. It's time to admit maybe we should start spending less, not more taxes, this isn't working and hasn't worked for the last 60 years.

[weavejester]

The idea that private industry is always more efficient than the public sector is, at best, an over simplification. One need look no further than healthcare to find an example where the public sector is vastly more efficient than a market of competing, private sector companies.

The state also spends money on things that would not be funded any other way. Pure-scientific research, such as CERN. Policing for people too poor to hire private security services. The idea that these things are "the opposite of value" is ludicrous.

Also, if you're not going to tax Google and Amazon, then that gives large international companies who can dodge tax a huge advantage over smaller national companies who cannot. That undermines the underlying principle of capitalism: competition. Either you tax no companies, or all of them - any halfway position is worse than either.

[patrickaljord]

Public health-care is a complete failure here in France. We actually pay more than Switzerland where it's privatize and the French assurance maladie is going completely bankrupt while being forced on us. Many pure scientific research have been done by private entities, I don't see why only public programs could do any pure scientific research. Plus, if the people were given their money back , maybe they could use it to invest in stuff they actually care about such as pure scientific research which only represent like 1 or 2% of our national budget today.

As for policing, I don't think anyone disagrees that it should remain public. Justice and Police and Military security are what the state exists for. Not for subsidizing movie producers or a dying paper media industry like we do here in France. I'm ok with a low flat tax that everyone would pay to sustain the basic functions of the state. It would probably be cheaper for Google and Amazon compared to whatever they're paying their accountants to design their tax schemes and give them huge gain in time wasted for bureaucracy.

[weavejester]

WHO ranks the French health care system as the best in the world, and the expenditure per capita is less than Switzerland (at least in 2007), so I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

I also suspect you'd have a hard time finding private companies willing to spend $9 billion on a particle accelerator with no foreseeable profits.

I'm generally against subsidising any industry, but letting Google and Amazon get away with dodging tax is effectively the same thing as a subsidy. Speaking as someone who owns a small company, I'd rather the playing field be level.

[patrickaljord]

> WHO ranks the French health care system as the best in the world, and the expenditure per capita is less than Switzerland (at least in 2007), so I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

http://www.securite-sociale.info/

http://reachfinancialindependence.com/french-healthcare/

FYI: it's forbidden by law to leave social security in France and to encourage others to do so. Best system ever indeed, once you get it you never leave it unless you're ok with jail time.

[weavejester]

Those sources don't appear to quote any hard numbers, and don't seem to dispute the WHO's methodology, but then again I can't read French :)

[flyinRyan]

Why on earth do you live in France? It sounds like you don't believe in anything that makes France France.

And health care is most definitely more expensive in Switzerland than France. It's privatized but there are strict regulations on how much money insurance companies can make and all citizens are required by law to have insurance.

> Not for subsidizing movie producers

France makes great movies, but they could never compete against Hollywood financially. I for one am quite glad that France does what they need to to make sure good, original French movies (ok, not all of them, but much better than Hollywood) don't lose out to fast-food garbage the US is pumping out.

[danmaz74]

In the face of ideology there is little to discuss...

[phpnode]

Your post is a tirade against taxation in general, it's not pertinent to the point at hand.

Obviously (most) governments want to avoid a situation where a foreign entity is strong enough to destroy any local competitor and on top of that, contribute nothing back to the economy in terms of tax revenue. It's completely ridiculous.

If you deliver goods and services in a country, you should expect to pay the appropriate taxes in that country. It is completely unjust that Google et al can do this kind of thing, it puts local companies at a massive disadvantage.

[patrickaljord]

It's not tirade against taxes in general, it's a tirade against spending. Don't you understand that states have clearly refused to cut their spending and that their only answer is more taxes? We're already at 60 to 70% taxes here in France and they always need more because they refuse to cut spending, not only do they refuse to cut them but they make them bigger each year. First they're coming for Google and Amazon but you don't care because they're not you, then they'll come for your money. Here in France even if you earn around €40k, you're close to a 50% tax already when you sum they all up. They are so desperate that they even went after Nutella to tax the palm oil they use pretending it was dangerous even though scientist said there was nothing special about it [1].

The second article of the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme clearly states that private and individual properties ought to be protected. Where is the respect for private property when 50% of your property is taken by force by the State every year. Our whole revolution was about fighting unfair taxation, privileges for the few and insane State spending... and now we're back to square 1.

1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/12/france-nutella-a...

[phpnode]

As a French citizen, do you think it's fair that you get taxed at a high rate whilst some huge, billion dollar business pays significantly less in terms of percentage?

Whether the French tax rate is too high or not is not relevant. The question is, should a foreign company be given an unfair advantage compared to a local company? I would hope your answer is 'no'.

[patrickaljord]

Google and Amazon already pay plenty enough taxes here, they employ thousands of people and pay millions in salary tax. They contribute to improving people's life thanks to their great products unlike the State that only creates more debt.

But to answer your question, I think that as a French citizen I pay too much tax and I'm glad Google and Amazon are able to get away with it. I applaud anyone who manages to not feed the beast. I, on the contrary, feel guilty for paying so much tax and helping keep this monster of State alive. The answer is less tax for everyone, not more tax especially on the company that actually manage to make a lot of money and create a lot of work. And yes, local companies are dying here because of the crazy taxation, and taxing Google and Amazon more wouldn't change anything for local companies.

[Nursie]

>> I think that as a French citizen I pay too much tax and I'm glad Google and Amazon are able to get away with it.

Even though their activities directly increase your own tax bill. You have an odd way of thinking.

>> taxing Google and Amazon more wouldn't change anything for local companies.

Of course it would, their tax avoidance games mean nobody else can compete.

You can argue that lower tax for everyone is a good thing, but I really don't see how you can argue for the perpetuation of special exemptions for those that can afford it.

[Mordor]

Perhaps, but isn't it better for companies like Google and Amazon to have competitors than a tax free advantage? Trickle down economics isn't a solution.

[danmaz74]

The thing here is not about "more taxes" or "less taxes". It is about WHO pays the taxes, however high or low they are. Giving a big competitive advantage to these (mostly US) corporations isn't going to lower your taxes in France; on the contrary, you don't just have to pay more taxes (or create more debt).

[patrickaljord]

Any observers here for the last 60 years have noticed that the more tax revenues we get, the more ambitious we get with out spending and the more debt we create. The day France gets no or too little tax revenue and very bad rating is the day it'll be forced to cut spending. Until then, time has proven that it will never seriously cut spending.

[danmaz74]

Correlation is definitely not causation...

[patrickaljord]

But there is a clear causation here. In order to keep increasing spending forever as they are doing, govs need tax revenue, the more money they are allowed to borrow, the more debt they can create. They couldn't create so much debt if they didn't have tax revenue to justify their ability to repay their debt. Problem is, at some point, if you want to keep on increasing spending and therefor your debt forever, you have to increase taxes forever too and that's what's killing the economy. Not to mention that it doesn't even work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[danmaz74]

Come on, no serious economist gives credit to Laffer's curve - until taxation goes over something like 70%. And it's incredibly easy to demystify: Just try to check how many times taxes were increased, and fiscal revenues increased. If we were on the descending slope of that curve, increasing taxes would decrease fiscal revenue.

[flyinRyan]

>Because the more profit Google and Amazon make, the more value they produce for society as in more work, better technology, better life etc.

Yea, because trickle down economics works fantastic: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=0

[disputin]

I thought we already saw? There were some token payments, a fraction of the amount owed, sufficient to placate the majority not bothering with the details. David Cameron is weak and serves the Bullingdon types - BBC news this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23273448 This is described as economic recovery.